http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51743
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #3 from U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51715
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-04 01:24:39 UTC ---
I have a patch which I am testing.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51650
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51224
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|SRA should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #16 from davidxl 2012-01-04 00:28:55
UTC ---
A related topic - aliasing property of realloc -- the malloc attribute is not
applied in the glibc header and the comment is like
/* __attribute_malloc__ is not used, because if realloc re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips64-*-linux-gnu
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51748
Bug #: 51748
Summary: gcc.misc-tests/linkage.c fails on mips64-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51472
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51742
Steven Schweda changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sms at antinode dot info
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50276
--- Comment #5 from Joel Yliluoma 2012-01-03 23:16:07
UTC ---
It also accepts this code without complaints, which is another error:
template
bool test()
{
if (bool value = this_identifier_has_not_been_declared( []() {} ))
return value;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50276
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-03
23:01:53 UTC ---
But actually the test in Comment #1 (and #3) is rejected if test isn't a
template, thus looks like an accepts-invalid, miscompiled.
The first testcase is not. Probably the issues are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50276
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51747
Bug #: 51747
Summary: [C++11] cannot call copy constructor using
list-initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
ads=posix --enable-symvers=gnu --enable-c99
--enable-long-long --enable-target-optspace
target_alias=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi --enable-languages=c++ --disable-shared
--disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120103 (experimental) [trunk revision 182858] (GCC)
r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51745
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-03
21:48:19 UTC ---
In other words:
$ echo foo | gcc -E - -o - "-Dfoo bar"
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
bar 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-linux, |sparc64-linux,
|ia6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51745
Bug #: 51745
Summary: Strange symbol appears when using commandline
definition without "="
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51006
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-03
21:39:49 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jan 3 21:39:46 2012
New Revision: 182860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182860
Log:
2012-01-02 Jonathan Wakely
PR bootstrap/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51006
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
--- Comment #18 from Ryan Mansfield 2012-01-03
21:24:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> That doesn't look related to this. Can you open a PR for that, attach
> preprocessed source and list gcc options, so that it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-03
20:57:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 3 20:57:29 2012
New Revision: 182858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182858
Log:
PR bootstrap/51725
* cselib.c (new_elt_loc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
Ryan Mansfield changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rmansfield at qnx dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-03 20:25:25 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jan 3 20:25:16 2012
New Revision: 182856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182856
Log:
/gcc/cp
2012-01-03 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51743
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2012-01-03
20:11:43 UTC ---
Uh... can you even force ia64-linux to run in big-endian mode?
Just because you said -mbig-endian doesn't mean it is. I don't
see anything in the linux kernel that allows per-proc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51744
Bug #: 51744
Summary: Erroneous warning: memset used with constant zero
length parameter
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51740
Szókovács Róbert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #2 from Szókovács R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30539
--- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Bangerth 2012-01-03
19:11:09 UTC ---
Excellent, and thanks! It's good to see that some of the 5+ year old reports
are still being closed on occasion :-)
(Although I have to say that this one was one of the more humor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-03 19:05:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> >
> > I can reproduce it with
> > -O -m32
> > on x86-64-linux.
>
> Fine you can reproduce it easily.
>
>
> > In ter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
--- Comment #14 from Rainer Orth 2012-01-03 18:58:14
UTC ---
Your additional fix also restores Go bootstrap on Solaris/SPARC, otherwise
the 64-bit libgo fails to build:
libtool: compile: /var/gcc/regression/trunk/11-gcc/build/./gcc/gccgo
-B/var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-linux, ia64-*-linux |sparc64-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom.prince at ualberta dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-03
18:06:28 UTC ---
Hmm, adding CONST_DECLs into varpool would be fun: we would have to ensure that
most of target machinery is ready to output CONST_DECLs promoted to hidden vars
by ltrans partitioning + t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49710
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-03
17:52:04 UTC ---
Hi,
after some discussion with Zdenek, it seems that the problem is wrong
assumption in remove_path that the only loops removed are at the top of loop
hiearchy. It is not true here, sin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51696
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #12 from Ozkan Sezer 2012-01-03 16:54:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> It's also questionable to cause new warnings to appear on the branch if
> you consider code using -Werror.
