--- Additional Comments From trapni at gentoo dot org 2004-11-24 07:35
---
Yeah, but I really do not know how to reproduce this bug, as the source code is
really too much to say, line X is guilty.
well, but what's "sel-contained"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Additional Comments From uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24 07:31
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Did you do a bootstrap & test cycle on 3.4 as well?
Yes. But I need some kind of permission to install this patch & testcase on 3.4
branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Additional Comments From kraai at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24 07:30
---
Created an attachment (id=7592)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7592&action=view)
Patch
Would you please test this patch and report whether or not it fixes the bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24 07:16
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01574.html
--
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
07:06 ---
Suspended until deprecation/removal.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
AssignedTo|davem at g
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-24 07:01 ---
This is a compiler bug. I am not sure how much linker can help here. A
sel-contained testcase is needed to take a look at it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-11-24
07:00 ---
I believe this problem is caused by rs6000_rtx_costs. The two following insns
are successfully combined:
(insn 20 19 21 0 (set (reg:DI 126)
(eq:DI (reg:CCFP 125)
(const_int 0 [0x0])))
--- Additional Comments From ramya dot chandar at wipro dot com 2004-11-24
06:55 ---
clarification please...
I tried including "template<>" in front of each of the specialized template
member functions. It doesn't solve the problem.
But, in the code i have attached,( since the generali
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:32 ---
Most recent talk:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01958.html
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:28 ---
The problem here is:
# predD.1714_2 = V_MUST_DEF ;
predD.1714 = fD.1555;
# predD.1718_36 = V_MAY_DEF ;
predD.1718.predD.1583 = &predD.1714;
# predD.1714_41 = V_MAY_DEF ;
# predD.1718_42
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18642
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:19 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-11-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:18 ---
Confirmed, I really don't think this should be an error as on darwin like
ppc64-linux the ABI defaults to
the altivec ABI so there is no way to return "generic" vector on darwin or
ppc64-linux.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:13 ---
Suspending just like all other -fnew-ra bugs.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:13 ---
Confirmed but ...
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:08 ---
I should mention I also see this in a testcase in Ada acats testsuite on
ppc-darwin.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18641
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:05 ---
*** Bug 17606 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:05 ---
This is a dup of bug 18641, aka the patch which I mentioned I reverted fixes
the problem also.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18641 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
06:01 ---
Reverting:
2004-08-22 Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* reload.c (find_reloads_address): Make return value tri-state.
Return -1 if LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS succeeded.
(find_rel
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
05:55 ---
It fails in:
3.5.0 20040824
But passes in:
3.5.0 20040822
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18641
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
05:31 ---
Using names with double underscores does put you on shaky ground, as those are
reserved to the implementation, of course. I agree that it isn't desirable to
warn about "__ct" -- but there are other problem
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
05:07 ---
3.5.0 20040829 fails also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18641
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
05:06 ---
This is just another instance of the fact that G++ using-declarations are
actually ARM-style access declarations. I would not expect this to be fixed in
G++ 4.0.x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18644
For the following simple program
#include
int main () {
std::complex x;
x = std::complex(1,0);
}
I get this warning since 3.2:
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4*/bin/c++ -c x.cc -Wsynth
x.cc: In function `int main()':
x.cc:5: warning: using
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
04:27 ---
Nothing in fixincludes look wrong. The new fixincludes do not apply to
limits.h at all.
These were the only changes on the 3.4 branch:
2004-11-21 Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fixinc/inclha
Some probably fixincludes-related change between 2004-11-17 and 2004-11-23 on
has broken gcc-3.4-branch for all RTEMS-targets and may-be for all newlib-based
targets in general.
Unlike before 2004-11-23, now bootstrapping GCC-3.4.x + newlib one-tree style,
produces a limits.h that is unusable for
As they appear on the website on 11/22, the mainline docs for auto_ptr are
missing the method docs for most of the functions.
--
Summary: Docs for auto_ptr not showing docs for get() and others
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From trapni at gentoo dot org 2004-11-24 03:19
---
Well, no. it doesn't work with that binutils:
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
`typeinfo for CodeDOM::TClassDef' referenced in section
`.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK6System13S
--- Additional Comments From trapni at gentoo dot org 2004-11-24 02:59
---
As a workaround, I just created a MyLibrary_all.cpp that
#include'd all the .cpp files existing in this lib. this
obviousely linked and I could work as usual (nearly)..
