struct B {
unsigned bit : 1;
};
void
ior (struct B *b)
{
b->bit |= 1;
}
I get:
ior (b)
{
:
b->bit = () (unsigned char) ((signed char) b->bit | 1);
return;
}
Note that we could just say b->bit = 1;
--
Summary: OR of a bitfield and a constant is not optimized at tree
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 04:05
---
Actually there are two ands for -march=pentiumpro also:
movl4(%esp), %ecx
movzbl 8(%esp), %edx <--- one
movl(%ecx), %eax
andl$3, %edx <--- two
andl$
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-10-16 03:50 ---
>From IRC:
kazu: Looks like PR 18008 only has a single AND with -march=pentiumpro,
but two ANDs with -march=i386
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18008
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-10-16 03:46 ---
All the interesting events happen in store_field.
When store_field expands "() (unsigned char) v",
it generates an AND with 3 because () is an anonymous type
of two-bit integer.
When it expands the assignment
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-16 03:38 ---
Subject: Re: __alignof__(double) not compile time constant
inside template class
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 02:01
>
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-10-16 03:37 ---
Subject: Re: __alignof__ vs. typedefs
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 02:00
>---
>Patch submitted:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 03:30
---
CC'ing also Bruce because he's the fixincludes maintainer. Bruce, BTW, as a
developer which digs for the first time in fixincludes, let me say that
fixincludes/README is not very clear about how 'make check
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 03:11
---
For PPC:
struct B {
unsigned :30;
unsigned bit : 2;
};
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 03:09
---
No this is an Ada front-end problem.
I think the main issue is that the tree-ssa expects that INTEGER types are close to
the same and that
pointers to them are compatible if the types are them selves compa
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 03:05
---
Confirmed on PPC also. (note for PPC to get about the same code we have to use the
following
definition for the struct:
struct B {
unsigned unused: 31;
unsigned bit : 1;
};
).
--
What
Consider:
struct B {
unsigned bit : 2;
};
void
plus (struct B *b)
{
b->bit |= 1;
}
./cc1 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mregparm=3 generates
plus:
movb(%eax), %cl
andl$3, %ecx
orl $1, %ecx
andl$3, %ecx
movl(%eax), %edx
andl$
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|a twiddleing of a |an xor of a single bit
||bitfield is inefficient
http://gcc.gnu
Consider:
struct B {
unsigned bit : 1;
};
void
plus (struct B *b)
{
b->bit = b->bit + 1;
}
void
xor (struct B *b)
{
b->bit = b->bit ^ 1;
}
./cc1 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mregparm=3 generates
plus:
xorb$1, (%eax)
ret
xor:
movb(%eax), %cl
andl$
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Known to fail||3.4.0
Known to work|
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 02:01
---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01319.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-16 02:00
---
Patch submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01320.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com 2004-10-16 00:50 ---
Still ICEs on today's 3.4 branch. (Note comment #8).
--
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2004-10-16 00:44 ---
I can still see it with a recent snapshot from RawHide:
gcc version 3.4.2 20041006 (Red Hat 3.4.2-5)
So unless it has been accidentally fixed during the last
10 days, the bug is still in 3.4-branch.
--
htt
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet||powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18024
--- Additional Comments From aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com 2004-10-16 00:35
---
Something isn't right with the patch. The ChangeLog mentions a function
fix_with_system() that does not appear to exist. The build fails because
z_applyfix_prog's initializer doesn't match its type, and fi
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 00:08 ---
I can't reproduce this today. Can anyone else?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17451
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-16 00:08
---
It was an accident that error18.C was committed on the branch. I've now removed it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16002
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |giovannibajo at libero dot
|dot org |it
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-15 23:43
---
Created an attachment (id=7361)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7361&action=view)
Tentative patch
Can you try if this patch fixes it? Otherwise, you could try tweaking it a
little bit, if
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 23:22
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancemen
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 23:15
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancemen
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 23:12
---
Never mind you are right Alan, I do need to use cc1plus but why. The RTL is wrong
already at .01.rtl.
So this is 3.4 regression (it might be a 3.3 regression also I don't know). But this
was fixed on the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 22:49
---
Invalid as seq(seq (t)) is considered to call the copy constructor which is defined
___not___ to match
templates (by the standard). The 3.3 and before bug (is a different bug and is a dup
of one of the m
--- Additional Comments From skunk at iskunk dot org 2004-10-15 22:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=7360)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7360&action=view)
/usr/include/net/if.h from Tru64
As I am not familiar with the inclhack.def syntax, I am attaching an unmodified
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:55
---
Note IA64 also has some problems with undocumented target options see PR 5362.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5362
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-15 21:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] wrong error in presence of builtin
fn + K&R declaration.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Looking at the above date which is from using Phil's r
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:54
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||5362
The included program does not appear to compile correctly
under gcc 3.4.2.
