--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 20:37 ---
Andrew's fix for this went in with the merge.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-21 15:09 ---
I fixed PR19505 in July. Should not this patch go in?
This is the last bug blocking 28067...
--
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-13 10:10 ---
PR19505 is fixed, is the patch still bad?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-18 15:12 ---
FWIW compiling from bytecode on svn head fails as well.
In fact the test case is xfailed in this case.
So this doesn't appear to be a regression.
Also I think this patch is bogus (but at least it shows the
right plac
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-20 17:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11712)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11712&action=view)
proposed patch
I've attached a proposed patch.
However, when I use this patch I run into PR 19505.
--
http:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-20 17:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
