On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> >> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array
> >> member
> >> is embedded into another struct or union (possibly rec
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:37 AM Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The testcase
> >
> > typedef unsigned int vec __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
> > vec
> > f3 (vec a, vec b, vec c)
> > {
> > vec d = a * b;
> > return d
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The testcase
>
> typedef unsigned int vec __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
> vec
> f3 (vec a, vec b, vec c)
> {
> vec d = a * b;
> return d + ((c + d) >> 1);
> }
>
> shows a case where we don't want to form an FMA due to the MUL not
After r6-2044-g98e30e515f184b, code like "((x & 0xff00ff00U) >> 8)"
would be optimized like (x >> 8) & 0xff00ffU which is normally better
except on aarch64, the shift right could be combined with another
operation in some cases. So we need to add a few define_splits
to the aarch64 backends that mat
On 3/9/23 10:08 AM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
Dear all,
the attached almost obvious patch fixes a NULL pointer dereference
in a check of a symbol with the bind(c) attribute.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This PR is marked as 10/11/12/13 regression, thus it should
q
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- 8< --
The code for handling signed + typedef was breaking on __int128_t, because
it isn't a proper typedef: it doesn't have DECL_ORIGINAL_TYPE.
PR c++/108099
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* decl.cc (grokdeclarator): Handle non-typedef typed
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- 8< --
PR c++/108542
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* class.cc (instantiate_type): Strip location wrapper.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/contracts/contracts-err1.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/class.cc |
The second patch has now been backported and pushed to releases/gcc-12 and
releases/gcc-11.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 6:06 PM Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pushed to trunk.
>
> The first patch has also been backported and pushed to releases/gcc-12 and
> releases/gcc-11
>
> Th
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:37 AM Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The testcase
>
> typedef unsigned int vec __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
> vec
> f3 (vec a, vec b, vec c)
> {
> vec d = a * b;
> return d + ((c + d) >> 1);
> }
>
> shows a case where we don't want to form
This patch reworks how the complex multiply and divide built-in functions are
done. Previously GCC created built-in declarations for doing long double
complex
multiply and divide when long double is IEEE 128-bit. However, it did not
support __ibm128 complex multiply and divide if long double is
On 3/9/23 8:55 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 05:30:53PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2023/3/9 07:01, Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> This patch was tested in both GCC 11 and GCC 10 on powerpc64le-linux and
>>> showed no regressions. Ok for backports?
>
> It isn
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:44:49AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:12:47AM +, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think this is a reasonable way to address the regression, so OK.
>
> It is true that both C and C++ (including c++14_down and c++17 and later
> where the latter ha
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> This is OK, but I'd like to see this patch split into two separate
> commits as well -- one for the texinfo.tex import, and one for the @gol
> changes.
I believe Arsen does not have git write access.
Arsen, if that is indeed the case, I offer to pus
On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote:
maintainer-scripts/ChangeLog:
* update_web_docs_git (CSS): Update CSS reference to point to
/texinfo-manuals.css.
I'm going to defer to Gerald on this one, since I am ignorant of how
documents are produced for the GCC we
On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote:
The @gol macro appears to have existed as a workaround for a bug in old
versions of makeinfo and/or texinfo.tex, where they would, in some types
of output, fail to emit line breaks in @gccoptlists. After updating
texinfo.tex, I noticed tha
On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote:
The @defbuiltin{,x} macros are convenience macros for the often-repeated
task of defining a built-in function in extend.texi. Usage of this
macro should lead to a higher degree of consistency across pieces of
text written by different peop
On 3/9/23 01:26, Richard Biener wrote:
SLES 12 has texinfo 4.13a, SLES 15 has texinfo 6.5. We still provide
up-to-date GCC for SLES 12 but we can probably manage in some ways
when the texinfo requirement gets bumped.
OK, this seems to be the oldest version anyone admits to actually using.
I
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 10:03:13AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following pseudo-patch (for uname2c.h part
> just a pseudo patch with a lot of changes replaced with ...
> because it is too large but the important changes like
> -static const char uname2c_dict[59418] =
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 04:16:21PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:11:34AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:35:44PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bl __divtc3" } } */
> > >
> > > This name depends
On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
has
/* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wro
This test detects redefinitions by compiling stdc++.h with
-Wsystem-headers. Thanks Patrick Palka for the suggestion.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* testsuite/17_intro/versionconflict.cc: New test.
