I tried to build avr-gcc 4.1.1 but i got an error message:
../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/. -I../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/../libcpp/include -DL_fixunssfsi -c
../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/libgcc2.c -o libgcc/./_fixunssfsi.o
../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__fixunssfsi':
../../gcc-4.1.
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 06:48 ---
I'll look into this.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 05:00 ---
I don't think this is valid code, reduced testcase:
template class a
{
~a();
};
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29408
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:57 ---
Works in 4.0.x and above so closing as fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #37 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-10-10 04:54 ---
Additionally, you can petition ISO/C++ to provide a more elegant solution for
you.
VxWorks also does 16-byte alignment on ppc (for altivec) as I recall.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15795
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:51 ---
ALL_GTFILES_H should have included gt-c-pragma.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29402
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:38 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:38 ---
Subject: Bug 28349
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Oct 10 04:38:25 2006
New Revision: 117595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117595
Log:
2006-10-09 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR C+
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:31 ---
foo should not have been injected by the friend.
Note the Priority should be only changed by the release manager.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:27 ---
Here's the right combination of flags that warns (for f3() only):
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -Winit-self -Wuninitialized -O2 -c
x.cc
x.cc: In function ‘void f3()’:
x.cc:42: warning: ‘d3$c$v’ is used uni
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:24 ---
Your expectations are wrong. You probably believe that here
-
void f3()
{
D d3;
printf("3) getValue() -> %d,", d3.getValue());
{
D d3 = d3;
printf("getValue() -> %d\n", d3.getV
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:13 ---
btw, this only happens if Q is really a template template argument. As noted
by the original reporter, the problem goes away if Q is simply a template
argument.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=292
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:11 ---
Confirmed:
--
template struct A {};
template class P>
struct B {
template class Q>
friend bool foo (const B& a);
};
template class Q>
bool foo (const B& a);
void bar () {
B a;
foo (a);
}
--
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:00 ---
The standard does not provide to explicitly specify the template
arguments of a constructor invocation. The syntax
name
refers to a template class 'name' with template argument 'type', not
to a template constructor 'n
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:56 ---
Indeed can't reproduce on x86.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29297
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:54 ---
Confirmed. The code makes sense and we shouldn't unconditionally warn.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:51 ---
Confirmed:
--
struct S { void operator () (); };
void foo ()
{
( S()() );
}
--
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc: In function ‘void foo()’:
x.cc:5: error: ‘type
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:44 ---
Confirmed. Not a useful extension because confusing:
-
struct A;
struct B {
B (const A&);
};
struct A {
operator B() const;
};
A a;
B b1 = a;// xpass
---
g/x> /home/ban
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:36 ---
*** Bug 28990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:36 ---
This is in fact a duplicate of PR 20039.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20039 ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:26 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > 3.4.4 (or 3.4.6) are the system compilers on FreeBSD-5.x and FreeBSD-6.x
> So what, we are talking about the FSF GCC and not freebsd and 3.4.x is no
> longer mainta
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-10-10
01:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=12401)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12401&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29408
works with 4.0.4, 4.1.1, 4.2.0, fails with 4.1 branch 20061008
$ g++ -c -Wall -fPIC -fexceptions -frtti -I/usr/include/python2.3
-I/usr/share/python2.3/CXX -I/usr/include/subversion-1 -I/usr/include/apr-1.0
-I. -DNDEBUG -o pysvn.o pysvn.cpp
/usr/include/python2.3/CXX/Objects.hxx:1932: error: parse
--- Comment #2 from rpx at wp dot pl 2006-10-10 00:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=12400)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12400&action=view)
the output of preprocessor
the bug appears with -mips16 compilation option; the compiler seams to be
sensitive on the number
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 23:53 ---
Subject: Bug 29095
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Oct 9 23:53:35 2006
New Revision: 117589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117589
Log:
2006-10-09 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #2 from fox at crisp dot demon dot co dot uk 2006-10-09 22:02
---
Sorry guys - yes a hopelessly stupid bug on my behalf. Feel free to remove this
report!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29406
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 21:45 ---
Note this issue is not c++ or libstdc++ specific. I see timeouts on old
hardware all over the testsuite on gcc-testresults.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28870
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-09 21:22 ---
Undefined behavior, i.e., anything can happen: array sq has got positions 0..8
whereas d = n % 10 spans 0..9, thus the code writes beyond the end of sq.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 20:58 ---
William, can you reproduce this problem with a newer GCC? I have tried several
versions of GCC and all I get is an error from shmget (Invalid argument).