The following statement, which does not appear to work, begins on
line 123 --
seq t /* sequence of size 1 */
(
seq/* sequence of size 2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:49
---
: Search converges between 2004-08-26-trunk (#525) and 2004-08-27-trunk (#526).
Looking at the above date which is from using Phil's regression hunter, we can say
almost definitely
JSM's patch to fix bug
The ia64-hpux version of GCC supports several options that don't appear
to be documented. I see at least the following:
-milp32
-mlp64
-mt
--
Summary: undocumented ia64-hpux options
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
Hi,
the following code does not compile with gfortran, although it does
with g77:
PROGRAM GFCBUG19
DOUBLE PRECISION inf, nan
c IEEE exceptional values on Intel x87
DATA inf / Z'7FF0' /
DATA nan / Z'FFF8' /
print *, inf, nan
END
% g77 gf
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:25 ---
Now we don't get any diagnostic for the testcase at all. From the
regression hunter I think my patch for bug 13801 is probably to blame for
that. In formal terms a diagnostic isn't required here, but I'm incl
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-10-15 21:18 ---
This is a regression from 3.3.3, which does not generate two consecutive andl.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18008
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:18
---
Fixed in GCC 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RE
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:18
---
Subject: Bug 14667
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-15 21:18:08
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite : C
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:18
---
Subject: Bug 17852
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-15 21:18:08
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite : C
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:18
---
Subject: Bug 17042
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-15 21:18:08
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite : C
--
Bug 16716 depends on bug 14667, which changed state.
Bug 14667 Summary: [4.0 Regression] ICE in
cp_parser_parse_and_diagnose_invalid_type_name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14667
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:15
---
Fixed in GCC 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RE
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:15
---
Fixed in GCC 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RE
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:11
---
Subject: Bug 17852
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-15 21:11:50
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c parser.c
gc
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:11
---
Subject: Bug 17042
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-15 21:11:50
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c parser.c
gc
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 21:11
---
Subject: Bug 14667
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-15 21:11:50
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c parser.c
gc
Hi,
the following code compiles and runs, but gives output that is
incompatible with other tested F95 compilers:
program gfcbug18
real :: x = 1.23
! Minimum width formatting:
! gfortran prints "# 1.23#", i.e., a leading blank where other compilers won't
write(*, "('#',F0.2,'#')") x
end pr
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 20:46
---
Ok, now I understand (I was really busy this morning not to understand).
Confirmed, I will try to get this done for 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ejb at ql dot org 2004-10-15 20:40 ---
In other words, instead of saying:
Note this option can only be used with the`-Wuninitialized' option, which in
turn only works with `-O1' and above.
say
Note this option automatically implies -Wunitialized, which only
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 20:36
---
Mailed seemed to have bounced...
--
Allen Skees
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Allen Skees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:31 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sub
--- Additional Comments From ejb at ql dot org 2004-10-15 20:34 ---
I think you misunderstood. I'm not suggesting -Wunitialized should turn on
-Winit-self; I'm suggesting the other way around. Since -Winit-self doesn't
work without -Wunitialized, it's pointless to have it without -Wunit
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 20:24
---
Yes 3.3.5 did not contained the patches, could you try 3.4.0 then?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18024
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 20:17 ---
I'm wondering how the call to gfc_typenode_for_spec (&c->ts) changes
c->backend_decl, but since this works you can send the patch (after adding
spaces before '(') to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the person who origina
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 20:16 ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01299.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18002
I'm running on a 32-bit AIX 5.1 box. GCC 3.3.5 was configured as follows and
bootstrapped.
# This directory was configured as follows:
/home/downloads/gcc/gcc-3.3.5/configure --with-gcc-version-trigger=/home/downloa
ds/gcc/gcc-3.3.5/gcc/version.c --host=powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0 --enable-threads=po
--- Additional Comments From dr dot johan at gmail dot com 2004-10-15 19:59
---
I second this opinion! I tried the fix suggested below and my code now builds
with gfortran "gcc version 4.0.0 20041015 (experimental)".
/Johan
(In reply to comment #6)
> My
--- Additional Comments From aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com 2004-10-15 19:58
---
I can confirm that this patch fixes this bug and causes no testsuite
regressions. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17406
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 19:44
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 19:43
---
And mine too.
: Search converges between 2003-07-05-trunk (#285) and 2003-07-06-trunk (#286).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18020
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-15 19:17 ---
Confirmed indeed. Sorry for my initial oversight...
