[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/301746]
Matthias
Rechecked with gcc-4.0, bug submitter writes:
This is a regression from gcc-3.2 in that gcc-3.2 does not have this
problem bug gcc-3.3 does.
The attached program generates the following code on i386 with
gcc -S -O2:
...
.L2:
mo
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
05:03 ---
This depends on PR 22455 now as --enable-checking=fold is broken.
--
What|Removed |Added
Bu
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
05:02 ---
Subject: Bug 16045
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-18 05:01:47
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog builtins.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
05:01 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
Bug 20623 depends on bug 16045, which changed state.
Bug 16045 Summary: ICE fold check: original tree changed by fold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16045
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
04:09 ---
Thomas, do you intend on mailing this patch to gcc-patches? It should be small
enough not to require a copyright assignment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23358
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
03:48 ---
I will be looking into this after working a libjava patch.
Note the current asm is:
_f:
addi r3,r3,1
extsw r3,r3
blr
.align 2
.p2align 4,,15
.globl _g
_g:
Just like regparm on x86, we should be able to not sign extend the return value
(and arguments) for
ppc64 for local functions which don't have their address taken.
An example is:
static int f(int a) __attribute__((noinline));
static int f(int a)
{
return a+1;
}
int g(int a)
{
return f(a+1)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
03:29 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Confirmed on x86_32 target using GNU F95 version 4.1.0 20050812, isn't PR23202
> not a dup of this one?
No because PR 23202 is really a front-end bug and this looks like a vectori
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0 |powerpc-*-darwin7.9.0
GCC host triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0 |powerpc-*-darwin7.9.0
GCC target triplet
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
03:24 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
03:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet|86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
http://gc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
02:53 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Have you applied/fixed this also in the 4.0 branch? Because I don't see it
> applied there and it segfaults there as well.
This was not a regression as -fvariable-expansion-in-un
--- Additional Comments From drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz
2005-08-18 02:51 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Begone, bug.
Have you applied/fixed this also in the 4.0 branch? Because I don't see it
applied there and it segfaults there as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat dot com 2005-08-18 02:03
---
This was a problem with locking in the GTK peers and interactions between the
main and event threads.
We connect a callback to the window realize signal. In that callback we release
the GDK lock. The 1x1 windo
--- Additional Comments From drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz
2005-08-18 01:56 ---
This bug seems to be fixed in gcc version 4.1.0 20050817 (experimental),
however it still seems to remain in gcc version 4.0.2 20050804 (prerelease).
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-18
00:42 ---
Yes, I posted a patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01678.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
23:53 ---
from the gcc-patches (since the archives look broken):
looking on recent copy of Intel optimization manual, it has the same
hint as AMD manual about 4 jumps per cache line.
I did SPEC run on the P4 and ther
The SPEC CPU2000 test vortex segfaults on powerpc64-linux with current
mainline for either -m32 or -m64 with -O2. It succeeds when compiled
with -fno-strict-aliasing. It's quite likely that this is due to
invalid code in vortex itself, but nothing jumped out at me. I'm
about to go on a two-week
--- Additional Comments From sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr
2005-08-17 23:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected real_cst, have
integer_cst in const_binop, at fold-const.c:1512
I'm testing this patch on amd64 and i686. I will commit it once
validate
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
23:17 ---
I just ran into this today while looking for a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfir
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
23:13 ---
The alignment is so the stupid processor (yes stupid) will not mis predict the
jump.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23448
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
23:11 ---
if (TARGET_FOUR_JUMP_LIMIT && optimize && !optimize_size)
ix86_avoid_jump_misspredicts ();
/* Some CPU cores are not able to predict more than 4 branch instructions in
the 16 byte window. */
const
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
23:07 ---
(note 81 50 85 NOTE_INSN_LOOP_END)
(note 85 81 105 [bb 6] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(insn 105 85 91 (unspec_volatile [
(const_int 4 [0x4])
] 68) -1 (nil)
(nil))
--
http://gcc.gnu
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-08-17 23:02 ---
Were you suggesting
.L5:
incl%edx
cmpl%edx, %ecx
je .L6
incl%edx
cmpl%edx, %ecx
jne .L5
was slower? Where does this information come from?
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
22:47 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Ok, now I can confirm it. The problem was I was using optimization.
> Anyways the short testcase:
Oh, I know why this testcase does not fail any more, because I made it double
c
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
22:34 ---
I have a patch wich fixes this bug but not 20681:
Index: gimple-low.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/gimple-low.c,v
retrieving revision 2.26
d
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
22:33 ---
Reopening as I have a fix for PR 20624 but this one is harder, there might be
others too.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-17
22:13 ---
Dumdelidum...
