http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52093
Bug #: 52093
Summary: Extra parenthesis with Size and Shape functions
argument cause internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48026
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-02
06:14:55 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.2/gcc/Incomplete-Enums.html#Incomplete-Enums
>From the sound of it, the declaration using the incomplete enum should have
been rejected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126
--- Comment #4 from Steven Fuerst 2012-02-02
06:11:27 UTC ---
Two more cases for simple boolean logic optimizations.
gcc-4.7 produces with -O3 for
int test_and(long long x, long long y)
{
return x && y;
}
test %rsi, %rsi
setne %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33047
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51747
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52092
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-02
05:56:30 UTC ---
Here is a slightly more reduced testcase (which only has one function):
int a,b,c,d,e,f,g;
void fn16 ()
{
for (;;)
{
int *h = 0;
int **j = &h;
if (e)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52092
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126
Steven Fuerst changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||svfuerst at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52092
Bug #: 52092
Summary: ICE: internal consistency failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|ICE: verify_gimp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
Bug #: 52091
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52090
Bug #: 52090
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-4.c -O2
-g thread simulation test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50804
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-02-02
03:01:09 UTC ---
Also fails on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu without "--param
allow-store-data-races=0":
Spawning: gdb -nx -nw -quiet -x
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simu
late-thread/simul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52089
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-02-02
02:50:35 UTC ---
Also fails at -Os:
Spawning: gdb -nx -nw -quiet -x
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simu
late-thread/simulate-thread.gdb ./bitfields-3.exe
spawn gdb -nx -nw -x
/home/da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52089
Bug #: 52089
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/subfields.c -O3 -g
thread simulation test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52087
Ryan MacLellan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52087
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl
2012-02-02 02:10:04 UTC ---
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:57:29AM +, ryan.maclellan at ua dot edu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52087
>
> --- Comment #2 from Ryan MacLellan 2012-02-02
> 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-02
01:57:18 UTC ---
What is the status of this bug now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7313
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-02
01:41:07 UTC ---
or if it is ill-formed, it's "no diagnostic required":
http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#564
I'm not sure whether the definitions find the same entities (and i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7313
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-02
01:33:46 UTC ---
I disagree this is ill-formed, and I think G++ does the right thing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52087
--- Comment #2 from Ryan MacLellan 2012-02-02
00:57:29 UTC ---
I believe precedence is as follows:
arithmetic expressions evaluated first
followed by relational operators
followed by logical operators
In this case I believe .eqv. are relational
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52088
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52088
Bug #: 52088
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in "delete" with template
convertion operator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52087
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7313
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-02
00:31:49 UTC ---
Testcase:
namespace foo
{
extern "C" int bar;
extern "C" int baz();
}
namespace foo
{
int bar = -1;
int baz() { return -1; }
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11582
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-02
00:30:07 UTC ---
t788.cc: In function ‘void g()’:
t788.cc:6:10: error: no matching function for call to ‘f(int
[(((sizetype)) + 1)])’
t788.cc:6:10: note: candidate is:
t788.cc:2:28: note: template void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|typeof() in class |decltype in class
|defi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52087
Bug #: 52087
Summary: program does not follow logical rules
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43441
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41976
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39952
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37703
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52035
Marcin Baczyński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
--- Comment #4 from Marcin Baczy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48815
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|powerpc-app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52086
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
22:01:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26548
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26548
gcc47-pr52086.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52086
Bug #: 52086
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE caused by wrong peephole2 for
QImode mem += reg followed by test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
Bug #: 52085
Summary: sizeof packed enum can vary without warning depending
on include order
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50986
--- Comment #2 from Richard Smith
2012-02-01 21:14:35 UTC ---
As noted in comment#0, I believe there is no ODR violation here. Each
definition of U::k consists of the same sequence of tokens, every name
refers to the same entity in both definitio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38528
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35082
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-02-01 20:40:07 UTC ---
On 2/1/2012 3:20 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Do you know if these work after the fixes you did recently?
Unlikely, however, I should recheck the report and try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31509
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52074
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose 2012-02-01
20:24:08 UTC ---
libgo builds with this fix.
libgo now fails to run every test (see PR52084).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52084
Bug #: 52084
Summary: go tests fail to link on powerpc-linux-gnu (undefined
reference to __sync_add_and_fetch_8)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35082
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
20:20:31 UTC ---
Do you know if these work after the fixes you did recently?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50986
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
19:58:12 UTC ---
I think you are violating ODR here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45166
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-01
19:40:29 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:40:25 2012
New Revision: 183812
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183812
Log:
2012-02-01 Thomas König
PR fortran/51958
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-01
19:06:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:06:07 2012
New Revision: 183808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183808
Log:
2012-02-01 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46311
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|MOVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-01
19:01:54 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:01:49 2012
New Revision: 183807
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183807
Log:
2012-02-01 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5205
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
18:58:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 1 18:58:44 2012
New Revision: 183806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183806
Log:
PR target/52079
* go-lang.c (go_langhook_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-*-linux, |ia64-*-linux,
|sparc64-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #33 from Uros Bizjak 2012-02-01 18:41:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Created attachment 26547 [details]
> Correct fix
>
> This adds the missing division...
This patch fixes both the testcase and original issue. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50308
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
17:45:08 UTC ---
get_best_mode returns DImode because of:
/* Nonzero if access to memory by bytes is slow and undesirable.
For RISC chips, it means that access to memory by bytes is no
better th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52083
Bug #: 52083
Summary: Misleading warning for internal procedures with names
of intrinsic procedures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
16:35:13 UTC ---
That's true, but currently REE is after reload, this combining would be better
done before reload. Perhaps a separate post-combine pre-ira pass could handle
that and also perhaps PR50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
16:34:30 UTC ---
> The base object can be an indirect reference, so yes, there doesn't have
> to be an overall positive offset (well, yes, to the _real_ object,
> but we don't see that).
If this is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
16:13:43 UTC ---
> So, shell we do this kind of shortening in fwprop instead? If a MEM load has
> all uses subregged to a narrower mode, try to subreg it and adjust the
> callers?
This would be back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-01 16:00:41 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
>
> --- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
> 15:53:25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
15:53:25 UTC ---
> I'm not sure it's the best thing to do (adjusting 'offset' by
> a BITS_PER_UNIT multiple instead of whatever the caller would like the most).
> Only the callers would know how they
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26545|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
15:48:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26546
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26546
another patch
This patch passes bootstrap on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu but ICEs in
struct-layout
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #27 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
15:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> I've changed my mind: given that we shouldn't have references outside the base
> object in valid programs, there must be an offset if the bitpos is nega
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #28 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
15:41:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > I've changed my mind: given that we shouldn't have references outside the
> > base
> > object in valid programs, there mu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
15:36:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 26545
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26545
Tentative fix
Uros, does it fix the original issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
15:34:37 UTC ---
I've changed my mind: given that we shouldn't have references outside the base
object in valid programs, there must be an offset if the bitpos is negative, so
we can simply add the (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
14:53:21 UTC ---
*** Bug 50235 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50235
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-01 14:22:36
UTC ---
The patch to gcc/go/go-lang.c is OK. You don't need the #if as far as I'm
concerned.
(The whole idea of a frontend hook for type_for_mode is somewhat broken
anyhow.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26543|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
14:17:05 UTC ---
I remember (bug number?) we have the same issue with multi-word accesses
where the last part uses word_mode (all other pieces as well, of course)
and that accesses the object out-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
14:01:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 26543
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26543
gcc47-pr52079.patch
Alternate patch for the GO FE. There are hundreds of other
lang_hooks.types.typ
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
