http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Pfau ---
One more simplified example:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/d5506e00d3be
import std.stdio;
struct S
{
int a;
int b;
// Without this this small struct is returned in a register and even with DMD
// the ad
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
I blame Kenji for making it a language feature. :o)
By the way, +1 or -1 to emails sent in html format?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10
--- Comment #19 from Andrei Alexandrescu ---
Payment made. We consider it a vote of confidence for the great work on this
project. Congratulations and keep up the good work!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug change
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52
--- Comment #8 from Johannes Pfau ---
These mails also got to the newsgroup? Then -1
otherwise I don't have a real opinion on that :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> These mails also got to the newsgroup? Then -1
> otherwise I don't have a real opinion on that :-)
Oh, these messages reach the newgroup just fine. I'm just not used to seeing a
stra
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Bug ID: 107
Summary: Bootstrap error : gengtype: Internal error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Can you try:
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commits/gdc-4.8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Just making sure that you are on the correct branch when building.
Regards
Iain.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Igmar Palsenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
There's no 4.8 support in master. Patches can be removed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Yiyin Zhang <542214...@qq.com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
--- Comment #6 from Yiyin Zhang <542214...@qq.com> ---
CenOS 6.5 and gcc-4.8.2 are installed in my computer. It occured after I run
GDC-master and built gdc.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Igmar Palsenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
--- Comment #8 from Yiyin Zhang <542214...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Just build it using the gdc-4.8 branch.
where is the gdc-4.8 branch? Excuse me for my ignorance.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Just build it using the gdc-4.8 branch.
>
> where is the gdc-4.8 branch? Excuse me for my ignorance.
In the gdc source directory:
git checkout gdc-4.8
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Yiyin Zhang <542214...@qq.com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Reso
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108
Bug ID: 108
Summary: ICE using @attribute("forceinline")
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: ARM
OS: Other
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108
Mike changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hardware|ARM |All
OS|Other
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Looks like the frontend devs changed the behaviours of optimize/interpret,
again. This'll need adding to the testsuite to catch any future changes.
*PATCH*
diff --git a/gcc/d/d-codegen.cc b/gcc/d/d-codegen.cc
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109
Bug ID: 109
Summary: Error compiling 4.8.2 on Cygwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severi
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|ibuc...@gdcpro
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #16 from Johannes Pfau ---
Almost forgot: Tested & working on X86_64 and ARM :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #17 from Johannes Pfau ---
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lhe96q$27ua$1...@digitalmars.com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110
Bug ID: 110
Summary: memchr not recognized as a builtin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 fr
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
This only occurs in gdc-4.6 - which is at least 2 years old, and doesn't have
the optimisation I wrote which allows the compiler to detect gcc builtins in
core.stdc - which were introduced just over a year ago.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111
Bug ID: 111
Summary: Crosscompiler I download today breaks on my code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: ARM
OS: Linux
Status: N
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112
Bug ID: 112
Summary: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/ is forbidden ...
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
Bug ID: 113
Summary: Internal compiler problem on shared argument of final
interface method: in toElem, at d/d-elem.cc:2521
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #1 from ncras...@gmail.com ---
Some more useful logs from --verbose call:
-
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gdc/bin/gdc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gdc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
C
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 fr
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 fr
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
Bug ID: 114
Summary: Add support for the GCC 'naked' attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|ibuc...@gdcp
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #2 from Mike ---
Thank you for addressing this.
I had trouble applying this patch...
-
patching file gcc/d/d-lang.cc
Hunk #2 FAILED at 58.
1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Pfau ---
strange, it applies just fine here.
patch -p1 -i naked.patch
tested on revision fdf0c614b8aef10b846689bef39030c482692b5f
The error could be caused by failed/incorrect patching?
--
You are receiving this m
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115
Bug ID: 115
Summary: Union literals as rvalues yields different values
every run
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: x86_64
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #4 from Mike ---
I got the patch applied by downloading it from a different computer (had a line
ending problem, I think).
Nevertheless, the error is the same. I'm using the same revision
(fdf0c614b8aef10b846689bef39030c482692b5f).
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #8 from Mike ---
The latest patch seems to work well.
/ void OnReset() /
824:b580 push{r7, lr}
826:af00 addr7, sp, #0
828:2003 movsr0, #3
82a:f000 f88
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Are you using a compiler with --enable-checking? Release compilers don't
generally complain about mismatched arguments.
I'll have a look when I get time.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watch
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Pfau ---
@Iain there's TARGET_ATTRIBUTE_TABLE but I don't know if/how I could access
that?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 fr
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org
--- Comment #5 from
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #64 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ---
targetm.attribute_table - when we initialise our string table of attributes,
load them in too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
--- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 66
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=66&action=edit
Patch to add target attributes into lookup table
Added patch which describes what I was talking about.
