--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
07:57 ---
I think one of the problems is that ivopts causes out of ssa not to Coalesce
two SSA_NAME:
Before out of ssa:
D.1127_16 = *ivtmp.8_9;
D.1128_21 = *ivtmp.12_30;
D.1129_22 = D.1127_16 - D.1128_21;
*iv
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
07:29 ---
To me this looks like it was accidentally not committed as the ChangeLog
references the change but the
commit was not there so I would assume this could clarify as obvious.
gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.9: * config
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|2004-10-22 00:35:37 |2005-01-21 07:18:16
date|
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-01-21 06:48
---
I hope this analysis is of some help:
- the patch in comment #2 fixes the problem
- if bypass_code is cleared for (code == LT) in ix86_expand_branch() _and_
ix86_fp_comparison_fcomi_cost() the problem shows again.
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-21 06:47 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01394.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-01-21 06:35 ---
I think this bug report is reporting an actual bug. At least when using ELF,
when the compiler takes the address of a protected function, it has to act as
though it is taking the address of an ordinary function, and re
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
05:19 ---
> (Please be more specific than e.g. "current GCC mainline".)
Well, I bootstrapped the day you opened the PR... And no, it wasn't an accident,
I haven't got any problem boostrapping with Binutils since at
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 04:38
---
I can't repeat the problem, using the exact same sources but recompiling cc1plus
or wiping the build directory and re-building.
(The bug was repeatable with that same cc1plus for every run of four runs.)
I don't
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
04:17 ---
Note the full C self contained example is:
_Complex float csqrtf(_Complex float);
float claic1 (float *tmp);
void abort (void);
int main (void)
{
float x;
float x1;
x = 1.0;
claic1 (&x);
x1 =
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 04:17
---
This bugs seems to have been introduced in 3.0.x. It is fixed in
3.4.x and higher. Fixing this requires fiddling with name lookup and
and the template handling code. I don't think that is wise at this point.
S
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
04:15 ---
Hmm (sorry about that), never mind about not being a self contained or excess
precision problem
because it can be reproduced on 32bit powerpc also. The problem comes from
.16.life so this is not a
fort
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 04:13
---
I don't think this bug will be fixed for 3.3.x.
The testcas is known to work 3.4.x (higher I suppose).
So closing as won't fix.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 03:53
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The patch was tested succesfully on latest 3.3 branch too. I'm waiting for
> branch unfreeze to commit it there.
Giovanni --
gcc-3.3 is unfrozen. Do you still consider your patch as
--- Additional Comments From david dot billinghurst at comalco dot riotinto
dot com dot au 2005-01-21 03:46 ---
Subject: RE: LAPACK routine claic1.f bug
Pardon? It is a self contained example. Took me several hours to reduce it.
I doubt it is an excess precision problem as the numbe
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
03:17 ---
Hmm, sounds like an extensive precision problem.
Is there any way for a self contained example.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
03:15 ---
works OK on AMD-64
fails on i686
--bud
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 02:52
---
PowerPC SVR4 va_arg bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-01-21 02:52 ---
Updated patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01443.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13000
--- Additional Comments From gj at pointblue dot com dot pl 2005-01-21
02:49 ---
it looks like that in x86_64.i file:
unsigned long bn_add_words (unsigned long *rp, unsigned long *ap, unsigned long
*bp,int n)
{ unsigned long ret,i;
if (n <= 0) return 0;
asm (
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18091
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:39 ---
I checked in Andrew Pinski's fix.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:38 ---
Subject: Bug 18091
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-21 02:38:24
Modified files:
gcc/java : ChangeLog jcf-write.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:34 ---
*** Bug 19559 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19552
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:34 ---
This is invalid and a dup of the bug which I just closed from you, see PR 19552.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19552 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Test file is only 30 lines (t5.cxx, the t5.ii is indentical and is included at
the end. Comments explain the bug:
template
class mc_foo {
int _d;
public:
mc_foo() {}
mc_foo(int x) { _d = x; }
mc_foo(const mc_foo &x) { _d = x._d; }
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-21
02:29 ---
Fixed in 4.0, the patch needs a little bit of tweaking for 3.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-01-21 02:28 ---
Subject: Re: Difference in behaviour if default constructor added
"caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: Difference in behaviour if default constructor
| adde
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:27 ---
Subject: Bug 19208
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-21 02:27:17
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
gcc/testsuite
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-01-21 02:25 ---
Subject: Re: Difference in behaviour if default constructor added
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| To be completely clear, the compiler generated default constructor is
|
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Component|c |target
Keywords||
simply compile openssl 0.9.7e with gcc 4.0 and run openssl speed (speed
benchmark).
