--- Comment #15 from kloedej at knmi dot nl 2006-03-10 08:27 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> All I'm saying is that in this situation there seems to be no way to jump
> to some label if something goes wrong (because there is no EOR parameter
> for WRITE).
> But I agree that this is not
--- Comment #2 from malcolmpurvis at optushome dot com dot au 2006-03-10
08:40 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Use --disable-multilib.
>
This has fixed the problem. Thank you.
However, I would query the determination that this is not a bug. I don't
expect the default configuration o
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-03-10 09:38 ---
I sent a message to the CWG reflector, and people kindly replied
(c++std-core-11367 to 11370). In a nutshell, 7.3.3/11 should be clarified for
function templates (a new issue has been opened), but apparently there is
conse
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-03-10 09:38 ---
*** Bug 26605 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 10:40 ---
The testcase is also full of problems itself... - changing rv to a type with
the size of U, we no longer ICE. Also -fno-strict-aliasing fixes the ICE.
I'm curious on how the original code looks like before reductio
--- Comment #8 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 10:51 ---
shorter testcase:
=== Cut ===
typedef union {
int d;
int L;
} U;
void breakme()
{
int rv;
ovfl:
((U*)&rv)->d = 42;
if (((U*)&rv)->L)
goto ovfl;
}
=== Cut ===
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 11:10 ---
:;
pretmp.23_2 = (union U *) &rv;
# NMT.6_4 = PHI ;
ovfl:;
rv.0_1 = pretmp.23_2;
# NMT.6_6 = V_MAY_DEF ;
rv.0_1->d = 42;
# VUSE ;
D.1529_3 = rv.0_1->L;
if (D.1529_3 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
:;
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 11:24 ---
You need to make all templated definitions available in check_link.cc or
explicitly instantiate all used templates in check_link.cc.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
As far as I can tell, c1 should be equal to 8, not -51072, or at least
equal to c2.
Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I can't see how c1 and c2 can be different. The
result is the same using gcc 3.3.6, gcc 3.4.4 and gcc 4.0.2.
Program (error.c):
-
#include
int main()
{
int a1 = 4;
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 12:50 ---
Here is another testcase:
typedef long dtype;
typedef dtype longarray[];
int g (longarray *array1, unsigned long i, dtype j)
{
if (!(*array1)[i])
i++;
if (j < (*array1)[i])
h();
return i;
}
int g1 (lon
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 12:57 ---
Confirmed, just a regression on the 4.0 branch, 3.4.6 was the last release of
the 3.4 branch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 12:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> FRE handles this just fine, it is PRE which does not.
Let me clarify that comment, For FRE I am talking about code like:
typedef long dtype;
typedef dtype longarray[];
int g (longarray *arr
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 13:00
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 13:52 ---
We fold
((intD.0) ((short intD.7) a1D.1133 - 1) + 1) * 2
via extract_muldiv to
(intD.0) (short intD.7) a1D.1133 * 2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 13:53 ---
shorter testcase:
extern void abort(void);
int main()
{
int a1 = 4;
int c1 = ( ((int)(short)(a1-1)) + 1)*2;
if (c1 != 8)
abort();
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #5 from _talyn_ at web dot de 2006-03-10 13:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=11015)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11015&action=view)
test case that shows the difference between dynamic/static alloc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2662
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 13:56
---
What happens to the time if you replace that function with:
void
NumSift (long *array, unsigned long i, unsigned long j)
{
unsigned long k;
while ((i + i) <= j)
{
k = i + i;
long t, t1;
t
--- Comment #6 from _talyn_ at web dot de 2006-03-10 13:56 ---
(From update of attachment 11015)
Certainly, I see your point with respect to the get* methods, a hint in the
g++-4.X release notes about the more aggressive inlining would probably be
helpful.
However, this doesn't explain
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 13:58 ---
Subject: Re: Template instantiation fails for -O1 -finline-functions
> However, this doesn't explain, why the reference to
> TTypeWrapper::~TTypeWrapper
> is missing if the instance of CVectorWrap is allocated sta
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 14:10
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> What happens to the time if you replace that function with:
This helps about 5% but it does not get the score back up.
3.4.0's score for this machine is about 900.