gcc-4.4 used to warn (see bug 50950), therefore i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51681
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||51743
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51743
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41596
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-03 16:49:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Iain, what's going on with this issue? Are there patches on the mailing list
> waiting to be reviewed?
well .. I posted it (years?) ago .. and AFAIR, it didn
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes50
# of unexpected failures14
# of unresolved testcases 2
# of unsupported tests 224
/home/uros/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.7.0 20120103 (experimental) [trunk
revision 182829] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51675
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39796
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51666
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41596
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-03
16:37:07 UTC ---
Iain, what's going on with this issue? Are there patches on the mailing list
waiting to be reviewed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51742
Bug #: 51742
Summary: 4.6.2 v. HP-UX 11.11, PA-RISC: "make bootstrap-lean"
fails: "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault"
(In function '__fixunssfdi')
Classification: Unclas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-03
16:24:00 UTC ---
Managed to reproduce this even using x86_64-linux -> ia64-linux cross.
Indeed, what happens is that when add_mem_for_addr is called, mem_elt is still
its own canonical_cselib_val, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30539
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-03
15:53:13 UTC ---
noone's insulted and noone's flaming, but in future please follow the bug
reporting guidelines (and maybe check with someone who knows C well before
assuming the compiler is wrong, e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
--- Comment #5 from stfu&thnk 2012-01-03 15:47:08 UTC ---
yeah i just realised how the second one was a fail of my side.
but I didn't realze the rvalue lvalue stuff.
thanx for the help, and please don't go all pissed off I didn't want to insult
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51541
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29273
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29273
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-03 15:29:47 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jan 3 15:29:42 2012
New Revision: 182851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182851
Log:
/cp
2012-01-03 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
15:28:25 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 3 15:28:19 2012
New Revision: 182850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182850
Log:
2012-01-03 Richard Guenther
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-03
15:25:32 UTC ---
The bug reporting guidelines at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ ask for the following
which you have not provided:
* the exact version of gcc
* the exact command line
* the complete prepro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
--- Comment #3 from stfu&thnk 2012-01-03 15:23:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> as soon as you cast the .where pointer to some other type it converts to
> an rvalue. Use (knot*)&(where) instead of &(knot *)(...where).
I don't know how t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
--- Comment #2 from stfu&thnk 2012-01-03 15:21:26 UTC ---
I fail &secon one. forgot a * -.-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51740
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||szo at szo dot hu
--- Comment #11 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51741
Bug #: 51741
Summary: complicatet brakets wont compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-03
15:00:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Uhm, is it simply that cp_parser_postfix_open_square_expression doesn't
> handle:
>
> postfix-expression [ braced-init-list ]
>
> or I'm misreading the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21120
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
14:46:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 3 14:46:03 2012
New Revision: 182848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182848
Log:
2012-01-03 Richard Guenther
Backport f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51740
Bug #: 51740
Summary: warning "is used uninitialized in this function" is
missing if the variable initialized later
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49279
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49279
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
13:54:48 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 3 13:54:44 2012
New Revision: 182846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182846
Log:
2012-01-03 Richard Guenther
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51722
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-03
13:45:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 3 13:45:41 2012
New Revision: 182845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182845
Log:
PR pch/51722
* dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_star
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51269
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
13:29:56 UTC ---
It's also questionable to cause new warnings to appear on the branch if
you consider code using -Werror. Leaving open a bit for further consideration,
should be closed as fixed fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belyshev at depni dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51269
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-03 13:24:12 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Tue Jan 3 13:24:04 2012
New Revision: 182844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182844
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51269
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
13:19:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 3 13:19:28 2012
New Revision: 182843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182843
Log:
2012-01-03 Richard Guenther
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49907
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49907
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
13:15:25 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 3 13:15:21 2012
New Revision: 182842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182842
Log:
2012-01-03 Richard Guenther
Backpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-03
13:08:02 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 3 13:07:57 2012
New Revision: 182841
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182841
Log:
2011-05-18 Richard Guenther
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini 2012-01-03 13:06:50
UTC ---
You can just set enable_static=no early in libstdc++-v3/configure.ac. It will
still install libstdc++-v3.a, which is a bit ugly, but that's quite hard to
achieve due to libtool.
One
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49693
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-03
12:36:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Testing this patch:
which doesn't work.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51715
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
