--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-13 07:11 ---
Patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||htt
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
07:15 ---
Subject: Bug 19269
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 07:15:02
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
libgfortran: C
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
07:24 ---
Patch committed to mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
Bug 19276 depends on bug 19269, which changed state.
Bug 19269 Summary: transpose(reshape(...)) of character array segfaults.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19269
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
07:33 ---
Subject: Bug 23817
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 07:33:50
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-cfg.c
Log message:
failing versions: 4.0.1 (FSF), 4.0.0 (Apple, build 5026), 3.4.0 (FSF) --
platform-independent
working vesions: 3.3 (Apple, build 4061), 3.3 (FSF) -- platform-independent
to reproduce: g++ visibug.cc
'failing' versions reject with the same diagnostic:
visibug.cc: In member function 'void A::foo(
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
07:50 ---
Re crti.o and crtn.o: can I just check that you unpacked unmodified
FSF sources, configured with those arguments, ran "make", and that
"make" completed successfully, but that crti.o and crtn.o were
somehow
--- Additional Comments From fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2005-09-13
07:57 ---
correction: g++ 3.3.3 (FSF, i386-linux) *rejects* the test case with the same
error message.
That should narrow down the search to somewhere in the 3.3 series.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
08:07 ---
Subject: Bug 18899
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 08:07:16
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/fortran: C
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
08:08 ---
Patch applied to mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.1 |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18899
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
08:34 ---
After the patch for 18899, this now works for:
program main
implicit none
real :: a(0:9)
integer :: bn(10)
bn(1:1) = lbound(a)
print *, bn(1)
end program main
but like FX says, we probably ought
Now we allow array and array element as format specification. The array should
be assigned HOLLERITH constant first. The question is that if we should allow
array element here.
g77, pgf deny this, but intel accepts.
Some discussions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-09/msg00191.html
http://gcc
When I compile the small program below using the actual snapshot
(20050909) I get an ICE. This ICE is new, the snapshot from last week is
working.
Michael Cieslinski
int Foo ()
{
int a[16];
int i;
for (i=0; ihttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23853
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 09:04
---
At least on i?86, this seems to be introduced by reload, .lreg dump is still
sane.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837
void bar(void);
void foo(int ie, int je)
{
int i, j;
for (j=0; j:
if (je > 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
j = 0;
goto ();
:;
i = 0;
:;
bar ();
i = i + 1;
if (ie != i) goto ; else goto ;
:;
j = j + 1;
if (je != j) goto ; else goto ;
:;
if (ie > 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
r
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
10:27 ---
Bloody hell. Stupid bug.
Alright then, let's see if I can fix this one.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
10:42 ---
We do not CONFIRM bugs without a small testcase (which would be 2 small files in
this case). Even if I could "confirm" it (I didn't try to reproduce with the
PR22574 testcase).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
I am filing this bug because we still diverge from Classpath for java.util.zip
and we need to track this issue.
The base bug is PR classpath/23854 and it also applies to libgcj.
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2005-09/msg00070.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2005-09/msg00072.html
The archiv
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
13:12 ---
Unswitching should clean this up, but unfortunately(?) only looks at innermost
loops. For a reason it seems, just removing this checks results in an ICE.
Testcase for unswitching:
void bar(void);
void foo(
When I compile the small program below using the actual snapshot
(20050909) I get an ICE.
last working snapshot is gcc-4.1-20050723
first failing snapshot is gcc-4.1-20050730
Michael Cieslinski
extern int *F2 (void) __attribute__ ((__const__));
struct S1{};
struct S3;
struct S2
{
i
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
13:29 ---
It is not clear to me why you find the code without header copying better --
number of checks of each condition is exactly the same in both cases, and with
right ordering of basic blocks, there should be o
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
13:46 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
13:47 ---
Well, it is the case that I have some numerical application that has
such loops and the case of small ie (1 or 2) does happen during boundary
updates, so instead of
if (ie <= 0)
return;
for (j=0; jh
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
13:54 ---
it's ICEing because host_integerp complains that TREE_OVERFLOW is set:
#1 0x084f7397 in tree_low_cst (t=0x4022daf8, pos=1) at tree.c:4273
Line number 4273 out of range; tree.c has 2318 lines.
(gdb) call de
When I compile the small program below using the actual snapshot
(20050909) I get a segfault. This segfault occurs whith all the gcc41 snapshots
I have, my oldest is gcc-4.1-20050604, gcc40 does not segfault.
