--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 07:27 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 07:26 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 07:25 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 07:24 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.1.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 07:24 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.1 - note that argument conformity checking has still to
be done.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 21256
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 14 06:31:08 2006
New Revision: 109698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109698
Log:
2006-01-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 20868
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 14 06:31:08 2006
New Revision: 109698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109698
Log:
2006-01-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 20870
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 14 06:31:08 2006
New Revision: 109698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109698
Log:
2006-01-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 22146
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 14 06:31:08 2006
New Revision: 109698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109698
Log:
2006-01-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 25029
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 14 06:31:08 2006
New Revision: 109698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109698
Log:
2006-01-14 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:04 ---
Janis could you do a regression hunt on this bug?
I think this started after "2004-05-30" but I don't know for sure.
Thanks,
Andrew
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 06:01 ---
Janis could you do a regression hunt on this bug?
Thanks,
Andrew
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 05:58 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Second, please give me some time to look at; I've just returned from a
> one-week offsite. I've not forgotten about this issue.
Only two other maintainers of C++ have to say that this pat
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 05:57
---
I think this should get higher than a P2 as this is a rejects valid and I even
identified which patch caused the regression. CCing Mark. Also the regression
which that patch fixed was an accepts invalid and just
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 05:50
---
This seems like it should be higher than P2 as this is valid code and it is
rejected. CCing Mark. Also this was set P2 by default (before the default was
P3).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #5 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-14 04:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Trouble parsing nested
templated constructor calls
Richard --
First, please respect my request that only the RM set priority fields
for bugs. Therefore, please set this back t
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 04:48 ---
Not a bug, please read about alignment and ABI's.
If you want the struct to be packed use -fpack-struct.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
I've tested it with gcc 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 4.0.2
#include
struct S{
char c;
int i;
};
void main()
{
printf("%u\n",sizeof(struct S));
}
this prints out "8" instead of "5", if I change the int to short it's "4", if I
replace char by short its the same.
If I add char s to the st
--- Comment #40 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-14
00:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info
failed
> --- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:51
> ---
> I wonder if HP-PA should not just
--- Comment #8 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 00:12
---
Created an attachment (id=10639)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10639&action=view)
Patch to fix the bug.
Attached a patch that fixes the problem on x86 and a cross-compiler to sparc64.
I int
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 00:10 ---
Hmm, not sure... Consider this modified test case:
nion setconflict
{
short a[20];
int b[10];
};
int
foo (void)
{
int sum = 0;
{
struct A { union setconflict u; } a;
short *c;
c = a.u.a;
asm
--- Comment #39 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 23:39 ---
We should do the following:
Index: cfgloopmanip.c
===
--- cfgloopmanip.c (revision 108361)
+++ cfgloopmanip.c (working copy)
@@ -1419,7 +1419
--- Comment #38 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 23:28 ---
s/which is not supposed to appear on trees/which is not supposed to appear on
RTL/
The EDGE_{TRUE,FALSE}_VALUE flags are for tree-ssa only. On RTL they have no
meaning. We should probably add a check for this in r
--- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 23:26 ---
I think I know what the problem is. At the point where we error in cfgrtl, we
have the following basic block:
Breakpoint 3, rtl_verify_flow_info_1 () at cfgrtl.c:2051
2051 error ("wrong amount of branc
--- Comment #25 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:44 ---
We could remove the LD_PRELOAD entry during libgcj startup.
Would that work?
I am concerned about comment #23 though -- we can get a list of
all the version numbers we need, I suppose, but it seems awfully
fragile.
--- Comment #36 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:29
---
But this ICE is fixed or papered over on both the 4.1 branch and trunk now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #11 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-01-13 22:20 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on valid code with labels
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:15:13PM -, aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Should the warning be made consistent between fixed- and free form?
>
--- Comment #16 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:19 ---
Fix confirmed by Steve Kargl, closing.
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:15 ---
Should the warning be made consistent between fixed- and free form?
Both the gfc_warning vs. gfc_warning_now and the strings are not consistent.
Fixed Form has:
gfc_warning ("Statement label in blank line will be ign
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:11 ---
Like consider the case of
void foo(void)
{
struct A { union U u; } a; struct B { union U u; } b;
}
with a same-type union wrapped in different structs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25654
--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:09 ---
After too much trial-and-error, and thinking about it some more, I think we
should approach this as a SMS or powerpc bug. The code that Mustafa changed
makes us reject the RTL equivalent of "if (a) goto b; b: ...",
--- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:06
---
With gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20060109 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) I can no longer
reproduce the PPC ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 22:04 ---
I think we need to add a conflict if type_i and type_j are or contain a union
of the same type.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25654
--- Comment #33 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:55
---
Created an attachment (id=10638)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10638&action=view)
dump files for the ppc ICE
Attached dump files for ppc -O -fmodulo-sched -da.
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051211 (prere
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25663
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:30 ---
I wonder if this problem can also be triggered without using two variables of
the same union type. There is code in add_alias_set_conflicts to avoid the
situation we're running into:
static void
add_alias_set_confli
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:10 ---
Committed the fix to trunk. I'll wait a few days for 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25756
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 21:09 ---
Subject: Bug 25756
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 13 21:09:24 2006
New Revision: 109674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109674
Log:
2006-01-13 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fort
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 20:57 ---
As agreed with Tobi, the commit of the patch to 4.1 for this PR will happen
tomorrow morning. As it happens, it is regtesting as I write.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25029
--- Comment #5 from test_code at yahoo dot com dot cn 2006-01-13 20:57
---
Created an attachment (id=10637)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10637&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25781
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-13 20:10 ---
Fixed on 4.1 and trunk
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-01-13 20:09 ---
Confirmed on 4.0.2 release, fixed on 4.1 and trunk:
gcc version 4.1.0 20060102 (prerelease)
gcc version 4.2.0 20060112 (experimental)
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:58 ---
no feedback. apparently GNU Binutils is the problem.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:58 ---
Technically, all of the transformations noted by Joost are
a violation of the Fortran standard with the possible
exception of the transformation of x**(1./3.) to cbrt(x).