Backtrace:
#0 0x2ad71ed4 in bn_add_words () from /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.0.9.7
#1 0x2ad692d7 in BN_uadd () from /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.0.9.7
#2 0x2ad70a05 in BN_mod_inverse (
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:14 ---
Subject: Bug 18701
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-21 02:14:27
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog combine.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From markus at oberhumer dot com 2005-01-21 02:14
---
Just a short update that the MIPS -mint64 option works again in mainline, so the
ICE reported here is back for both the 3.4 and 4.0 branches.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18744
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:11 ---
This is as reduced as I can get it (80 lines):
typedef unsigned int size_t;
extern void __assert_fail () __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
typedef unsigned int uintptr_t;
extern int __mf_heuristic_check (uintp
--- Additional Comments From markus at oberhumer dot com 2005-01-21 02:10
---
What is the status of the latest patch from Giovanni ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18071
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
02:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Hmm, is *- special operand in Ada or is this just a parse error in the
> front-end (I don't know Ada that at
>
> You are actually fairly close. *- i
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 02:07
---
(Please be more specific than e.g. "current GCC mainline".)
With binutils of "2005-01-20 15:37:12 UTC"
and GCC of "Fri Jan 14 01:28:39 UTC 2005"
I still get the same error.
Now updating gcc.
--
http://gcc.gnu
--- Additional Comments From chrisp_42 at bigpond dot com 2005-01-21 02:04
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmm, is *- special operand in Ada or is this just a parse error in the
front-end (I don't know Ada that at
You are actually fairly close. *- is not a special operator, but the mul
--- Additional Comments From markus at oberhumer dot com 2005-01-21 02:02
---
This seems to be fixed for 3.4 and 4.0 now, so the bug should be closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17115
--- Additional Comments From markus at oberhumer dot com 2005-01-21 02:02
---
This seems to be fixed for 3.4 and 4.0 now, so the bug should be closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17361
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 01:58
---
The one in FC2: "gcc version 3.3.3 20040412 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.3-7)".
At present, I don't suspect the bug being there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19557
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
01:55 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't understand comment #2. Please be more specific with your
> implications.
> I recompile cc1plus because with default options it's undebuggable with the
> gdb
> in FC2.
If
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 01:52
---
I don't understand comment #2. Please be more specific with your implications.
I recompile cc1plus because with default options it's undebuggable with the gdb
in FC2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Summary|[3.4, 4.0 regression} RTEMS |[3.4/4.0 regression} RTEMS
|CPP specs not
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
01:41 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Ouch. Recompiling cc1plus with CFLAGS=-g3 masks the bug. Badness.
Then what gcc are you building since this is a cross?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19557
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
01:26 ---
We still have uninitialized pointers in the 3.4 and 3.3 branch.
Patches in preparation.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
01:23 ---
Subject: Bug 19510
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-21 01:23:28
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/inclu
--- Additional Comments From jvdelisle at verizon dot net 2005-01-21 01:18
---
David, Good Job! I was on exactly the same path and was just beginning to look
at CGELSY. Beat me to the punch! :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900
--- Additional Comments From corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
01:08 ---
The required bits are on gcc-3_2-branch and gcc-3_3-branch, but are missing from
gcc-3_4-branch and gcc-CVS-trunk.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-21
01:05 ---
Ah well, I guess this patch is not enough for this:
---
struct A {
void func(void);
};
template
void foo(T A::* );
void bar(void) {
foo(&A::func);
}
-
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-21
01:02 ---
Uhm, I wrote a very similar patch in the past only to find out it was not
enough. There is something I cannot understand...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19076
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 01:01
---
Ouch. Recompiling cc1plus with CFLAGS=-g3 masks the bug. Badness.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19557
--- Additional Comments From ebuddington at wesleyan dot edu 2005-01-21
00:54 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Still exist in the mainline even after configure was rewritten for autoconf
> 2.57.
I believe this is the same problem I see today in gcc-3.4.3. Unless I set
CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH,
With LAST_UPDATED: "Thu Jan 20 21:30:49 UTC 2005" I get:
/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/gcc/ -nostdinc++ -L/home/hp/combined/mmix\
ware-sim/mmix-knuth-mmixware/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/mmix-knuth-mmixware/libstdc++-v
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19550
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.3 |3.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16612
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19556
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
00:37 ---
The code is invalid (by the C++ standard)
mc_foo val3 = val;// W3 == 16 in this example
val3.f<16>(0);
Since val3 is dependent name, we don't know that val3.f is a template so we
reject the code.
yo
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code,
--- Additional Comments From arend dot bayer at web dot de 2005-01-21
00:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=8025)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8025&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19556
0xffe4]))
(nil)))
../../../gcc/libmudflap/mf-runtime.c:1023: internal compiler error: in
extract_insn, at recog.c:2020
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
I will attach pre-processed mf-runtime.i. This is with
(GCC) 4.0.0 20050120 (ex
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
00:25 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Andrew, thanks for the help: I'm sure that as a latent bug this will be fixed
> very quickly, then I will close 18902 and so on. Nice. Would it be possible
> not
> marking this a
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
00:24 ---
Mark, typecode.ii ;-)
So it is preprocessed. That doesn't mean it's smaller though, the
preprocessed larger library is still a larger library.