Michael Cieslinski
typedef struct Data
{
unsigned int Table [256];
} S1;
void
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:01 ---
On PPC, we get optimal and almost unswitched loop:
L4:
ble- cr4,L7
li r31,0
L6:
addi r31,r31,1
bl _bar
cmpw cr7,r30,r31
bne+ cr7,L6
L7:
addi r29,r29,1
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-09-13 14:04
---
Here's a slightly smaller version:
-
struct A {};
struct B : private A {};
B *p = static_cast((A*)0);
-
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.2.3/bin/c++ -c x.cc
g/x> /home/ban
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:05 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23049 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:05 ---
*** Bug 23858 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23049
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:06 ---
Patch that could be obvious (but I'm always hesitant to apply such right
away...)
Index: tree-vect-analyze.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/t
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:09 ---
Heh - you unswitched the comparison but not the jump!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:09 ---
This is invalid code. See PR 12265 which this is a dup of.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12265 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:09 ---
*** Bug 23849 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-13 14:31 ---
Keating wrote in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01345.html
>Needs a ChangeLog entry, but otherwise OK.
>
>A key detail that you left out of your patch description is that
>SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR is used *on
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:40 ---
Subject: Bug 23842
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 14:39:57
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:42 ---
Subject: Bug 23839
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 14:42:39
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:44 ---
Subject: Bug 23842
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 14:44:08
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
gcc/testsuite
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:45 ---
Subject: Bug 23839
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 14:45:14
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog typeck.c
gcc/tests
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:50 ---
This is done for me correctly on PPC-darwin.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23845
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:53 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Bloody hell. Stupid bug.
> Alright then, let's see if I can fix this one.
Steven, it seems to disappear on current gcc4.1 and gcc4.0. I once send you a
patch to fix the gimpl
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:55 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESO
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
14:55 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESO
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
15:16 ---
Subject: Bug 16171
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 15:15:37
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog mangle.c
gcc/tests
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
15:17 ---
Subject: Bug 16171
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 15:17:12
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
15:19 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |
--- Additional Comments From sje at cup dot hp dot com 2005-09-13 15:47
---
I don't have a 10.20 machine around anymore. All my machines are 11.00 or
later.
10.20 was released in 1996.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23734
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-09-13 16:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] make[4]: execvp: /usr/local/bin/bash: Arg list
too long
> I don't have a 10.20 machine around anymore. All my machines are 11.00 or
> later.
> 10.20 was released in
Bootstrapping with Fortran enabled fails for 4.0.1 if "-pipe" is included
among flags passed through to library builds. It used to work for 4.0.0.
The reason is "libgfortran/intrinsics/f2c_specifics.F90", which is new to
4.0.1, and the "%|" operator used in the specs
("gcc/fortran/lang-specs.
--- Additional Comments From macro at linux-mips dot org 2005-09-13 16:03
---
Created an attachment (id=9718)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9718&action=view)
gcc-4.0.1-specs-pipe-suffix.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23861
When "-pipe" is used for .F90 and .F95 sources this warning is produced:
Warning: Reading file '' as free form.
The reason is the compiler cannot deduce the form from the file name
suffix as in this case it's only known to the preprocessor.
Here is an obvious patch following the approach used
--- Additional Comments From macro at linux-mips dot org 2005-09-13 16:06
---
Created an attachment (id=9719)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9719&action=view)
gcc-4.0.1-fortran-form-free.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23862
--- Additional Comments From benjamin at smedbergs dot us 2005-09-13 16:34
---
Created an attachment (id=9720)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9720&action=view)
Failure even with the latest patch
I'm wrong. attachment 9035 fixes the compile errors in the main mozilla
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #9720 is|1 |0
patch||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20297
--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 18:17
---
I'm still looking at this. My earlier comment about having fixed it on
mainline was wrong; I thought it was a problem in altivec.h, but it's in
the compiler itself and this problem never showed up on mainline
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
18:29 ---
Please provide a standalone testcase.
gcc -O2 -S matmul_r8.c
matmul_r8.c:31:20: error: config.h: No such file or directory
matmul_r8.c:35:25: error: libgfortran.h: No such file or directory
matmul_r8.c:49:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
18:51 ---
This is what we get one the mainline:
.L4:
movl(%ecx), %eax
addl$4, %ecx
movl%eax, (%edi,%edx,4)
movl(%ebp,%edx,4), %eax
movl%eax, (%esi,%edx,4)
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:02 ---
Subject: Bug 23816
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 19:02:05
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386: s
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 19358
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 19:02:57
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: trans-
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:19 ---
Just for the record:
This was fixed by Richard Sandiford's patch for PR19239:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-09/msg00346.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21063
The libstdc++ ABI testsuite does not work when testing an installed compiler
because:
* abi.exp checks for "../src/.libs/libstdc++.so", which of course is not
available with an installed compiler.