However, I'm testing 2.15.94.0.1 now :)
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2004-11-24 02:20 ---
Fixed on mainline. This is just a warning fix, and is not worth backporting to
the 3.4 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
02:19 ---
Subject: Bug 18623
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-24 02:19:11
Modified files:
libiberty : ChangeLog cp-demangle.c cplus-dem.c
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-11-24
02:14 ---
*** Bug 17337 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-11-24
02:14 ---
Fixed
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 16480 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||llib at computer dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18635
--- Additional Comments From ian at wasabisystems dot com 2004-11-24 02:10
---
I'll take demangler issues.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gn
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
02:04 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> But it failed with:
> 4.0.0 20040924
And anything after that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18641
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-24 02:01 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01956.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17982
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24 02:00
---
The bug reporter's specification of the bug was:
When using '#pragma weak bar = foo', gcc does not output anything, unless
bar is declared.
Although a bug can be specified by "this source file doesn'
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
01:59 ---
It worked with:
3.3.2 20030908
3.4 20030525
3.5-tree-ssa 20030620 (merged 20030525)
3.5-tree-ssa 20030928 (merged 20030923)
3.5.0 20040620
3.5.0 20040808
But it failed with:
4.0.0 20040924
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
01:55 ---
This is a regression from 3.4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-24
01:54 ---
JSM, do you agree with Steven's analysys? It looks like DECL_DECLARED_INLINE
should just mean there, so the C frontend might be wrong in this regard.
--
What|Removed |Add
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
01:53 ---
Back in 20041007, we got a different ICE:
t.c: In function 'crc':
t.c:11: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 88 47 89 (set (subreg:SI (reg:DI 32 f0) 0)
(const_int 0 [0x0])) -1 (nil)
(nil))
t.c:11:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
01:45 ---
JSM, that is a different bug than what this bug was about, read comment #0
again. The sources in
question:
$ cat bug.c
#pragma weak bar = foo
$ gcc-3.1 bug.c -S
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-11-24 01:42
---
*** Bug 18640 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-11-24 01:42
---
See section 25.3 of the Standard or, for instance, ยง5.4.1 of "STL Tutorial and
Reference Guide" by Musser, Derge, Saini (Addison Wesley).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 553 ***
--
What
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-24
01:40 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] #pragma weak problem
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> JSM did you read what RTH wrote?
What RTH wrote was discussing the over-simplified
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
01:28 ---
JSM did you read what RTH wrote?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7544
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
01:27 ---
Confirmed, looking into a little more.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24 01:27
---
The bug, as described, is a bug and is still present. The thread
referenced talks about the case where foo isn't declared, but the bug
is about the case where bar isn't declared. Where bar isn't declared, bu
This is similar to PR/152866. In the following test case compiled with -O0
gcc-4.0 produces following patter in reload phase:
(insn 68 47 67 7 (set (reg:DI 32 f0)
(const_int 4294967295 [0x])) 354 {*movdi_internal32} (nil)
(nil))
This pattern cause ICE in gen_reg_rtx.
This is
--- Additional Comments From david dot billinghurst at comalco dot riotinto
dot com dot au 2004-11-24 00:58 ---
Subject: RE: Failure of test direct_io.f90 on irix6.5 with -64
Still present Tue Nov 23 09:07:14 GMT 2004
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-11/msg01020.html
NOTIC
--- Additional Comments From dp-gccbugzilla at bucho dot org 2004-11-24
00:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=7591)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7591&action=view)
This is the program exhibiting the above problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18
gcc version is 3.4.3 configured as:
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local/encap/gcc-3.4.3
--program-suffix=-3.4.3 --enable-languages=f77,c++
The attached program simply fills a std::vector with some number of items
of the same value.
If the vector has 16 or less elements, everything is fin
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
00:52 ---
Is this still true?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16288
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
00:44 ---
After rereading the thread which talked about this, this should be closed as
not a bug.
The thread starts here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg00660.html
And the email which comments on why this is no
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
00:34 ---
Giovanni, your patch actually looks correct to me.
It may be just exposing a latent bug in the C front end. I'm not
sure but I'd expect that if a function is declared inline as in
testsuite/gcc.dg/winli
--- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2004-11-24 00:33 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran: CONJG: false error message about
standard violation
sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
--- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2004-11-24 00:26 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran: CONJG: false error message about
standard violation
sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-11-24 00:16 ---
This is the change that broke this:
Tue Sep 25 17:13:56 CEST 2001 Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile.in (cfgrtl.o): Add.
* basic-block.h (alloc_block, alloc_aux_for_block,
alloc_aux_f
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-24
00:09 ---
The patch doesn't fix the test case, however nice it might be in other respects.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17957
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, |[4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-
|building|mmixware broken, building
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24
00:05 ---
One more thing we will fix a memory hog problem, if the source is correct
unlike PR 18634 which I get
errors on the mainline for.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2004-11-24 00:02
---
But it's your own message after the OS kills you, so I'd suggest saying:
"The compilation was killed by the OS, possibly due to an internal error or
possibly from running out of system resources such as memory.
