http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #46 from Andreas To
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26207|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-01-11 07:34:22
UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Jan 11 07:34:16 2012
New Revision: 183090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183090
Log:
PR 51803 Handle getcwd failure and lack of the funct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dougmencken at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51819
Bug #: 51819
Summary: [4.7 Regression ]Neon wrong code generation, Error:
unsupported alignment for instruction -- `vst1.32
{d2[0]},[r0:64]'
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51804
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
--- Comment #5 from Douglas Mencken 2012-01-11
03:33:40 UTC ---
Fixed PR51801 fixes this issue too. Current checkout bootstraps successfully.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-11
03:04:57 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 11 03:04:49 2012
New Revision: 183088
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183088
Log:
PR c++/51614
* class.c (build_base_path): D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51818
Bug #: 51818
Summary: [C++0x] Name mangling error using lambda expressions
in GCC47
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51807
lei changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-10
23:54:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> This patch passes gfortran.dg/*elemental*, but fails on
> gfortran.dg/class_array_{1,2,3,7,9}.f03.
The problem is the way _copy is translated. One current
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51817
Bug #: 51817
Summary: [C++11] argument deduction fails when A-type
parameter-type-list has additional parameters
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37782
--- Comment #15 from Joseph S. Myers 2012-01-10
23:53:20 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 10 23:53:13 2012
New Revision: 183080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183080
Log:
Revert:
2008-09-18 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37451
--- Comment #9 from Joseph S. Myers 2012-01-10
23:53:19 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 10 23:53:13 2012
New Revision: 183080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183080
Log:
Revert:
2008-09-18 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51816
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-10
22:52:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> No error with r183001 (likely r183010, CCed Tobias).
It's actually only revealed by my patch - the bug is older. Try:
use foo, only : t, operator(*), t,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51816
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51816
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51816
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bur...@net-b.de
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51816
--- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf 2012-01-10 21:51:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> with today's (2010-01-10) I get the following error:
Of course I meant the trunk on 2012-01-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51816
Bug #: 51816
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Wrong error when use..., only :
operator() twice
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson 2012-01-10
21:40:22 UTC ---
Calls are especially problematic, yes. You've just fixed a bug
for branches; hopefully that's the last of them.
Though if it were a matter of preferences, I would expect that
ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51814
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39438
Timo Sirainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tss at iki dot fi
--- Comment #3 from Tim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-10
20:25:57 UTC ---
Jakub,
The POWER implementation of __sync_* was not written intentionally to violate
the documentation. I don't think those of us who implemented the feature on
POWER realized the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51673
--- Comment #11 from Pawel Sikora 2012-01-10 19:56:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Thanks guys. This looks good, and is in trunk.
>
> Pawel, thanks for noticing this. Please note that namespace versioning was
> updated for 4.7.x to bring
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51418
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #11 from Tim Williams 2012-01-10 19:45:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Thanks, Tobias. I did try out the gfortran 4.6.2 from here, and it does
> > compile
> > runnable code. Unfortunately, it still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51815
--- Comment #1 from Bill Long 2012-01-10 19:34:58 UTC
---
The "(coindexed )" bit at the end of the last line of the
Description does not apply here. It's just a here as the
.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-01-10
19:32:46 UTC ---
It twists my mind too, I meant 4.5, not 4.6, I don't have a working 4.6 here at
the moment. Thanks for doing the interp request. I hope this turns into a do
nothing solution.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51815
Bug #: 51815
Summary: confusing substring syntax with array section for
character coarray
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51814
--- Comment #2 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz 2012-01-10 19:23:31
UTC ---
After further testing it turns out that "make install -j8" produces the invalid
Ada installation and "make install" produces a working installation.
If I inst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50110
David Meggy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51745
--- Comment #4 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz 2012-01-10 18:59:06
UTC ---
If you input garbage into a compiler, it should report an error, not output
garbage.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43102
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51165
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=51166
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51168
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32192
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51165
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-10
18:54:55 UTC ---
*** Bug 51167 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51165
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-10
18:55:58 UTC ---
*** Bug 51168 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51167
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39820
--- Comment #8 from Justin P. Mattock
2012-01-10 18:54:37 UTC ---
Sounds good to me!
