public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
@ 2022-11-23 17:45 james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2022-11-23 18:26 ` [Bug target/107846] " david.faust at oracle dot com
` (11 more replies)
0 siblings, 12 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com @ 2022-11-23 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Bug ID: 107846
Summary: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to
represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm seeing this error which does not occur in llvm for a bpf
test(test_tc_tunnel.c) in bpf-next, I'm not sure if this is an upstream bug in
the test itself or a bug in gcc:
In function '__encap_ipv4':
cc1: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short
int' only has 16 bits [-Werror=shift-overflow=]
cc1: error: result of '20000 << 8' requires 24 bits to represent, but 'short
int' only has 16 bits [-Werror=shift-overflow=]
progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:228:31: warning: taking address of packed member of
'struct v4hdr' may result in an unaligned pointer value
[-Waddress-of-packed-member]
228 | set_ipv4_csum((void *)&h_outer.ip);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
In function '__encap_ipv6':
cc1: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short
int' only has 16 bits [-Werror=shift-overflow=]
cc1: error: result of '20000 << 8' requires 24 bits to represent, but 'short
int' only has 16 bits [-Werror=shift-overflow=]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/107846] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
@ 2022-11-23 18:26 ` david.faust at oracle dot com
2022-11-23 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: david.faust at oracle dot com @ 2022-11-23 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #1 from David Faust <david.faust at oracle dot com> ---
I think this is a bug in the test itself (or with these macros from libbpf).
libbpf/src/bpf_endian.h
#define ___bpf_mvb(x, b, n, m) ((__u##b)(x) << (b-(n+1)*8) >> (b-8) << (m*8))
#define ___bpf_swab16(x) ((__u16)( \
___bpf_mvb(x, 16, 0, 1) | \
___bpf_mvb(x, 16, 1, 0)))
# define __bpf_constant_htons(x) ___bpf_swab16(x)
In tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:
static const int cfg_port = 8000;
static const int cfg_udp_src = 20000;
...
then at e.g. line 276
if (tcph.dest != __bpf_constant_htons(cfg_port))
return TC_ACT_OK;
Expanding this __bpf_constant_htons macro:
__bpf_constant_htons (cfg_port)
__bpf_constant_htons (8000)
((__u16)(8000) << (16-(0+1)*8) >> (16-8) << (1*8)
((__u16)(8000) << (16-(1)*8) >> (8) << 8)
((__u16)(8000) << (8) >> 8 << 8
((__u16)(8000) << 8)
...which raises the shift-overflow warning.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/107846] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2022-11-23 18:26 ` [Bug target/107846] " david.faust at oracle dot com
@ 2022-11-23 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-23 19:09 ` [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-23 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Faust from comment #1)
> I think this is a bug in the test itself (or with these macros from libbpf).
No I think there might be a bug in GCC though I have to double check.
cc1: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short
int' only has 16 bits [-Werror=shift-overflow=]
((__u16)(8000) << 8)
Hmm, we should have prompted that to int and not warned about it ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2022-11-23 18:26 ` [Bug target/107846] " david.faust at oracle dot com
2022-11-23 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-23 19:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-23 19:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-23 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic, needs-bisection
Last reconfirmed| |2022-11-23
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work| |11.1.0, 12.1.0, 12.2.0,
| |9.1.0
Component|target |c
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|error: result of '8000 << |[13 Regression] error:
|8' requires 22 bits to |result of '8000 << 8'
|represent, but 'short int' |requires 22 bits to
|only has 16 bits |represent, but 'short int'
| |only has 16 bits
Target|bpf |
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Short testcase:
typedef unsigned short __u16;
#define ___bpf_mvb(x, b, n, m) ((__u##b)(x) << (b-(n+1)*8) >> (b-8) << (m*8))
#define ___bpf_swab16(x) ((__u16)( \
___bpf_mvb(x, 16, 0, 1) | \
___bpf_mvb(x, 16, 1, 0)))
# define __bpf_constant_htons(x) ___bpf_swab16(x)
static const int cfg_port = 8000;
unsigned short f(int t)
{
if (t != __bpf_constant_htons (cfg_port))
return 1;
return 0;
}
--- CUT ---
This is definitely a bug in GCC though there might be a dup.
the line info is also missing ...