There used t
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116
Bug ID: 116
Summary: Build script and infrastructure to produce and release
Windows binaries.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: A
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116
--- Comment #1 from Bruno Medeiros ---
https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1523615-build-script-and-infrastructure-to-produce-and-release-windows-binaries/bounties
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116
Théo Bueno changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mun...@gmx.com
--- Comment #2 from Théo Bue
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
Those patches aren't essential. The recent mingw builds are evident of that.
However I am aware of some essential runtime fixes in those patches (some TLS
related) but almost all are unsuitable for inclusion.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
__simd requires the compiler to expose D_SIMD. Which is not implemented in
GDC. And given the nature of the intrinsic, I can't see it ever being
introduced.
To access SIMD instructions, instead use the gcc.b
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117
Bug ID: 117
Summary: Program using core.simd does not compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The problem starts in the frontend, optimize.c(DotVarExp::optimize).
> It optimizes 'func(_f(a).i)' into 'func (a)', so it produces a call to func
> with an incorrectly typed paramete
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > The problem starts in the frontend, optimize.c(DotVarExp::optimize).
> > It optimizes 'func(_f(a).i)' into 'func (a)', so it produces a call to func
> > w
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slavo5...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #4 from J
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118
Bug ID: 118
Summary: Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119
Bug ID: 119
Summary: GDC needs friendlier command switches
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
These aren't useful, but I've instead built dub and ran it on your project.
Have tracked it down to a GCC GC bug. Going to test the fix and push it later.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watc
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
Saying that, I might be seeing a different issue to yours.
Don't think I can get as far as you in compilation, I'm getting FTBFS because
of the following error when building vibe.d
/opt/usr/include/d/4.9.0/s
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #4 from ncras...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3)
> Saying that, I might be seeing a different issue to yours.
>
>
> Don't think I can get as far as you in compilation, I'm getting FTBFS
> because of the follow
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118
--- Comment #1 from K. ---
GDB output of command:
/path/to/usr/bin/gdc -wrapper gdb,--args -g -fdebug -Werror
-fversion=DubUseCurl -I source @build-files.txt -Wl,-lcurl -o bin/dub
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
With --enable-checking:
source/dub/dub.d: In member function ‘getPackage’:
source/dub/dub.d:725: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
statement_list, have catch_expr in tsi_start, at tree-iterator.h:4
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120
Bug ID: 120
Summary: Inlining of some functions fails (arrays with
qualified element types)
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: All
OS: All
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
Looks like the front-end didn't properly fix the AssociativeArray() abstraction
in 2.064, and the back-end is still being given junk AA types where structs are
expected.
This should be probably fixed in 2.065
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
*(Accidentally hit enter)
Got:
param_4 => AssociativeArray(null) of type string[string];
Expected:
param_4 => AssociativeArray(null) of type (struct) AssociativeArray;
--
You are receiving this mail
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #8 from ncras...@gmail.com ---
Thanks, the workaround works.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ---
For reference, this will actually be fixed in 2.066.
Might be worth cherry-picking this specific commit once we have rebased
ourselves to 2.065.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272
Bug ID: 272
Summary: ICE with -fsanitize=address
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/552
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
Bug ID: 273
Summary: Unexplained crash in generated binary
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Oh wait, no. This is a bug in the GC.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #3 from Sebastien Alaiwan ---
Hi Iain, thanks for looking. Were you able to reproduce it with the git master
HEAD?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
I can't reproduce on master locally, though I'd like to check the gdc-7 branch
specifically. As this is a compiler packaged for Ubuntu, cannot rule out that
some distribution-specific patches have an effect on
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 f
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
According to the timestamp of the gcc sources in Debian/Ubuntu, the date is it
was taken was 20170502. So that may narrow it down to a possible regression
and fix commit.
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Pfau ---
OK, can reproduce with revision ac0c40aca0638ba0f22e23dd5c03da35ef4f311a.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Johannes Pfau from comment #7)
> OK, can reproduce with revision ac0c40aca0638ba0f22e23dd5c03da35ef4f311a.
Excellent. I can only so far reproduce using
f29d15a1a96856c0880aef832bf1d5859bbb1086 -
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ---
So far I've narrowed it down to the commit *before* updating to 2.072 (bad) and
the commit *after* updating to 2.075 (good).
Chances am it may just be libphobos 2.071 that is bad, but will continue to dig
a b
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #9)
> So far I've narrowed it down to the commit *before* updating to 2.072 (bad)
> and the commit *after* updating to 2.075 (good).
>
> Chances am it may just be libpho
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|Normal |Highest
Severity|normal
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #12 from Iain Buclaw ---
---
for (ClassDeclaration *bcd = cd; bcd; bcd = bcd->baseClass)
{
if (!bcd->members)
continue;
──> for (size_t i = 0; i < cd->members->dim; i++)
{
Dsymbol *sm = (*cd->members)[i];
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
--- Comment #13 from Iain Buclaw ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/554
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116
ml...@mlatu.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ml...@mlatu.de
--- Comment #7 from ml..
https://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=274
Bug ID: 274
Summary: ice-on-valid: member of recursively templated
Product: GDC
Version: development
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
501 - 600 of 758 matches
Mail list logo
