http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50031
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #2 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46328
Damian Rouson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at rouson dot net
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49977
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-08-10
00:00:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24959 [details]
> patch
>
> Patch I'm testing.
Me too: fixes the bug with no regressions for cris-elf at r177605. Thanks.
What do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #34 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
22:00:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> The patches are wrong, so, I don't favor them. The patch to fix this, is the
> patch to either boost things to -fno-common, or to fix trim_filename.
I am
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: cr...@gcc.gnu.org
The following code fails to compile with
g++ (GCC) 4.7.0 20110809 (experimental) [trunk revision 177606]
template
class implicit {
private:
static From from_type();
static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-09 21:21:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> (In reply to comment #39)
> > Created attachment 24967 [details]
> > Patch that recognizes addresses, zero-extended with AND
> >
> > Attached patch adds recogni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50033
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #33 from Mike Stump 2011-08-09
20:58:15 UTC ---
The patches are wrong, so, I don't favor them. The patch to fix this, is the
patch to either boost things to -fno-common, or to fix trim_filename.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50033
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-09
20:59:33 UTC ---
G++ is correct, and EDG and Clang agree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44698
PcX changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xunxun1982 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 from Pc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 20:28:54
UTC ---
testing this (all languages, lto bootstrap, compare debug) on darwin 9.
will post comment 6 for review (it's a tidy up anyway unless there's some
gotcha reason for not doing it on some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-08-09
20:25:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is the
> "biggest alignment that any data type can require on this machine, in bits"
> "this is not the biggest alignment that is supp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49993
--- Comment #3 from Arnaud Desitter
2011-08-09 20:24:59 UTC ---
"static int ia[] = { 2 };" is equivalent to "integer, save :: ia(1) = (/ 2 /)".
Anyway, the C example was there to show that allocating a constant array in the
rodata section is poss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
20:23:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> So, the fix is trivial but you guys are wondering in the weeds. Make the
> symbols unique and be done with it, that, or remove one of them. You are
> gett
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50030
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Regression: sin optimized |sin optimized in sinf at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50033
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-09
19:51:15 UTC ---
ADL does not work this way. It only works when it is just a name and not a
template-id.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50033
Bug #: 50033
Summary: Failing ADL for template-id function call
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49948
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-08-09
19:27:12 UTC ---
Thanks, Ulrich fixed it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=177594
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50030
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-09
19:02:59 UTC ---
Regression from? Because 4.1.x already performed the transformation ;)
Not to say the issue can't be serious, but normally we use Regression in the
Summary only in the form [XXX Regre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #41 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-09 18:59:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Created attachment 24967 [details]
> Patch that recognizes addresses, zero-extended with AND
>
> Attached patch adds recognision of addresses, zero-extended wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 18:57:36
UTC ---
so, if we have no regressions from omitting the "-c" we might conclude that
things have changed since then ;-)
===
simple testcase:
$ cat /Volumes/ScratchCS/tests/statlib.c
int com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #40 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-09 18:50:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Created attachment 24967 [details]
> Patch that recognizes addresses, zero-extended with AND
>
> Attached patch adds recognision of addresses, zero-extended wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Menc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #39 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-09 18:37:37
UTC ---
Created attachment 24967
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24967
Patch that recognizes addresses, zero-extended with AND
Attached patch adds recognision of addresses,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #29 from Mike Stump 2011-08-09
17:55:15 UTC ---
>From the thread last time we talked about this code:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-12/msg01183.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 17:41:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> So, the fix is trivial but you guys are wondering in the weeds. Make the
> symbols unique and be done with it, that, or remove one of them. You are
> getti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50032
Summary: Bad optimization with sin/cos
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50029
nash,steve changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50031
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner 2011-08-09
17:38:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 24965
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24965
Patch to avoid the problem by optionally disabling vector 32-bit to 64-bit
conversions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50031
Summary: Sphinx3 has a 10% regression going from GCC 4.5 to GCC
4.6 on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #27 from Mike Stump 2011-08-09
17:29:28 UTC ---
So, the fix is trivial but you guys are wondering in the weeds. Make the
symbols unique and be done with it, that, or remove one of them. You are
getting hung up on darwin -c stuff, ig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50030
Summary: Regression: sin optimized in sinf at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #15 from Søren Holm 2011-08-09 17:19:06 UTC ---
Sweet. Thanks Martin :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2011-08-09
16:33:01 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Aug 9 16:32:59 2011
New Revision: 177604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177604
Log:
2011-08-09 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50029
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-09
16:13:53 UTC ---
>if TREE_CODE (base) == SSA_NAME, the TREE_TYPE (base) is void, which can
introduce segfault.
No, the TREE_TYPE of a SSA_NAME should be correct. I think you need to debug
why you hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022
Greta Yorsh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47653
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 15:40:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #23)
>
> > and ... watch out for the first case matching all darwin ;-) and the second
> > never firing.
>
> Why would you say that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-08-09
15:38:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Thanks for looking.