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |giovanni
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-17
21:59 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ev
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:57 ---
And next time don't attach a tar file as it is much harder to get at the
testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23448
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:54 ---
Not a bug, it is aligning the loop:
.L5:
incl%edx
cmpl%edx, %ecx
je .L6
incl%edx
cmpl%edx, %ecx
.p2align 4,,5
jne .L5
--
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:53 ---
Fixed on mainline. I'm not adding the patch to the gcc-4.0 release branch
without test results, which I am not interested in trying to generate.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:47 ---
FYI, this is the CFG for the test case of comment #13 at the point where
the warning is issued:
fpos seekoff(int, int) (b, c)
{
int finally_tmp.0;
struct g __buf;
struct fpos D.2120;
struct f
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-08-17 21:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=9522)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9522&action=view)
A testcase for gcc 4.0
Here is the testcase for gcc 4.0. x.s is generated with "-O2". x86-64
has the similar proble
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:44 ---
Subject: Bug 21684
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-17 21:43:50
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/mcore:
Gcc 4.0 and 4.1 generate .p2align before a jump instruction. minloc1_8_r8.o
in libgfortran has codes like
movl$1, 12(%ecx)
.p2align 4,,2
jmp .L19
--
Summary: .p2align before a jump instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Mareks Malnacs wrote:
> This is an error I get compiling latest gcc 4.1 snapshot (gcc-4.1-20050813)
This snapshot is broken. This bug is almost certainly already fixed on
mainline.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.specifix.com
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:08 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
21:06 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Still to be left as an exercise for the reader?
That is a different bug, see PR 23190.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
20:44 ---
Subject: Bug 23268
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-17 20:44:09
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386: i
--- Additional Comments From tomas dot vanek at fbl dot cz 2005-08-17
20:35 ---
It seems the same bug is in generating stabs for any global variable too.
Very easy test code var.c :-)
int var;
gcc -S -gstabs var.c
generates
.stabs "var:G(0,1)",32,0,0,0
gcc -S -gstabs -funit-at-
--- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2005-08-17 20:25 ---
Perhaps the message could be clearer or less ominous, e.g.
c.cc:4:15: warning: "??(" not changed, use -trigraphs to change it to "["
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23447
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
URL|
--- Additional Comments From paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
2005-08-17 20:07 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
>>unsigned outcnt;
>>extern void flush_outbuf(void);
>>
>>void
>>bi_windup(unsigned char *outbuf, unsigned char bi_b
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-08-17 19:41
---
Thanks, --with-comment seems to work, but it doesn't seem to be documented.
Grepping both the
documentation and source folder didn't find it; Googling for it turned it up in
the context of MySQL, but
not GCC.
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-08-17 19:31 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 08:03 +, bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
19:30 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The issue here is (produced inside the compiler):
> return ;
> goto ;
After removing that goto, we still have an issue with the label for D1792. I
wonder how ca
--
Bug 17464 depends on bug 17466, which changed state.
Bug 17466 Summary: Testsuites in gcc override LD_LIBRARY_PATH
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17466
What|Old Value |New Value
---
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-08-17 18:10 ---
Since this bug isn't considered serious, I just make sure that all my gcc
system libraries used by "make check" in gcc are current. I will close it.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-08-17 18:06 ---
FWIW, the bug is still there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
--- Additional Comments From abalkiss at redhat dot com 2005-08-17 18:03
---
bug fixed, closed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLV
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|graydon at redhat dot com |abalkiss at redhat dot com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
17:58 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct buffer_head {
char *b_data;
};
void asfs_deletebnode( struct buffer_head *bhsec) {
if (bhsec == 0) {
void *bnc2 = (void *) bhsec->b_data;
if (bnc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
17:08 ---
No ??( for [ is a trigraph. trigraphs are standard C++. We don't enable by
default because they get in
the way.
Use -Wno-trigraphs to remove the warning.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From enok at lysator dot liu dot se 2005-08-17
17:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=9521)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9521&action=view)
Testcase that is accepted by other compilers, but rejected by gfortran.
The output from gfortran follows
--
What|Removed |Added
Version|3.3.4 |3.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23447
Compiling the following program with g++ 3.4.4 produces the following warning
#include
main()
{
std::cout << "??(" << 1234 << ")";
}
c.cc:4:15: warning: trigraph ??( ignored, use -trigraphs to enable.
--
Summary: False trigraph warning about literal string.
Product: gcc
I'm trying to declare an internal subprogram array argument size using a local
variable inherited from the encompassing scope.
I think the declaration looks legal, but I'm not 100% sure. I just know that
many other compilers accepts it without warnings but gfortran says it's an
error.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:49 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks, I will check it tomorrow. However, this behavior is different from
> the
> gcc 3, documented nowhere and broke (in a very bad way) a large program with
> good reliabilit
--- Additional Comments From oakad at yahoo dot com 2005-08-17 16:47
---
Thanks, I will check it tomorrow. However, this behavior is different from the
gcc 3, documented nowhere and broke (in a very bad way) a large program with
good reliability record (so far). Can this be mentioned s
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:42 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23445
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:38 ---
No, the type of the local register variable is a pointer to a volatile "char"
(or struct) and not a volative
register.