---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/versionconflict.cc | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertion
Due to recent, large changes in libstdc++, the feature test macros
declared in got out of sync with the other headers that
possibly declare them. This patch resolves that.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/unique_ptr.h (__cpp_lib_constexpr_memory):
Synchronize the definitio
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:11:34AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:35:44PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bl __divtc3" } } */
> >
> > This name depends on what object format and ABI is in use (some have an
> > extra leading under
On 07/03/2023 23:42, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 3/1/23 05:53, Jonny Grant wrote:
>> Hello
>> I don't have write access, could someone review and apply this please?
>> Kind regards
>> Jonny
>
> Looks good; I've gone ahead and pushed it for you.
>
> -Sandra
Awesome - thank you. My first gcc p
Hello,
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606450.html
Thanks,
Lorenzo Salvadore
> From f8e2c2ee89a7d8741bb65163d1f1c20edcd546ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lorenzo Salvadore develo...@lorenzosalvadore.it
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:27:38 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- 8< --
The optimization to reuse the same allocator temporary for all string
constructor calls was breaking on this testcase, because the temps were
already in the argument to build_vec_init, and replacing them with
references to one slot got confu
There are various -Wanalyzer-null-dereference false +ves in bugzilla
that I've been attempting to fix. Unfortunately I haven't made much
progress, but it seems worth at least capturing the reduced
reproducers as test cases, to make it easier to spot changes in
behavior.
Successfully regrtested on
Sandra Loosemore writes:
> On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> The GCC manual has multiple indices. By creating an appendix which
>> lists them, we help makeinfo present a more accessible way for the
>> reader to see all the indices.
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> * doc/gcc.t
Hi!
The following testcase FAILs, because starting with r12-6028
the S class has only 2 bytes, not enough to hold one 7-bit bitfield, one 8-bit
bitfield and one 8-bit char field.
The reason is that when end_of_class attempts to compute dsize, it simply
adds byte_position of the field and DECL_SIZ
Hi,
Here's the respun patch.
Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
Thanks,
Tamar
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/108583
* target.def (preferred_div_as_shifts_over_mult): New.
* doc/tm.texi.in: Document it.
* doc/tm.texi: Regene
Cheers,
Thanks! I'll way for him to come back then 😊
Thanks,
Tamar
> -Original Message-
> From: Aldy Hernandez
> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:57 AM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd ; amacl...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4][ranger]: Add range-ops for wi
Hi All,
The testcase
typedef unsigned int vec __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
vec
f3 (vec a, vec b, vec c)
{
vec d = a * b;
return d + ((c + d) >> 1);
}
shows a case where we don't want to form an FMA due to the MUL not being single
use. In this case to form an FMA we have to redo the MUL
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
> has
>/* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
> a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
> value (c++/53025). */
It's not obvious to me whether considered best to include or
exclude these tests that depend on structure layout details.
If excluding, the obvious alternative to this patch is then
to add a top one-liner (to dg-skip-if the test for
default_packed targets or a similar excluding expression).
I'm fin
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:20AM -0800, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The problem here is after r13-4748-g2a27ae32fabf85, in some
> cases we were calling inform without a corresponding warning.
> This changes the logic such that we only cause that to happen
> if there was a warning happe
Dear all,
the attached almost obvious patch fixes a NULL pointer dereference
in a check of a symbol with the bind(c) attribute.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline?
This PR is marked as 10/11/12/13 regression, thus it should
qualify for a backport. It's simple enough anyway.
Tha
The problem here is after r13-4748-g2a27ae32fabf85, in some
cases we were calling inform without a corresponding warning.
This changes the logic such that we only cause that to happen
if there was a warning happened before hand.
Changes since
* v1: Fix formating and dump message as suggested by Ja
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 15:13, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> The LWG 3820 testcase revealed a bug in _M_advance, which this patch
> also fixes.
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk?
OK
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/std/ranges
> (cartes
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 20:49, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
> > ranges::begin() isn't guaranteed to be equality-preserving for
> > non-forward ranges, so in cartesian_product_view::end we need to be
> > careful about calling begin() on the first r
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 16:47, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk and perhaps
> backports?
