http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60803
--- Comment #3 from Eric Niebler ---
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60803
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Which template argument deduction should be take, B or A?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60803
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
Bug ID: 60804
Summary: Another CilkPlus ICE in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:8335
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60801
Ryan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60803
Bug ID: 60803
Summary: Trivial example of overloading in the presence of
inheritance fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60802
linzj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60802
Bug ID: 60802
Summary: jump2 pass fails to do cfgcleanup
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60795
Sean Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantheory at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60801
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like you are running out of stack space. a 515x515 array of 4 byte
wide is over a meg of data which is too big for the stack.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
--- Comment #14 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com ---
Why wait? I'm not hugely opposed, but bugfixes are bugfixes, and one more fixed
bug makes a better 4.9 release, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 9 23:18:28 2014
New Revision: 209257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-x32.adb (To_Timespec):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54040
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 9 23:18:28 2014
New Revision: 209257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-x32.adb (To_Timespec):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60789
David Abdurachmanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Ofast -ffast-math |-Ofast -ffast-math
|-march=co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
Bug ID: 60800
Summary: -Ofast -ffast-math -march=corei7 -mtune=generic
miscompiles 178.galgel in SPEC CPU 2K
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60798
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60467
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60799
Bug ID: 60799
Summary: access checking within injected friend functions does
not happen in the context of the enclosing class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60467
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen ---
We could add this patch to avoid the original problem:
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/cilk.c b/gcc/c-family/cilk.c
index f2179dfc..a535948 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/cilk.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/cilk.c
@@ -712,8 +712,9 @
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60784
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
It looks like this isn't about whether the struct is anonymous, we warn even on
say:
struct A { int a, b; };
struct B { struct A a; } b = { .a.a = 1, .a.b = 1 };
c.c:2:19: warning: missing initializer for fie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60798
Bug ID: 60798
Summary: Access checking of template alias not done at the
point of use
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60797
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57589
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 9 19:42:14 2014
New Revision: 209250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-09 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r202642
2013-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60797
Bug ID: 60797
Summary: gcc hangs with error: only weak aliases are supported
in this configuration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #6)
> > Yes, I was going to post it after complete testing
>
> You should set DECL_SEEN_IN_BIND_EXPR_P when setting
> DECL_CONTEXT, si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #6)
> Yes, I was going to post it after complete testing
You should set DECL_SEEN_IN_BIND_EXPR_P when setting
DECL_CONTEXT, similar to gimple_add_tmp_var.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60789
--- Comment #1 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Found the culprit. I had CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS for gcc ./configure. Thus
probably setting CFLAGS causes `-lm` to vanish in libstdc++v3 math conftests.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60796
--- Comment #1 from Brian Freyburger ---
Sorry, see code change below. (if you explicitly instantiate in the
compilation unit which uses the move construction, the compilation sucec
(In reply to Brian Freyburger from comment #0)
> When you use e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Yes, I was going to post it after complete testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60795
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=57926
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 32575
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32575&action=edit
patch
This patch forces the decay for C++. We don't need to do anything for C, since
arrays decay immediately w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
--- Comment #5 from Cong Hou ---
Hi Jakub
Thank you very much for the commit!
thanks,
Cong
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:39 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
You're right. It works in C++.
That's similar to my earlier patch, but I didn't comment out the other check
like you did. If commenting out the check work it would seem right to me.
Can you post it as a RFC?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Following works for me and shows no new errors in regtesting. Not sure it is a
good idea though...
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
index 6a5631c..d7c6772 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> It is not clear to me why you want to print at all. It is an
> internal detail.
Imagine a function void f(unsigned a, unsigned b) where gcc makes a clone
s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #14)
> It doesn't seem to make sense to keep function
> but optimize out the thunk as we would do now (even w/o LTO)
Right. When we emit a function, we need to also emi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen ---
I've tried a couple of things to fix this:
- Fill in DECL_CONTEXT to current_fn_decl in cilk
- Fill in DECL_CONTEXT for VAR_DECLs when creating the nested wrapper
No banana so far. The first causes other errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60796
Bug ID: 60796
Summary: Default move constructor not generated by explicit
template instantiaion (C++11)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> I mean, DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN is set also for inlines, fnsplit created
> functions and many other cases, printing after the function name in
> all those ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, perhaps to make the change conservative enough for 4.9, might be best to
not append anything now, and only look at DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (recurse on it)
if !DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC. More verbose printing can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60794
--- Comment #2 from John Marino ---
Hmmm, only 3 of the 25 files use and __gnu_debug::vector
23_containers/vector/debug/assign4_neg.cc
23_containers/vector/debug/construct4_neg.cc
23_containers/vector/debug/insert4_neg.cc
That said, all 25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Won't that break say -g -O2 -Wall reporting with say:
static inline void
foo (char *p)
{
__builtin___memcpy_chk (p, "abc", 3, __builtin_object_size (p, 0));
}
static inline void
bar (char *p)
{
foo (p);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #15 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 32574
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32574&action=edit
WIP patch displaying IPA-CP information aout clones
This is an untested and very much WIP patch that shows how w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the problem is that one comdat group has two functions:
_ZNK19MutableIntegerValue18isValidNativeValueEi/0 (isValidNativeValue)
@0x76adfe18
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility: forced_by_ab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #2 from John Marino ---
hmmm, that would imply that all the dragonfly patches that we've been carrying
for years (including ada patches) would need to go in first.