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-15 19:17 ---
My fault: I missed the last line of the testcase where the instantiation
is. With this line I can reproduce this bug with both stock 3.4.2 as well
as with the present top-of-branch 3.4 compiler.
The bug does
irun/bin/gfortran -static test2.f90
test2.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
test2.f90:6: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_string_parameter, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:1986
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
for t
--- Additional Comments From gmorin1 at bloomberg dot net 2004-10-15 19:07 ---
Hi,
As far as I know, OpenPKG does not apply any patched on this gcc. Furthermore, I
have another gcc 3.4.2 built from the vanilla source on Solaris :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /unix-SunOS-sparc-5.8-def/bin/g++ -o
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 19:03
---
Fixed in 3.4.0 and above.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
there are a bug when you mix structure and function. Only the first part of the
structure seems to act correctly. The best thing is to try this sample:
The tab and the pts must be equal in their components and it's not the case.
I saw another things I don't like (even if I think that the norm req
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/bug$ g++ -v -save-temps test.cpp
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/specs
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f77,pascal,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
--with-gxx-include-dir
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-15 18:57 ---
I can't reproduce this with 3.4.3 20041015 (prerelease) either. It must
be a local patch in OpenPKG then.
W.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-15 18:40 ---
I have a very similar problem in my program. It segfaults in this instruction:
0x0815935d :movapd %xmm0,(%eax)
where I have
eax0xbfffd874 -1073751948
and
(gdb) p ((unsigned int)0xbf
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 18:36
---
Confirmed, something is wrong in the .md file.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNC
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2004-10-15 18:27 ---
The bug was discovered when it walked off the end of a VM page and faulted. Are you
certain this is
"expected behavior?"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18019
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 18:23
---
I think this is expected behavior (on pentium4 word fetches are always faster than
byte fetches).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18019
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 18:21
---
Hmm, this works for me on 3.4.2, can you try not with a OpenPKG package?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 18:12
---
This is definitely a target problem, the RTL is correct:
(insn:HI 23 22 24 (set (reg:QI 0 ax [orig:60 D.1459 ] [60])
(mem:QI (reg/v/f:SI 2 cx [orig:63 from ] [63]) [0 S1 A8])) 48 {*movqi_1} (nil)
Here we go:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> cat foo.cpp
template
struct bar {
enum {
MASK = ((1 << 17)-1)
, IT_MASK = (~MASK)
, ITERATION_INC = (MASK+1)
};
};
int baz = bar::IT_MASK;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> g++ -o /dev/null -c foo.cpp
foo.cpp: In instantiation of `bar':
foo.cpp
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2004-10-15 18:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=7359)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7359&action=view)
testcase
Attaching the testcase for covenience.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18019
.L3
movl8(%ebp), %eax
popl%ebp
ret
.size mystrcpy, .-mystrcpy
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.0.0 20041015 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:41
---
*** Bug 18018 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:41
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 16792 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
re --enable-languages=c,c++
--prefix=/opt/gcc-4.0
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20041015 (experimental)
--
Summary: ICE on dubious extern declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
--- Additional Comments From jbarnett at 2wire dot com 2004-10-15 17:16 ---
any luck trying to narrow down the fix for this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16658
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16419
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17762
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16632
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17612
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1789
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17937
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17984
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16573
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:13
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:10
---
This cannot be a GCC problem, something is wrong with your machine (I don't know what)
because it
works for a large number of other people and this part of the makefile has not changed
for a long time.
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:09
---
Are you sure that you updated the CVS correctly as this works for me.
You might have to use "cvs up -d" as new directories are not added unless you do.
So closing as works for me since this looks like you fo
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:05
---
-Winit-self has nothing to do with this problem really.
in this case :a(a) is equivalent to this->a = this->a;
We should warn about this case even without -Winit-self or even -Wuninitialize as we
can warn
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:00
---
Not going to happen because people use int a = a; as to turn off uninitialize warnings
(which is why
-Winit-self was added in the first place).
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-10-15 16:55 ---
There are at least two strange things.
1. We emit two ands in the first place.
2. The combiner does not seem to be working.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18008
The documentation clearly states that -Winit-self doesn't work without
-Wuninitialized. I think it would be a lot better if it just automatically
turned on -Wuninitialized instead. For example, compiling the example in bug
18016 with -Winit-self but not -Wuninitialized doesn't generate any warnin
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 16:47
---
Dorit, the regression appeared with your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-10/msg00922.html
Could you please have a look?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ejb at ql dot org 2004-10-15 16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=7358)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7358&action=view)
source file that reproduces problem
This attachment contains the code that is also inlined in the bug report.
--
h
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