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-24 00:00
---
pinskia noted the similarity to PR 18331: might be the same bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThis
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-11-23
23:48 ---
This is an ICE in your system compiler, for which you haven't explicitly
specified a version. I could not reproduce the failure using current mainline
or gcc-3.4 branch compilers, so it seems like this pr
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
23:45 ---
Fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01919.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
23:45 ---
The problem is the kernel is killing the process which generates the error
message, we cannot do
anything about it, this has been reported before.
--
What|Removed |Adde
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-23 23:42 ---
I have verified that my modification works on Linux/ia64, Linux/ia32 and
Linux/x86_64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17982
See bug#18634
When running out of memory, the compiler reports an ICE and requests a bug
report.
You'd get fewer nuisance reports if the message suggested compiling with more
swap
or a different machine, and only submitting a report if the problem persists.
Ivan
--
Summary: poor
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2004-11-23 23:39
---
Problem goes away with more swap space
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Macros are expanded in some Solaris pragmas, such as #pragma align.
However, this is currently disabled for C++. The #pragma handling
should be changed so that macros are expanded when the pragma is
encountered, if the specification of the particular pragma requires
macro expansion, rather than th
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
23:31 ---
With the mainline I get errors:
/home/ivan/ootbc/common/include/powerset.hh: In instantiation of
'powerset':
/home/ivan/ootbc/common/include/display.hh:433: instantiated from here
/home/ivan/ootbc/common/
The pragma handler wrapper interfaces c_register_pragma and
c_register_pragma_with_expansion should be merged back into
a single interface taking a flag. (At the point of addition
of c_register_pragma_with_expansion, the churn this would have
caused to unrelated back ends was inappropriate, but it
With LAST_UPDATED: "Tue Nov 23 20:48:44 UTC 2004" I get:
/gcc/xgcc -B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/mmix-knuth-mmixware/gnuabi/newlib/ -isystem
/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/mmix-knuth-mmixware/gnuabi/newlib/targ-include
-isystem /home/hp/combined/c
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|local label names can |[3.4 only] local label names
|collide with function names |can collide with function
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18635
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
23:19 ---
g++: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Means that the cc1plus ran out of memory.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2004-11-23 23:13
---
Created an attachment (id=7590)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7590&action=view)
Source code (-save-temps) (compressed)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18634
The following (presumably invalid) code is compiled successfully:
int main(void)
{
int &a = a;
printf("a = %d\n", a);
return 0;
}
albeit with the following warning (if given -Wall -W):
foo.cc: In function `int main()':
foo.cc:5: warning: 'a' might be used uninitia
--- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2004-11-23 23:09
---
Created an attachment (id=7589)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7589&action=view)
Compiler output (-v -save-temps)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18634
--
Summary: ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: igodard at pacbell dot net
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-11-23
22:56 ---
This has been fixed on mainline. Note that you need a recent (2004-09) binutils
with support for new dot-symbol conventions when you configure and build GCC.
I can make a patch available for 3.4.3 if the
--- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-23 22:19
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] asm declaration ignored due to conflict with
previous rename
"hjl at lucon dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-1
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-23 21:13 ---
Does this patch
--- gcc/c-pragma.c.rename 2004-11-09 12:03:42.0 -0800
+++ gcc/c-pragma.c 2004-11-23 13:03:26.020304351 -0800
@@ -473,8 +473,11 @@ maybe_apply_renaming_pragma (tree decl,
return
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2004-11-23 20:08
---
see - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01891.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18173
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-11-23 19:49
---
Thanks.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pcarlini at suse dot
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2004-11-23 19:48
---
just for the record - related comments from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
patches/2004-11/msg01394.html:
"
> > A question: how would you write a testcase that when compiled on
powerpc*
> > the dg-final check xfail
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
19:22 ---
Actually the example in comment #0 does not fail on x86 or ppc, only ia64
because of the reasons I
outlined. Now the testcase in PR 18632 has always failed, we just did not warn
about it.
--
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-23 19:18 ---
It also happens on x86_64 and i386 if -O1 or -O0 is used. It has nothing to
do with function inline.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
The operator[] method on hash_map will unnecessarily resize the container when
used to access an existing element when the container size is at any of the
values in the __stl_prime_list table (ext/hashtable.h). This unnecessarily
causes the container capacity to double in size and the elements to
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-23 19:13 ---
*** Bug 18632 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-11-23 19:12 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17982 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
19:08 ---
This is related to PR 17982.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ cat x.c
extern void foo ();
void
bar ()
{
foo ();
}
extern void __GI_foo ();
extern void foo () __asm__ ("__GI_foo");
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /usr/gcc-3.4/bin/gcc -S -O2 x.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /usr/gcc-4.0/bin/gcc -S -O2 x.c
x.c:8: warning: asm declaration ignored due
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
18:34 ---
That is filed under PR 18624.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18623
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-23
18:33 ---
Another good question is why we do not get a similar warning during a bootstrap.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18623
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