* abi.exp requires baseline_file to be set in site.exp; with installed compiler
testing, site.exp is
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:23 ---
Subject: Bug 22554
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 19:22:52
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/inclu
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:23 ---
Subject: Bug 23734
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-13 19:22:52
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/inclu
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 19:29
---
Moving to c++ component, maybe they can help him...
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||sparc-sun-solaris2.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22612
--- Additional Comments From callahan at sci dot utah dot edu 2005-09-13
19:32 ---
Subject: Re: SSA Crash, reproducable
This still crashes for me with the latest Ubuntu g++ build.
g++ (GCC) 4.0.2 20050808 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.1-4ubuntu6)
The error is the same, but the crash is li
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.3.2
Summary|linking error while |linking error while
|compiling ddd wit
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.0
Summary|linking error while |linking error while
|compiling ddd wit
apply_result_size uses reg_raw_mode for every register that is flagged with
FUNCTION_VALUE_REGNO_P. However, reg_raw_mode is the mode to save a single
hard register, while a return value can be held in multiple consecutive hard
registers, and FUNCTION_VALUE_REGNO_P has to be true only for the firs
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 19:35
---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot g
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2005-
|
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet||sparc-sun-solaris2.9
GCC host triplet||sparc-sun-solaris2.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 19:40
---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot g
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21274
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21274
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:45 ---
Hmm, we are trying to gimplify a SCEV tree:
() ((long unsigned intD.7) {0, +, D.2009_8}_2 * 8)
--
What|Removed |Added
---
On x86 architectures, when the target is -march=pentium or higher, the compiler
seems to replace (x || y) by ((x | y) != 0) too soon for optimizations to apply,
when x and y are integers.
Testcase (compiled with "gcc -O3 -march=something"):
typedef int T;
void g(T);
void f(T x, T y) {
if (x ||
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:48 ---
Fixed on the mainline and since this is not a regression closing as fixed.
Fixed with 4.1.0 20050802 and 4.1.0 20050714.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-13 19:51 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RES
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:52 ---
Confirmed, a known issue. Related to PR 15911. and Really is caused by not
doing PR 15357 late in the
game.
--
What|Removed |Added
When I try to compile any of these functions below, GCC 3.4.4 hangs the whole
computer! I was needed to reboot my Feodore Core3 system - severe memory leak?
I'm compiling on a Linux machine running Feodore Core3 kernel 2.6.9.
The compiler is arm-elf-gcc-3.4.4 compiled with binutils-2.16.1, newlib-
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
GCC host triplet|Linux Fedora Core3 kernel |i686-pc-linux-gnu
|2.6.9
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:58 ---
Confirmed, note I did add this to the patch queue:
http://www.dberlin.org/cgi-bin/patches.py
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
19:59 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc
--- Additional Comments From fredrik at hederstierna dot com 2005-09-13
20:08 ---
This bug only shows when you compile with -O3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23870
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:11 ---
This has been fixed on mainline by the patch for PR 19928.
As noted there PR 17123 really seems to be a duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19928 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:11 ---
*** Bug 17123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:15 ---
Confirmed. After IPA constant prop and before inlining, we need early
optimizations, like DCE and
constant prop. But that is it.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet|sh64-unknown-linux-gnu |sh64-*-linux
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Keywords|
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 20:18
---
Is this in reference to _GLIBCXX_USE_ICONV?
That is only useful for the codecvt specializations that use iconv. As of 4.0.0,
this is in libstdc++-v3/include/ext/codecvt_specializations.h.
Or is this in refe
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:18 ---
Confirmed, I don't know how offten this shows up but what I have seen from
compiling GCC, is that it
does not show up at all.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 20:19
---
Created an attachment (id=9723)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9723&action=view)
Checks for libiconv_ open and close functions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22339
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 20:20
---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot g
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13
20:21 ---
Confirmed.
We should recognized that __builtin_stack_restore at the end of the function is
not needed. This should
be done while doing CFG exand.
--
What|Removed |Adde
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