Yes for all.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/stl_iterator.h (move_iterator::_S_iter_concept):
> Define.
>
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 15:53, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk?
OK. I think this would make sense for 12 too.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/ranges_util.h (view_interface::empty): Add
> preferred over
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 14:36, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for trunk and perhaps 12?
Yes, OK for trunk and 12.
>
> PR libstdc++/108362
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/std/ranges (__detail::__can_single_view): New
Sorry for the slow response.
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:07:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/605965.html
>> > - ABI - aarch64: Add bfloat16_t support for aarch64 (enabling i
On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:35:44PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > +complex_multiply_builtin_code (machine_mode mode)
> > +{
> > + return (built_in_function) (BUILT_IN_COMPLEX_MUL_MIN + mode
> > + - MIN_MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT);
> > +}
>
> There should be an assert that th
Tested powerpc64le-linux. Pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/108882
* config/os/gnu-linux/ldbl-ieee128-extra.ver: Fix incorrect
patterns.
---
libstdc++-v3/config/os/gnu-linux/ldbl-ieee128-extra.ver | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:35:44PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 12:53:05AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > This patch reworks how the complex multiply and divide built-in functions
> > are
> > done.
>
> > I tested all 3 patchs for PR target/107299 on:
>
> On Mar 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
>> is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
>> __builtin_object_size should treat such struct
On 2/20/23 11:58, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Since this is fixing experimental (C++20)
functionality, I think it's reasonable to apply now; I'm interested in other
opinions, and thoughts about the user-facing funct
On 3/9/23 13:33, Costas Argyris wrote:
Pinging the list and mingw maintainer.
Analysis and pre-approval here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108865
Thanks, pushed to master branch.
Hi!
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 05:30:53PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/3/9 07:01, Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > PR109073 shows a problem where GCC 11 and GCC 10 do not accept a const
> > __vector_pair pointer operand to some MMA builtins, which GCC 12 and later
> > correctly accept.
The following patch solves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108999
The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on i686, x86-64,
aarch64, and ppc64 be/le.
commit 3c75631fc09a22f2513fab80ef502c2a8b0f9121
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
Date: Thu Mar 9 08:41:09 2023 -0500
LR
Pinging list and driver reviewer.
Details here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71850
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 19:25, Costas Argyris
wrote:
> This is a proposal to fix PR71850 by applying the existing logic for
> passing include paths to cc1 to as.
>
> Thanks,
> Costas
>
From 393aff0
Pinging the list and mingw maintainer.
Analysis and pre-approval here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108865
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 10:52, Costas Argyris
wrote:
> Added .manifest file to the make rule for utf8rc-mingw32.o, latest patch
> attached.
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 15:27,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:38:43AM +, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > The following plugs one place in extract_muldiv where it should avoid
> > folding when sanitizing overflow.
> >
> > I'm unsure about the testcase, I didn't find any th
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:38:43AM +, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The following plugs one place in extract_muldiv where it should avoid
> folding when sanitizing overflow.
>
> I'm unsure about the testcase, I didn't find any that tests for
> a runtime sanitizer error ...
>
> Boots
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Qing Zhao wrote:
> GCC extension accepts the case when a struct with a C99 flexible array member
> is embedded into another struct or union (possibly recursively).
> __builtin_object_size should treat such struct as flexible size.
>
> gcc/c/ChangeLog:
>
> PR tree-optim
g:c23a9c87cc62bd177fd0d4db6ad34b34e1b9a31f uses nonzero_bits
information to convert sign_extends into zero_extends.
That change is semantically correct in itself, but for the
testcase in the PR, it leads to a series of unfortunate events,
as described below.
We try to combine:
Trying 24 -> 25:
This patch just splits some code out of make_compound_operation_int
into a new function called make_compound_operation_and. It is a
prerequisite for the fix for PR106594.
It might (or might not) make sense to put more of the existing
"and" handling into the new function, so that the subreg+lshift
This series of patches fixes PR106594, an aarch64 regression in which
we fail to combine an extension into an address. The first patch just
refactors code. The second patch contains the actual fix.
The cover note for the second patch describes the problem and the fix.