Note this only happens at -O1 and also a regression from GCC 12 even.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-23 19:09 ` [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-23 19:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-23 19:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-23 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
#0 warning_at (location=0, opt=765, gmsgid=0x30ecaf8 "result of %qE requires
%u bits to represent, but %qT only has %u bits") at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/diagnostic.cc:1845
#1 0x0000000000d3a2e2 in maybe_warn_shift_overflow (loc=0, op0=0x7ffff6e949c0,
op1=0x7ffff6e94960) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc:2645
#2 0x0000000000c62e14 in c_fully_fold_internal (expr=0x7ffff6e84cf8,
in_init=false, maybe_const_operands=0x7fffffffce5b,
maybe_const_itself=0x7fffffffce5a, for_int_const=false, lval=false) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/c/c-fold.cc:429
#3 0x0000000000c62358 in c_fully_fold_internal (expr=0x7ffff6e84d20,
in_init=false, maybe_const_operands=0x7fffffffce5b,
maybe_const_itself=0x7fffffffce5a, for_int_const=false, lval=false) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/c/c-fold.cc:354
#4 0x0000000000c63089 in c_fully_fold_internal (expr=0x7ffff6e96420,
in_init=false, maybe_const_operands=0x7fffffffce5b,
maybe_const_itself=0x7fffffffce5a, for_int_const=false, lval=false) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/c/c-fold.cc:473
#5 0x0000000000c614ab in c_fully_fold (expr=0x7ffff6e96420, in_init=false,
maybe_const=0x7fffffffce5b, lval=false) at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/c/c-fold.cc:125
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-23 19:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-23 19:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-23 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords|needs-bisection |
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started with r13-1100-gacb1e6f43dc2bbedd1248ea61c7ab537a11fe59b
So, either we should limit that new match.pd folding to GIMPLE, or
should take into account such narrowing vs. integral promotion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-23 19:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-29 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 18:57 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-29 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 53984
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53984&action=edit
gcc13-pr107846.patch
Untested fix.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-29 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-29 18:57 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2022-11-29 18:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com @ 2022-11-29 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #7 from James Hilliard <james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Created attachment 53984 [details]
> gcc13-pr107846.patch
>
> Untested fix.
This appears to fix error, the warning is still present:
progs/test_tc_tunnel.c: In function '__encap_ipv4':
progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:228:31: warning: taking address of packed member of
'struct v4hdr' may result in an unaligned pointer value
[-Waddress-of-packed-member]
228 | set_ipv4_csum((void *)&h_outer.ip);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-29 18:57 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
@ 2022-11-29 18:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 19:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-29 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to James Hilliard from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 53984 [details]
> > gcc13-pr107846.patch
> >
> > Untested fix.
>
> This appears to fix error, the warning is still present:
> progs/test_tc_tunnel.c: In function '__encap_ipv4':
> progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:228:31: warning: taking address of packed member of
> 'struct v4hdr' may result in an unaligned pointer value
> [-Waddress-of-packed-member]
> 228 | set_ipv4_csum((void *)&h_outer.ip);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
That is unrelated and why do you think it is wrong? I don't think that warning
has false positives.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-29 18:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-29 19:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 19:06 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-29 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to James Hilliard from comment #7)
> This appears to fix error, the warning is still present:
> progs/test_tc_tunnel.c: In function '__encap_ipv4':
> progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:228:31: warning: taking address of packed member of
> 'struct v4hdr' may result in an unaligned pointer value
> [-Waddress-of-packed-member]
> 228 | set_ipv4_csum((void *)&h_outer.ip);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
That warning is correct and is a bug in the test program ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-29 19:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-29 19:06 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2023-03-04 9:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-04 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com @ 2022-11-29 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #10 from James Hilliard <james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (In reply to James Hilliard from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > > Created attachment 53984 [details]
> > > gcc13-pr107846.patch
> > >
> > > Untested fix.
> >
> > This appears to fix error, the warning is still present:
> > progs/test_tc_tunnel.c: In function '__encap_ipv4':
> > progs/test_tc_tunnel.c:228:31: warning: taking address of packed member of
> > 'struct v4hdr' may result in an unaligned pointer value
> > [-Waddress-of-packed-member]
> > 228 | set_ipv4_csum((void *)&h_outer.ip);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
>
> That is unrelated and why do you think it is wrong? I don't think that
> warning has false positives.
I wasn't entirely sure if it was wrong or not, was just testing the patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-29 19:06 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
@ 2023-03-04 9:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-04 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-04 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db1405ddf566fe6129328229579b3f98a574b34c
commit r13-6474-gdb1405ddf566fe6129328229579b3f98a574b34c
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Sat Mar 4 10:14:33 2023 +0100
c-family: Account for integral promotions of left shifts for
-Wshift-overflow warning [PR107846]
The r13-1100-gacb1e6f43dc2bbedd124 change added match.pd narrowing
of left shifts, and while I believe the C++ FE calls the warning on
unfolded
trees, the C FE folds them and so left shifts where integral promotion
happened and so were done in int type will be usually narrowed back to
char/signed char/unsigned char/short/unsigned short left shifts if the
shift count is constant and fits into the precision of the var being
shifted.
One possibility would be to restrict the match.pd optimization to GIMPLE
only, another don't fold in C FE before this warning (well, we need to
fold the shift count operand to constant if possible), the following patch
just takes integral promotion into account in the warning code.
2023-03-04 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR c/107846
* c-warn.cc: Include langhooks.h.
(maybe_warn_shift_overflow): Set type0 to what TREE_TYPE (op0)
promotes to rather than TREE_TYPE (op0) itself, if TREE_TYPE (op0)
is narrower than type0 and unsigned, use wi::min_precision with
UNSIGNED and fold_convert op0 to type0 before emitting the warning.
* gcc.dg/pr107846.c: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-04 9:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-04 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-04 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107846
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-04 9:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-11-23 17:45 [Bug target/107846] New: error: result of '8000 << 8' requires 22 bits to represent, but 'short int' only has 16 bits james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2022-11-23 18:26 ` [Bug target/107846] " david.faust at oracle dot com
2022-11-23 19:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-23 19:09 ` [Bug c/107846] [13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-23 19:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-23 19:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 18:57 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2022-11-29 18:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 19:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 19:06 ` james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
2023-03-04 9:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-04 9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).