Given that the shmget fails, the memcpy is obviously going to be
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:58 ---
Fixed on trunk (until someone tells me ldexp doesn't exist)
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:57 ---
Fixed on trunk (until someone tells me ldexp doesn't exist).
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 15441
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 9 20:55:29 2006
New Revision: 117584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117584
Log:
2006-10-06 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* gfor
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 29312
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 9 20:55:29 2006
New Revision: 117584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117584
Log:
2006-10-06 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* gfort
---
program main
implicit none
contains
subroutine my
end subroutine my
subroutine bar
integer :: my
namelist /ops/ my
end subroutine bar
end program main
---
gives in gfortran the error message:
namelist /ops/ my
1
Error: PROCEDURE att
--- Comment #3 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-10-09 20:11 ---
Subject: Re: implicit type declaration and contained function
clash
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>(BTW I added you to the CC list, it is kinda hard to answer in the right place
>otherwise)
>
>
Oh s**t - ne
--- Comment #2 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-10-09 19:46 ---
Making the major.minor number (4.1, 4.2,...) part of the name sounds quite
fine to me!
(Sorry for the delay in responding to your question, Tom. I've been out last
week.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
I was writing a magic squares program for my sons homework and somewhat
surprised/annoyed that gcc-4.1.1 and 4.0.3 have a horrible code generation bug.
Compiled with -O or -O2 on gcc-4.0.3 the following code infinitely loops.
gcc-4.1.1 with no optimisation works, but -O2 fails. Local variable "n" i
--- Comment #14 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 18:31 ---
With the patch I just checked in, I believe that this defect is now fixed.
The uses of GetIPInfo in libstdc++ and libjava were fixed earlier, this latest
patch fixes the use in unwind-c.c and that should be it.
--
sj
--- Comment #22 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 18:27 ---
Backported the change to 4.1 and 4.0 branches. Closing as fixed.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:26 ---
Subject: Bug 28490
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:26:35 2006
New Revision: 117583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117583
Log:
PR target/28490
Backport from mainline
2006-
--- Comment #20 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:24 ---
Subject: Bug 28490
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:24:32 2006
New Revision: 117582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117582
Log:
PR target/28490
Backport from mainline
2006-
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:04:18 2006
New Revision: 117581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117581
Log:
2006-10-09 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
*** Bug 28793 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 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 11407.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11407 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
Reopening for a second to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:28 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> --disable-bootstrap is not really supported and really has not been tested any
> more besides cross builds.
Andrew please reread my initial report, I specifically talked about
"three-stage b
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What platform are you compiling on?
sorry, it's on sparc-sun-solaris2.10, using vendor's cc for stage1. You
probably won't see this problem if stage1 cc is any version of gcc, whether
vendo
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:22 ---
--disable-bootstrap is not really supported and really has not been tested any
more besides cross builds.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29404
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:18 ---
Initial patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00416.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29405
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:16 ---
I decided to explore including GMP/MPFR in the GCC tree. Dependency PR 29405
opened to track that enhancement.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
I'm using this to track issues related to including GMP/MPFR in the GCC source
tree and building these libraries as part of the bootstrap process.
Initial discussion started here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00136.html
--
Summary: GCC should include latest GMP/MPFR sources a
--- Comment #1 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-10-09
17:00 ---
What platform are you compiling on?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29404
When I run "make check" on a three-stage bootstrapped tree, I get errors from
libiberty's testsuite:
cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I..
-I../../../egcc-SVN20061008/libiberty/testsuite/../../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I.. -o test-pexecute
../../../egcc-SVN20061008/libiberty/testsuite/test-pexecute.c ../libi
--- Comment #7 from ramana dot radhakrishnan at codito dot com 2006-10-09
16:33 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
flow.c is responsible for generating POST_INCs and POST_MODIFY's in 3.4 / 4.0 /
4.1 / 4.2 . I believe this is being replaced by the new data flow bits in the
data flow branch. T
>From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00274.html
gfortran shows:
print ('(z20.8)'), i
1
Error: Syntax error in PRINT statement at (1)
The (optional) parentheses are allow (see below) and it works in ifort, NAG f95
and g95.
>From Fortran 2003 standard Section 9.5 and 9.5.1.1:
R91
--- Comment #25 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-10-09
16:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Timeouts in libstdc++, libjava and libgomp
testsuites
> Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I
> can
> see what you are talking about WR
When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and I try a parallel make -j4, I get
the following error inside the gcc directory:
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `gt-c-pragma.h', needed by `c-pragma.o'.