Tested on aarch64-linux-gn
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/3/7 19:25, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> It would be nice to avoid creating blocks / preserving labels we'll
> >>> immediately remove again. For that we do need some analysis
> >>> before creating basic-blocks that determines whether a label is
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
> The following fixes the condition determining whether we need an
> epilogue.
>
> When r12-2429-g62acc72a957b56 introduced this check I didn't notice
> the odd condition on review. Richard - do you remember if this
> was on purpose?
Oops, no, looks like a
The following adjusts tree_[transform_and_]unroll_loop to set an
upper bound on the number of iterations on the epilogue loop it
creates. For the testcase at hand which involves array prefetching
this avoids applying RTL unrolling to them when -funroll-loops is
specified.
Other users of this API
The following fixes the condition determining whether we need an
epilogue.
When r12-2429-g62acc72a957b56 introduced this check I didn't notice
the odd condition on review. Richard - do you remember if this
was on purpose?
I've noticed the mismatch with gcc.dg/tree-ssa/predcom-1.c for example.
B
Sandra Loosemore writes:
>> As an example, let's take this link:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wpedantic
>> This should place you below the item line this index entry refers to,
>> and there aren't any copiable anchors (see equivalent in my render fo
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:58:51AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > An #ifdef is a way of making a change that is not finished yet not hurt
>> > the other targets. It still hurts generic development, which indirectly
>> > hurts all t
Sandra Loosemore writes:
> On 2/23/23 03:27, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> The GCC manual has multiple indices. By creating an appendix which
>> lists them, we help makeinfo present a more accessible way for the
>> reader to see all the indices.
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> * doc/gcc.t
[PING]
Cupertino Miranda writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Please, please, give me some feedback on this one.
> I just don't want to have to keep asking you for time on this small
> pending patches that I also have to keep track on.
>
> I realized your committed the other one. Thank you !
>
> Best regards
Hi Peter,
on 2023/3/9 07:01, Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches wrote:
> PR109073 shows a problem where GCC 11 and GCC 10 do not accept a const
> __vector_pair pointer operand to some MMA builtins, which GCC 12 and later
> correctly accept. Fixed here by initializing the builtins to accept const
> poi
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:57 AM Michael Collison wrote:
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> 2023-03-05 Michael Collison
>
> * tree-vect-loop-manip.cc (vect_do_peeling): Use
> result of constant_lower_bound instead of vf in case
> vf is not a compile time constant.
> ---
> gcc/tree
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:12:47AM +, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable way to address the regression, so OK.
It is true that both C and C++ (including c++14_down and c++17 and later
where the latter have different ordering rules) evaluate the lhs of
MODIFY_EXPR after rhs, s
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is reduced from miscompilation of scipy package.
> If we have say lhs = [1., 1.] - [1., 1.] and want to compute the range
> of lhs from it, we correctly determine it is [0., 0.] (if computations
> are exact, we generally do
Hi!
The following testcase is reduced from miscompilation of scipy package.
If we have say lhs = [1., 1.] - [1., 1.] and want to compute the range
of lhs from it, we correctly determine it is [0., 0.] (if computations
are exact, we generally don't try to round them further in
frange_arithmetic).
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> I personally do not know how the manuals for the GCC web site are built
gcc.gnu.org has texinfo 6.5. (It's a RHEL 8.7 system.)
> If we do update the version, there's a version check in configure.ac and
> some hack for "makeinfo 4.7 brokenness" in doc
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:20 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 5:09 PM Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/8/23 14:22, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> > >
> > > Sandra Loosemore writes:
> > >
> > >> On 3/8/23 02:11, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> > >>> Sandra Loosemore wr
On Mar 8, 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>> Is the emitted warning correct?
> For the reduced testcase yes, if !aio_bh_poll_s (or !aio_bh_poll_bh)
> the stored pointer remains local.
*nod*, before the recent patch, it would have failed to iss
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek wrote:
> In this PR we are dealing with a missing .UBSAN_BOUNDS, so the
> out-of-bounds access in the test makes the program crash before
> a UBSan diagnostic was emitted. In C and C++, c_genericize gets
>
> a[b] = a[b] | c;
>
> but in C, both a[b] are one id
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:09:02AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I struggled a bit understanding this and so have come up with what I
> hope is simpler (without changing the meaning).
>
> What do you think of the change below?
LGTM, thanks.
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html b/htdo
77 matches
Mail list logo