4.1.0's score is 720.
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 14:13
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > What happens to the time if you replace that function with:
> This helps about 5% but it does not get the score back up.
Also the asm is about the same for
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 14:31 ---
with 4.1 we start with
((intD.0) (short intD.7) ((short unsigned intD.8) a1D.1280 - 1) + 1) *
2
which convert builds from converting a - 1 to short:
(short intD.7) ((short unsigned intD.8) a1D.1280
Using gcc 4.1.0 on amd64, with -Wall (64 bit target):
int g(void);
long h(void);
void f(void)
{
0 ? h() : g();
}
foo.c:6: warning: value computed is not used
Either changing 0 to 1 or swapping g and h makes the warning go away.
This was the result of a (very reasonable) macro expansion.
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:16 ---
Hmm, what is going on here is the following.
0 ? h() : g();
is not really just that but instead:
0 ? h() : (long)g();
which then gets foldded into:
(long)g();
and we warn about the cast.
--
pinski
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:17 ---
I don't know if we should be warning or not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ciaccio at disi dot unige dot it 2006-03-10 15:25
---
An even simpler test case of this bug (tested with gcc 3.4.5):
int main( void ) {
int rc;
return rc;
*&rc = 0;
}
> gcc -O -Wall program.c
(more stunning silence)
NOTE: in this example, t
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:28 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> An even simpler test case of this bug (tested with gcc 3.4.5):
That works correctly in 4.0.0 and above.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #3 from mattias at virtutech dot se 2006-03-10 15:30 ---
Yes, I realise it's the implicit integral conversion that causes the warning,
but since the result is not used no matter what it seems wrong to warn for it -
it cannot reasonably a sign of an error in the code.
It can
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:31
---
Not going to work on this problem any time soon.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:36
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #10 from mike at codeweavers dot com 2006-03-10 15:37 ---
Can I bribe you to work on it by fixing a Wine bug in exchange? :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:45
---
The two pointers are assigned the same SMT. Is this still a problem?
Dereferenced pointers
D.1541, UID 1541, int *, symbol memory tag: SMT.5
D.1542, UID 1542, int *, symbol memory tag: SMT.5
Or do you need to
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:07
---
Not working on this anymore.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The below does not crash with g++ 4.0.2, nor when removing -static:
(see also http://ds9a.nl/minimal.cc.txt)
#include
/*
compiled with g++ 4.1.0 (g++ minimal.cc -o minimal -static -pthread), on
Ubuntu Breezy:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:17 ---
The patch from 25125 fixes the problem.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-10 16:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR26630
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00616.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #3 from jvalenzu at infinite-monkeys dot org 2006-03-10 16:25
---
Would someone mind specifying what section of the standard this violates? We
have a codebase that makes heavy use of (3).
--
jvalenzu at infinite-monkeys dot org changed:
What|Removed
I'm not sure whether to report this to gcc or glibc - maybe it falls
in-between.
#include
void g(char *);
void f(char *a)
{
char *p, *q;
while ((q = strtok_r(a, ":", &p)))
g(q);
}
with -O1 -Wall -Wwrite-strings, gives:
warning: 'p' may be used uninitialized in th
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:44 ---
Subject: Bug 26565
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 10 16:44:01 2006
New Revision: 111934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111934
Log:
2006-03-10 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:44
---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:54 ---
Just as I had expected in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00256.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:55 ---
Some information about this bug in both the libstdc++ library and the
libgfortran library on the mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00248.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26633
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:59 ---
This is not a gcc bug as the warning is correct as the following is true, a can
be null entering f so p is used uninitialized.
If this is a bug, this is a bug in glibc for being over optimizing.
--
pinskia at gc
--- Comment #3 from ahu at ds9a dot nl 2006-03-10 17:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Minimal c++ program using threads and
exceptions crashes when compiled statically
Sure this is (exactly) related? I tried to pull in some of the symbols that
might be missing to no avail.