See 7.1.7.2.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot o
--- Comment #5 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:56 ---
no feedback. apparently the problem was XLC bootstrap.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #32 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-01-13
19:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info
failed
> First, we need the following patch to try_simplify_condjump.
Excellent progress.
I was going to say that I can reprod
--- Comment #31 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:24 ---
First, we need the following patch to try_simplify_condjump.
-
Index: cfgcleanup.c
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 19:16 ---
I just noticed this one: As of tonight (20061301), trunk gives
In file pr25029.f90:3
a = 1.e0
1
Error: The upper bound in the last dimension must appear in the reference to
the assumed size array 'a' at (1)
T
--- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:51 ---
I wonder if HP-PA should not just make targetm.cannot_modify_jumps_p return
true after reload...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:50 ---
I bet it is related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00690.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
FAIL: ext/pb_assoc/example/ds_traits.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING: ext/pb_assoc/example/ds_traits.cc compilation failed to produce
executable
appeared on mainline between 20060112 and 20060113. On x86-linux it's an
internal compiler error.
--
Summary: [4.2 Regression
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:43 ---
I should note I also found a related bug relating to accepting invalid code for
present, see PR 25097.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25785
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:42 ---
Looking at how we deal with all this, we seem to like pow() very much during
folding, even doing the reverse transformations you suggest. The
transformation
back to sqrt ( x**N ) with N being an integer could be don
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:40 ---
It is not just derived types, it is also arrays too:
The following is invalid code and should be rejected.
subroutine my_sio_file_write_common(data_c1)
real, intent(in), optional :: data_c1(4)
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-13 18:15 ---
another example:
REAL*8 :: a,b
read(6,*) a
b=a**(3.D0/2.D0)
write(6,*) b
END
gets computed by ifort as
b=a*sqrt(a)
but this is also turned into pow by gfortran at -O3 -ffast-math
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #4 from berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2006-01-13 18:10 ---
The code compiles OK on 4.0 and newer.
--
berndtrog at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 18:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It also fails with a "double precision" argument -
Right it is just an assumed size issue and not related at all to character or
any other type. I might take a look soon.
--
pinskia a
--- Comment #2 from dir at lanl dot gov 2006-01-13 18:06 ---
It also fails with a "double precision" argument -
[dranta:~/tests/gfortran-D] dir% gfortran -c present02.f90
In file present02.f90:3
if (present(data_c1)) then
1
Error: The upper bound in the last
--- Comment #29 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:56 ---
Re. comment #26, Dave: I think that Mustafa's patch is actually correct, but
I'm not sure. I _can_ reproduce the HPPA problem (at least, I used to be able
to reproduce it when I still had access to a HPPA box), but
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||25785
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever C
Just a meta-bug for assumed length problems since it seems like there are more
than 2 of them and they are semi related.
--
Summary: [meta-bug] assumed length problems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code, rej
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:47 ---
Confirmed, this is only with assumed length and not with assumed shape or
already known shape.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #28 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:48 ---
I am unable to reproduce the PowerPC SMS ICE with an AMD64 x PowerPC compiler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
--prefix=/Users/dir/gfortran
--enable-languages=c,f95
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060113 (experimental)
--
Summary: gfortran - incorrectly issues an error on tests for
optional arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-13 17:38 ---
I just note that ifort generates this in the asm
for a**(1./3.):
call cbrtf
and for a**(1.D0/3.D0)
call cbrt
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25620
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-01-13 17:33 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This needs to be done by the frontend, as the folded 2/3 or 4/3 is not exactly
> representable in the target FP format (and such cannot be checked for).
> Making
> this a frontend bug, rather
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 17:26 ---
This is most likely a divide by zero or some other undefined code inside GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25781
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 16:44 ---
This needs to be done by the frontend, as the folded 2/3 or 4/3 is not exactly
representable in the target FP format (and such cannot be checked for). Making
this a frontend bug, rather than just closing as WONTFIX
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 16:37 ---
Actually I take back my comment about with -ffast-math only as Fortran rules
are way different from C and C++.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-01-13 16:15
---
The host is Windows.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 16:00 ---
Subject: Bug 25771
Author: dberlin
Date: Fri Jan 13 16:00:13 2006
New Revision: 109669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109669
Log:
2006-01-13 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tr
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:54 ---
*** Bug 25784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21971 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:50
---
*** Bug 15552 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:50
---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:49
---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:48
---
*** Bug 14376 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:48 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47
---
*** Bug 15111 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
To Close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47
---
*** Bug 15372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
Close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:47 ---
Reopening to
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46
---
*** Bug 16067 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
Reopening to
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
Reopening to ..
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46
---
*** Bug 16577 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:46 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45
---
*** Bug 16709 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
*** Bug 22588 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:45 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
*** Bug 23735 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
To close as a dup of bug 12970.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12970 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-13 15:44 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