On Jan 10, 2012 10:39 AM, "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39820
>
> Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36485
--- Comment #4 from Pawel Sikora 2012-01-10 18:53:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is expected as you are expected to build all multilibs when building GCC
> for a cross really.
i'm using a --disable-multilib option for explicit/pure x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51165
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-10
18:53:12 UTC ---
*** Bug 51166 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40379
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40729
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39820
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38944
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35495
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-10
18:33:56 UTC ---
Jonathan,
I understand that the new __atomic_* builtins provide that flexibility.
I also am pointing out that GCC followed Intel semantics and Intel chose
semantics to benefit them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38630
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-10
18:22:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> IBM should have the freedom to choose memory
> models that benefit its architectures.
I meant to add that the new __atomic builtins give that freedom, by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49783
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Zhukov 2012-01-10 18:22:02
UTC ---
Hi Ludovic.
Have your patches approved by upstream?
I'm waiting for this because I cannot update gprbuild without correct sources
of GCC FSF... (libgnat, gnat_urils or smth else). Bes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51614
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-10
18:20:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> For the way that programmers use __sync_* builtins, release or acquire-release
> semantics are sufficient.
Are you claiming you know how all programmers h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn 2012-01-10 18:08:23
UTC ---
For the way that programmers use __sync_* builtins, release or acquire-release
semantics are sufficient. As we see in libstdc++, release semantics are overly
strict when incrementing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #26 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2012-01-10 18:06:28 UTC ---
Could someone toggle the state assign a milestone please?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51814
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-10
18:04:13 UTC ---
On the trunk this works for debian 5.0.3. Didn't you have to patch GCC to
support how the libraries are in debian 6.0 anyways?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin 2012-01-10
17:30:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 26296
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26296
Patch for the scalar cases, including the OOP ones (with CLASS).
This patch passes gfortran.dg/*elem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51814
Bug #: 51814
Summary: only 32-bit ada library is built on 64-bit system
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #24 from Tom Tromey 2012-01-10 17:21:02
UTC ---
I found my code and it turns out I never finished it.
(I did write a java-specific devirtualization pass.)
Here is an introductory comment that explains my plans:
/* This pass implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #23 from Tom Tromey 2012-01-10 17:17:50
UTC ---
I thought I wrote a pass to do this optimization, but I can't find it now.
Anyway I think that would be the simplest approach by far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-10 17:08:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The Java frontend could handle this by performing loads of the length field
> via a SAVE_EXPR and sharing this across a function. That way CSE would
> happ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-10
16:55:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
>
> > No. What you can do is, via the method I outlined, tell GCC that
> > args is to be treated similar to a local automatic variable - thus
> > it cann
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-10
16:57:36 UTC ---
The Java frontend could handle this by performing loads of the length field
via a SAVE_EXPR and sharing this across a function. That way CSE would
happen automagically.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37451
--- Comment #8 from Joseph S. Myers 2012-01-10
16:55:44 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:55:40 2012
New Revision: 183071
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183071
Log:
Revert:
2008-09-18 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37782
--- Comment #14 from Joseph S. Myers 2012-01-10
16:55:44 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:55:40 2012
New Revision: 183071
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183071
Log:
Revert:
2008-09-18 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-10
16:50:56 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:50:41 2012
New Revision: 183070
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183070
Log:
PR middle-end/51516
* trans-mem.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-10 16:44:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > (In reply to comment #15)
> > > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > > > We can't optimize this b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #4 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:44:24 UTC ---
Oh, a related, but different bug would be, if getcwd isn't on the system, or
fails, I think "." might be better than "", as we form getcwd '/' argv[0], and
that doesn't make a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #3 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:39:33 UTC ---
Mike Stump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-10
16:35:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > (In reply to comment #15)
> > > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > > > We can't optimize th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51810
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-01-10 16:32:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 26295
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26295
another reduced testcase
The testcase from Comment 4 doesn't work on my machine.
Here is anoth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-10
16:30:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > > We can't optimize this because System.out.println can ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51806
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51806
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-10
16:28:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:27:55 2012
New Revision: 183069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183069
Log:
2012-01-10 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley 2012-01-10 16:26:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > We can't optimize this because System.out.println can change args[].
> >
> > That's the whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|tree-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28547
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28233
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27043
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27308
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26313
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