Int
The patch
2006-01-09 Kazu Hirata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/25125
* convert.c (convert_to_integer): Don't narrow the type of a
PLUX_EXPR or MINUS_EXPR if !flag_wrapv and the unwidened type
is signed.
has introduced a regression for the Ada testcase
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 18:00
---
Created an attachment (id=11016)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11016&action=view)
Reduced Ada testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26635
--- Comment #3 from mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 18:13 ---
While importing 0.90 into libgcj I also noticed this. Setting this package to
bc (like the other awt peer implementations) gives:
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/mark/src/gcc-obj/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava'
/bin/sh .
--- Comment #1 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2006-03-10 18:23 ---
When attaching the test case, I experience a internal error with gcc bugzilla
which I reported to dberlin. I am going to attach the test case in a comment.
I attempted to reduce the test case, but it changed reg. allocat
--- Comment #3 from dtemirbulatov at gmail dot com 2006-03-10 19:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=11018)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11018&action=view)
bug fix
this a backport form the mainline
2005-05-17 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rmansfield]$
/home/rmansfield/crosstool/gcc-4.0-20060309-glibc-2.3.6/sh4-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
-v -o t.s -S -m4 -O2 t.c
Using built-in specs.
Target: sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
/home/rmansfield/crosstool-0.42/build/sh4-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc-4.
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-03-10 19:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/g77/20010610.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 00:07 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from janis at gc
--- Comment #4 from ahu at ds9a dot nl 2006-03-10 20:44 ---
Andrew Pinski tells me this is a glibc TLS bug and that it should be reported
to Ubuntu, which I have done here:
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/34362
The reduced testcase is:
#include
void *doStuff(
The following test in mauve fail with a merged classpath 0.90 tree:
FAIL: gnu.testlet.gnu.javax.crypto.assembly.TestOfAssembly: uncaught exception
at "TestOfAssembly.testSymmetry#1" number 1: java.lang.IllegalStateException
FAIL: gnu.testlet.gnu.javax.crypto.assembly.TestOfCascade: uncaught except
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 22:40 ---
Subject: Bug 16387
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 10 22:40:41 2006
New Revision: 111945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111945
Log:
PR c++/16387, c++/16389
* typeck.c (cxx_alignof_e
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 22:47 ---
Subject: Bug 26004
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 10 22:47:08 2006
New Revision: 111947
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111947
Log:
PR c/26004
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rh
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 23:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=11019)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11019&action=view)
More complete patch
Here's a more complete patch, which should do the Right Thing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gn
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 23:14 ---
I'm handling this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 23:20
---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
C
--- Comment #4 from lawless at spamcop dot net 2006-03-10 23:36 ---
This bug is not a dupliate of bug 19664. I just applied
'gcc-push-pop-visibility.patch' to gcc 4.0.2 on 'x86_64'
and the problem is still there:
/usr/bin/ld: .shobj/Logging_Strategy.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 23:42 ---
Subject: Bug 26004
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 10 23:42:48 2006
New Revision: 111952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111952
Log:
PR c/26004
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rh
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 00:09
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #4 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-03-11 00:15
---
Subject: Re: spurious warning: value computed is not used
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:16
> ---
> Hmm, what is going o
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 01:40 ---
Mark's problem appears to be a bytecode generation bug.
We are generating:
6: invokespecial #65=
But this is incorrect as you cannot invoke an interface method
with invokespecial. And, super.foo() should never ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc/build-ia64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-ia64-linux/gcc/
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c
-fno-show-column -lm -o ./pr26565.exe && ./pr26565.exe
pr26565.exe(9088): unaligned access to 0x600
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 01:53 ---
Wait a minute. Wasn't this just fixed with the patch for PR 26565?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 02:00 ---
What revision of 4.2.0 are you using?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Note that this is a repeatable bug (three times in succession, the last time
with a full delete and re-installation of the source).
The following configure switches were used.
../configure --prefix=/home/gcc410 --enable-threads=posix
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking --with-syste
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 02:38 ---
Can you do what the instructions say and attach the preprocessed source?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 02:42 ---
Also what is your static limit?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26640
-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --enable-shared
--enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa --disable-checking --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.2
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060310 (experimental) [trunk revision 111940 clean]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25218
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25203
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25281
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25357
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16194
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13726
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16613
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16865
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14329
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18631
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17383
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18853
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20209
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18463
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17913
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19870
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21081
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21169
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21548
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21316
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20293
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21392
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21299
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21308
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22360
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