You want:
register char*volatile cptr asm ("r29");
With that it works correctly.
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work||4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Additional Comments From bunk at stusta dot de 2005-08-17 16:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=9520)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9520&action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23445
I'm getting the ICE below when trying to compile the file fs/asfs/extents.c
Linux kernel 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 with a current CVS HEAD gcc.
As soon as I remove _one_ of the three options "-O1 -ftree-vrp
-fdelete-null-pointer-checks" the problem disappears.
<-- snip -->
...
$ /TMP/test/gcc/install/bin
--- Additional Comments From oakad at yahoo dot com 2005-08-17 16:31
---
Sorry, I misunderstood you. The function is a part of a large project (namely,
u-boot-1.1.3).
What about this:
//--
char str1[]="123456789";
char str2[10];
int
main()
{
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:25 ---
Confirmed reduced testcase:
double transport_sumexp(int numexp)
{
int k,j;
double xk1 = 1.0;
for(k=1; k<=numexp;k++)
for(j=1;j<=3;j++)
xk1 += 1.0;
return xk1;
}
--
What|Rem
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-08-17 16:10 ---
3.4.5 4.0.2 4.1.0 3.4->4.0 (%)4.0->4.1 (%)
hashes100.c:
O0 1.561.591.572.2-1.4
O1 2.544.234.49 66.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:06 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23433
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-08-17 15:59 ---
I reopen the bug because there is an other source file with the same ICE which
is not fixed by http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23391#c5
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Preprocessed source:
Of course that does not compile:
t.c:1: error: parse error before "bootflag"
t.c: In function `board_init_f':
t.c:3: error: syntax error before '*' token
t.c:5
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:55 ---
*** Bug 20681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20624
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:55 ---
This is a dup of bug 20624, see comment #13. I wonder why useless did not
remove the goto.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20624 ***
--
What|Removed |A
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:55 ---
Reduced new testcase:
struct fpos {
fpos(int __pos) {}
};
struct g {
g();
~g();
};
fpos seekoff(int b, int c)
{
g __buf;
if (b != -1 && c >= 0)
return fpos(-1);
else
return fpos(-1);
}
T
--- Additional Comments From oakad at yahoo dot com 2005-08-17 15:50
---
Preprocessed source:
//--
void board_init_f (ulong bootflag)
{
register volatile gd_t *gd asm ("r29");
bd_t *bd;
ulong len, addr, addr_sp;
gd_t *id;
init_fnc_
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:47 ---
Of course we need the preprocessed source for this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|powerpc-eabi-unknown|powerpc-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|powerpc-eabi-gcc|powerpc-eabi-unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
For a code:
//
void board_init_f (ulong bootflag)
{
register volatile gd_t *gd asm ("r29");
bd_t *bd;
ulong len, addr, addr_sp;
gd_t *id;
init_fnc_t **init_fnc_ptr;
gd=0xff55ff55;
__asm__ __volatile__("or 29, 29, 29");
memset ((void *) gd, 0, sizeof (gd_t));
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.2
Version|4.0.0 |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17845
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:10 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 already by doing the warnings for all functions with flow
control instead of just trying
adhack doing it.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||23442
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22001
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:08 ---
Another report is in PR 22001 for m68k-rtems but I don't know what host it is
on.
This might be a bug in the target files not understanding HWI as 64bits.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:01 ---
This is still a bug on the mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23371
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:01 ---
Fixed already in 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23442
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21436
--
Bug 17574 depends on bug 20155, which changed state.
Bug 20155 Summary: [4.0 Regression] libgcj build fails with "execvp: /bin/sh:
Argument list too long"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20155
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
14:56 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Hi,
The generic interface below is not being resolved correctly. The code looks
similar to bug fortran/23371, but I think it's a different cause. Version is
Debian 4.0.1-2.
Thanks,
Daniel.
module SYSTEM_MODULE
implicit none
interface unit_conversion_factor_
module procedure unit
Attempting to build a cross-compiler for m68k-unknown-elf on x86_64-linux-gnu
fails with an internal error:
/home/hamish/projects/rockbox/gcc-4/orig/build/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/hamish/projects/rockbox/gcc-4/orig/build/gcc/
-B/home/hamish/m68k-amd64/m68k-elf/bin/ -B/home/hamish/m68k-amd64/m68k-elf/lib/
When turning on optimizations (-O), the following code produces a wrong
"control may reach end of
non-void function" warning
inline float f(float x)
{
if ((x > 3.1415927) || (x<0))
return f(-x);
else
return 0;
}
float g(void)
{
return f(0);
}
--
Summary: wrong "contro
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
13:06 ---
what about times on 4.1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:58 ---
Fix committed to 4.0 branch as part of fixing PR20155
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to w
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