DragonFly does not, and has never, built out of the box. It's not pos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/symtab.c.jj2014-03-21 22:23:43.0 +0100
+++ gcc/symtab.c2014-04-09 17:37:40.709523997 +0200
@@ -1312,9 +1312,13 @@ symtab_get_symbol_partitioning_class (sy
/* Linker discardable symb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60794
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do you think they require debug mode?
Those tests are supposed to run in normal mode, that's why they explicitly use
and __gnu_debug::vector (which is how to use the debug
containers in normal mode)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60795
Bug ID: 60795
Summary: Wrong length when allocating character array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 9 14:54:29 2014
New Revision: 209244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-x32.adb: New file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54040
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 9 14:54:29 2014
New Revision: 209244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-x32.adb: New file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60792
Attila Balint changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> ah sorry, I always seem to conclude wrongly that stack checking requires
> unwind support. I'm not sure why I always conflate those two things.
Yes, it does, but it first needs to be fully functional.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #19 from John Marino ---
ah sorry, I always seem to conclude wrongly that stack checking requires unwind
support. I'm not sure why I always conflate those two things.
So this patch was proposed 9 months ago but never got committed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60794
Bug ID: 60794
Summary: 25 libstdc++ tests are missing '{
dg-require-debug-mode "" }'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
Bug ID: 60793
Summary: Add target *-*-dragonfly* to dg-options on 172
libstdc++ tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In the end, there were 6 failures. It appears that the ARM unwinder isn't
> quite right yet. After 2314 passes, the six ACATS failures were:
>
> C52103x
> C52104x
> C52104y
> c74004a (hung)
> cb1010c
> c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looks good to me, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #17 from John Marino ---
Hi Eric,
In the end, there were 6 failures. It appears that the ARM unwinder isn't
quite right yet. After 2314 passes, the six ACATS failures were:
C52103x
C52104x
C52104y
c74004a (hung)
cb1010c
cb1010d
Joh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #209 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #208)
> Both issues from Comment 201 were fixed by:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00338.html
No, only the first issue is fixed. The secon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32564|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459
--- Comment #7 from Murali ---
Hi Ramana,
Thanks for your response and inputs.
We will try working out a testcase to reproduce this issue.
Murali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 9 11:37:14 2014
New Revision: 209241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-09 Cong Hou
PR testsuite/60773
* doc/sourcebuild.texi (v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60792
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The compiler builds happily now.
Great, thanks for the quick feedback.
> It started right into ACATS testing and has passed the first 3 chapters
> flawlessly (with the current setup ACATS takes hours beca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dimitris Papavasiliou from comment #6)
> I don't mean to dictate the coding-style others should use of course but
> still it seems to me like a small price to pay for avoiding obscure
> stoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominik.muth at gmx dot de
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60791
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60730
John Marino changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnugcc at marino dot st
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60792
Bug ID: 60792
Summary: bogus buffer overflow warning and abort on static
flexible array member in a child object
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #15 from John Marino ---
Hi Eric,
The compiler builds happily now.
It started right into ACATS testing and has passed the first 3 chapters
flawlessly (with the current setup ACATS takes hours because each test is
SCP'd/SSH'd to the dev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60791
Bug ID: 60791
Summary: missing warning about uninitialized local variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Mike, what do you think is the best solution here? We could use Dominique's
> patch with a comment to the effect that "New-ABI symbols are always emitted
> on Linux, but only with -fabi-version=4 or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
--- Comment #11 from Laura C ---
Thank you very much for your help - I will fix the curly quotes and hopefully
run the executable successfully when I get home from work later.
Apologies that it was my mistake.
Your help is much appreciated!
Laur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60774
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50535
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #17 from Dominique
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|ADA bootstrap fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Sorry about the mess, can you try after the latest change?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Apr 9 07:57:48 2014
New Revision: 209237
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209237&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/60411
* s-osinte-android.ads: Adjust.
Modified:
tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60697
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
97 matches
Mail list logo