> hp, can you maybe answer the question about correctness for aligns
> bigger than BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT?
I'm not completely sure what y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50029
Summary: nowrap_type_p encounters void TREE_TYPE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
15:30:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> and ... watch out for the first case matching all darwin ;-) and the second
> never firing.
Why would you say that? I believe we have many instances of
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #24 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
15:27:34 UTC ---
Then you will also want to adjust the original toplevel configure change...
Author: mrs
Date: Fri Mar 19 10:19:52 2010
New Revision: 157563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth 2011-08-09 15:12:53 UTC
---
Created attachment 24963
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24963
corresponding assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2011-08-09 15:11:57 UTC
---
Created attachment 24962
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24962
reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 15:10:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-03
> 16:37:36 UTC ---
> So what values it printed? Did it print -2.0 and 9.0 in some iterations?
> The final merging
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45522
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-28 20:41:46 |2011-08-09 20:41:46
Summary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39870
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-09
14:58:53 UTC ---
VRP optimizes the testcase form comment #12, it doesn't optimize the original
one because there we deal with symbolic ranges.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 14:49:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> or more correctly just...
>
> Index: gcc/configure.ac
> ===
> --- gcc/configure.ac(revis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50028
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-09
14:39:44 UTC ---
that last link should be
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#undefined_reference_to_.60S::a.27
(I'm not sure why the "Permalink" doesn't work)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50026
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-09
14:35:27 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Aug 9 14:35:21 2011
New Revision: 177599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177599
Log:
2011-08-09 Vladimir Makarov
PR target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49990
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-09
14:35:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Aug 9 14:35:21 2011
New Revision: 177599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177599
Log:
2011-08-09 Vladimir Makarov
PR target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #22 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
14:35:18 UTC ---
or more correctly just...
Index: gcc/configure.ac
===
--- gcc/configure.ac(revision 177598)
+++ gcc/configure.ac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50028
--- Comment #4 from protocolocon 2011-08-09
14:32:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> and PR 42101
>
> and finally,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
Thanks for the fast replay and sorry for submitti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25145
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 14:26:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I wonder if addressing...
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42554#c15
>
> would help such that the change in r157563 is extended to gcc/confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #20 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
14:19:34 UTC ---
I wonder if addressing...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42554#c15
would help such that the change in r157563 is extended to gcc/configure[.ac]
would make any difference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50028
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-09
14:16:03 UTC ---
and PR 42101
and finally,
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 14:10:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> The radr://6320843, "duplicate symbols from static libraries not properly
> ignored", has been open since 26-Oct-2008. I later opened radr://6733684,
> "dupl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50028
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50028
--- Comment #1 from protocolocon 2011-08-09
13:55:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 24961
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24961
Intermediate assembly code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50028
Summary: Ternary operator and static const member variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #18 from Jack Howarth 2011-08-09
13:52:29 UTC ---
The radr://6320843, "duplicate symbols from static libraries not properly
ignored", has been open since 26-Oct-2008. I later opened radr://6733684,
"duplicate symbols in static libs no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #24 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-09
13:24:07 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 9 13:24:04 2011
New Revision: 177592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177592
Log:
Also permute zero-extend and addition of co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-09
13:22:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 24959
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24959
patch
Patch I'm testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #23 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-09
13:22:10 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 9 13:22:05 2011
New Revision: 177591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177591
Log:
Revert fix for PR middle-end/49721.
2011-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 13:15:26
UTC ---
the use of "-c" (for libbackend.a) was introduced by
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=84088
without any specific comment as to why it was done.
trying *-darwin9 and x8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24712|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #113 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 12:56:20 UTC ---
As you've probably seen, I've cleaned up and tested Marc's patches over
the weekend, threw some more testing (Solaris 8/9/10) in yesterday,
and posted the results
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 12:16:59 UTC ---
> I don't think it is the path, but it is possible I just didn't notice a
> not-enough temp space error; the other possibillity is some
> transient/intermittent er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 11:56:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > This is radar://6320843 "duplicate symbols from static libraries not
> > properly
> > ignored" revisiting us...
>
> hm I doub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50014
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe 2011-08-09 10:17:45
UTC ---
ld doesn't "ignore" anything - the rules it is (supposed) to use are there in
"man ld".
however suppose:
object.o : contains (public) symbols foo and bar
library.a : contains (public
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50026
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50027
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50021
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-09 08:27:16 UTC ---
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50021
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2011-08-08
> 20:48:51 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50016
好小爱新 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cgl_lgs at 163 dot com
--- Comment #11 from 好小爱新
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #38 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-09 07:38:07 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Aug 9 07:38:02 2011
New Revision: 177583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177583
Log:
PR target/49781
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #12 from Søren Holm 2011-08-09 07:37:30 UTC ---
Great. I asked because other bugfixes has been commited both places in a single
commit. :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2011-08-09
07:16:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Sweet, but why is it not applied to gcc-4_6-branch ?
Because I have started the final bootstrap and test on the branch only a few
minutes ago. If it succ
88 matches
Mail list logo