Stop.
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
If I do a "make -j4 -k" it still gets the e
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:11
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 29254
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 9 16:10:38 2006
New Revision: 117577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117577
Log:
2006-10-09 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29323
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00458.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:06 ---
Mine.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #13 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug 27880
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 15:55:38 2006
New Revision: 117576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117576
Log:
PR target/27880
* unwind-c.c (PERSONALITY_FUNCTION):
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 14:58 ---
Confirmed. Ok for x86_64:
f:
.LFB2:
movslq %edi,%rdi
movslq %esi,%rsi
imulq %rdi, %rsi
sarq$15, %rsi
movl%esi, %eax
ret
We are expanding (int) ((long lon
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 14:25 ---
The frontend marks foo () TREE_STATIC in start_preparsed_function () and later
TREE_NOTHROW in finish_function () because
/* If this function can't throw any exceptions, remember that. */
if (!processing_templa
--- Comment #10 from v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz 2006-10-09 14:16
---
Shouldn't the "Known to fail" field get all the versions from its duplicates
copied? Maybe that is why this rejects-valid bug is still not fixed even though
most other rejects-valid bugs get a lot of attention
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 13:04 ---
We have
bool
decide_is_variable_needed (struct cgraph_varpool_node *node, tree decl)
{
/* If the user told us it is used, then it must be so. */
if (node->externally_visible || node->force_output)
return tr
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-10-09 12:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> looks similar to PR26674.
>
oops, please ignore this comment.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-10-09 12:57 ---
looks similar to PR26674.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Hi.
There is a regression on i386 platforms.
int f(int a, int b)
{return (((long long) a) * b) >> 15;}
The gcc 4.0/4.1 generates with "-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer"
movl8(%esp), %eax
imull 4(%esp)
shrdl $15, %edx, %eax
sarl$15, %edx
ret
While gc
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:44
---
And while I'm there, a few possibly related bugs:
$ cat pr29400-2.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
logical :: l(2)
l = any(i==1,2)
end
$ gfortran pr29400-2.f90 && ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: rank o
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:36
---
The generated code for:
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
integer :: j(1)
j = lbound(any(i==1,2))
end
is weird:
MAIN__ ()
{
int4 j[1];
_gfortran_set_std (70, 127, 0);
{
int8 S.0;
S.0 = 1;
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:24 ---
The minimal fix is to not verify_cgraph_node if errorcount || sorrycount.
Bailing out earlier has interesting side-effects it seems.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
I found that bug while reducing PR29391, so it might be related (but I doubt
it).
$ cat a6.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
write(*,*) lbound(any(i==1,2)), ubound(any(i==1,2))
write(*,*) lbound(count(i==1,2)), ubound(count(i==1,2))
write(*,*) lbound(matmul(i,i))
end
$ gfortran a6.f90
--- Comment #4 from tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:46 ---
Confirmed. gcc 3.4 and 4.2 work, 4.0 and 4.1 fail.
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:39
---
The same thing is true for all the array manipulation functions:
integer :: i(-1:1,-1:1) = 0
integer :: j(-1:2) = 0
! This is working correctly
write(*,*) lbound(i(-1:1,-1:1)), ubound(i(-1:1,-1:1))
wri
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:34 ---
As I said, I ran into this when playing around with PR29267, and it was ugly
enough to warrant a PR of its own. Glad you share my opinion :-) Just to make
this clear: I would never do something this ugly outside bugzi
--- Comment #7 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:14 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> please try the testcase in the orignal PR with idental string lengths. It will
> crash gfortran as well.
Works for me. Please provide a testcase.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/pr/29267> cat t.f90
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:50 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 9 10:49:50 2006
New Revision: 117571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117571
Log:
2006-10-09 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #24 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:32 ---
Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I can
see what you are talking about WRT mutex initialization, and have high hopes
for the attached patch. If you can try it, and let me know t
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:28 ---
Can you provide a testcase where something goes wrong?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #23 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12399)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12399&action=view)
patch for mutex init
Can you try this? thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29118
--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-10-09 08:28 ---
Subject: Re: Adding tasking support for arm-linux
> ... well, I can see differences, but is there any definite way of finding out,
> how the C structures actually look like? Do I have to hunt this up in the
> glibc sou
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 08:22
---
One point to remember is that C does not allow re-using of storage with a
different type (which is what PR29272 is about and why that testcase is
invalid).
The storage type is either the declared one or the one as
84 matches
Mail list logo