Anyway, the problem here is more that compared to gcc 3.x
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19555
namespace __gnu_debug_def { }
namespace std
{
using namespace __gnu_debug_def;
template class allocator {};
}
namespace __gnu_debug_def
{
template >
class vector
{
void
swap(vector<_Tp,_Allocator>& __x);
};
}
namespace std
{
template<> void
vector >::swap(vector
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
00:15 ---
*** Bug 19553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
00:15 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18408 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.4.3
Summary|ice in check_pointer_types_r|ice in check_pointer_types_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-21 00:00
---
Hi, I would categorize this as "wontfix-obvious-enhancement" ;) I mean, it's
very unlikely that the hash_* extensions will be fixed, since we are in the
process of adding the new unordered containers in "tr1", whic
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
23:52 ---
Fails since at least gcc 2.95.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
23:52 ---
Andrew, what happended to the patch?
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
std::insert_iterator does not work together with __gnu_cxx::hash_set,
since the latter does not provide insert(iterator, const value_type&).
--
Summary: std::insert_iterator does not work together with
__gnu_cxx::hash_set
Product: gcc
Version:
--- Additional Comments From rogelio at smsglobal dot net 2005-01-20 23:40
---
Created an attachment (id=8024)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8024&action=view)
the result of gcc -v -savetemps and the error report when building
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Additional Comments From rogelio at smsglobal dot net 2005-01-20 23:39
---
Created an attachment (id=8023)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8023&action=view)
preprocessed source
in GNUstep core/base
created using the command line:
gcc Source/GSSet.m -v -save-tem
build of gnustep base crashes
--
Summary: ice in check_pointer_types_r
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: objc
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
Test file is only 30 lines (t5.cxx, the t5.ii is indentical and is included at
the end. Comments explain the bug:
template
class mc_foo {
int _d;
public:
mc_foo() {}
mc_foo(int x) { _d = x; }
mc_foo(const mc_foo &x) { _d = x._d; }
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 23:27
---
Andrew, thanks for the help: I'm sure that as a latent bug this will be fixed
very quickly, then I will close 18902 and so on. Nice. Would it be possible not
marking this as "minor"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 23:02
---
... as "enhancement".
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhanc
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 23:01
---
Reopening...
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
22:58 ---
Does this 8% regression apply to preprocessed source, or only to unpreprocessed
source? If the latter, then this PR should be closed as WONTFIX; the runtime
library has gotten bigger, and that makes things
--- Additional Comments From billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
22:38 ---
PR 19551 contains a reduced testcase derived from a gfortran failure in the
CLS Driver routines.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-20 22:34 ---
Ignore the copy relocation. There is not much a compiler can do when the psABI
doesn't support protected symbols with copy relocation. See:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-03/msg00413.html
--
http://gcc
fails with gfortran-20050120 on cygwin
test case ##
program claic1_bug
real x, correct
parameter(correct=2.30457878)
call claic1(x)
if ( abs(x-correct) .gt. 1.0e-4 ) then
write(6,*) 'x = ', x,' expected ',correct
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||19551
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900
Here is another example where the strong attribute goes funny (this is reduced
from 23_containers/
vector/modifiers/swap.cc with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG on). This is a regression in
that we did not ICE
before. 3.4 also rejects the code too so the reject valid is not a regression
but fixing the the
--- Additional Comments From poirierg at gmail dot com 2005-01-20 22:00
---
Hi,
I just tried with a fresh cvs checkout. It works! Thanks! (should I mark this
bug as VERIFIED ?)
Regards,
Guillaume
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19472
--- Additional Comments From zlaski at apple dot com 2005-01-20 21:48
---
Of course, for this particular bug, someone could just review the patch that I
posted two months ago...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18408
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
21:38 ---
You can track the plans and status for structure aliasing on the gcc wiki, at
[[Improved alias analysis]]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14784
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
21:22 ---
Not a bug via the documentation.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15349
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
21:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11203 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
21:04 ---
*** Bug 19549 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk 2005-01-20
21:04 ---
Subject: Re: Difference in behaviour if default constructor
added
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-20 20:46
>---
>To be compl
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-20 20:46
---
To be completely clear, the compiler generated default constructor is
ptr() : a(0) {}
not
ptr() {}
Thus, it _does_ initialize 'a'.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19544
--- Additional Comments From lars dot sonchocky-helldorf at hamburg dot de
2005-01-20 20:43 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Objective-C is not part of the release criteria; removing target milestone.
Mark, allow me to mention that GCC offers the only free Objective-C compiler
with moder
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.1 4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19549
test.c
---
using the following GCC
---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: ../../../gcc-CVS-20050120/gcc-CVS-20050120/configure
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --prefix=/usr/local/opt/gcc-4.0
--exec-prefix=/usr/local/opt/gcc-4.0 --s
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
