--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 08:49 ---
Have a patch for the testsuite. gen-vect-X.c vectorizer testcases should
probably be moved into gcc.dg/vect, at least those that scan for vectorized
loops.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Remo
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 08:57 ---
Subject: Bug 35047
Author: uros
Date: Fri Feb 1 08:57:11 2008
New Revision: 131997
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131997
Log:
PR testsuite/35047
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20050316
--- Comment #28 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 09:34 ---
> > A fix for the PR
> > This is regtesting as I write. It fixes the first three PRs but not that of
> > comment #25.
I'm not so happy about the != '(' in:
+ /* These are definitive indicators that this is a
At rev. 131985 with the last patch for PR35035, g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C fails
on i686-apple-darwin9 for both 32 and 64 bit modes with:
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C: In function 'void
foo()':
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C:12: error: inv
--- Comment #14 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2008-02-01
09:38 ---
bootstrapped/regtested with BOOT_CFLAGS="-O3 -g":
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg00014.html
There is a lot of unexpected failures, so I will retest with BOOT_CFLAGS=-O2
and without the
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:26 ---
Fixed.(?)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:14 ---
Subject: Bug 35042
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 1 10:14:08 2008
New Revision: 131998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131998
Log:
2008-02-01 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:14 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 09:47 ---
> And I also believe all our examples in this PR are wrong.
In all the invalid examples given in comment #3, the dimension specification is
on the rhs of '::'. In my example it's on the lhs. If the latter is invalid
--- Comment #6 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-02-01 10:45
---
Nice, this is what I was seeing all along. Shouldn't this be a P1 though?
--
ismail at pardus dot org dot tr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:28 ---
Regressions should have a target milestone.
But -- this error is expected? For reference:
/* { dg-do compile } */
typedef int myint;
float __attribute__((vector_size(16))) b;
int __attribute__((vector_size(16)))
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:54 ---
gcse after reload removes the load imaginary part of the return value
(__complex__ float is returned in %eax/%edx pair):
@@ -274,12 +274,10 @@
callnanf
fstps -24(%ebp)
movl-24(%ebp)
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:33 ---
Confirmed. Fails with -O3 -mpc64 (it passes with -fno-gcse-after-reload and
also
with -ffloat-store)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 11:51
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code on i386 with -O3
I would say it is a target issue if the target return insn does not
mention that %edx is used.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 11:58
---
Reduced testcase:
extern __complex__ float clogf (__complex__ float);
__complex__ float
mycacoshf (__complex__ float x)
{
__complex__ float res;
res = clogf (x);
/* We have to use the positive branch. */
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 11:53 ---
Mine to investigate.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 11:33 ---
I saw this also on i686-linux-gnu. The issue is we are not getting an error on
the second statement when we should be.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 11:32 ---
> so, can you paste the full log of this FAIL?
Is this what you are asking for?
Executing on host: /opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.3-wo
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 12:02
---
Re comment #9 - after postreload there is only
(insn 62 61 40 4 test-cacoshf.c:16 (set (reg:SF 0 ax [ ])
(mem/c:SF (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 6 bp)
(const_int -20 [0xffec])) [0 S4 A8])
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes48734
# of unexpected failures6
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected failures 165
# of untested testcases 35
# of unsupported tests 269
/home/jrp/build/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0 20080201 (
The example below illustrate that the .ali files do not always contain renamed
subprograms references:
>>>
--pb_renaming.ads
package pb_renaming is
function Plus(X, Y: Integer) return Integer;
function My_plus(X, Y: Integer) return Integer renames Plus;
function Add(X, Y: Integer) return Inte
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:15
---
Let's CC some x86 maintainers
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=15074)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15074&action=view)
patch for postreload-gcse
This fixes the oversight in postreload-gcse.c and this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #22 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 14:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code on i386 with -O3
Could you retain the " gcc_assert (HARD_REGISTER_P (x)); please?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35045
--- Comment #21 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:45 ---
GCSE itself might or might not be safe, I haven't yet gone through all paths.
But normally it enters only pseudo regs into the hash tables. It does
remember invalidation of hard-regs, though, and that definitely is br
--- Comment #18 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 14:14
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code on i386 with -O3
Why would we be calling expand_null_return to begin with, if there is
a proper return statement?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:13
---
Hm, it might be all due to the reg-stack.c hunk in rths patch:
+ /* A top-level clobber with no REG_DEAD, and no hard-regnum
+ indicates an uninitialized value. Because reload remov
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:08
---
The problem is that we retain
(insn 38 32 61 4 test-cacoshf.c:16 (clobber (reg/i:SC 0 ax)) -1 (nil))
after postreload and gcse rightfully assumes such clobbers are removed
(and hoists over them). They are suppos
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:59
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Either the localized message should not be truncated - or the English version
> of the string should be used throughout.
I'm afraid this one has my name on it, as I added localization s
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:04
---
gcse-after-reload inserts
(insn 66 30 31 3 (set (reg:SF 1 dx [+4 ])
(mem/c:SF (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 6 bp)
(const_int -16 [0xfff0])) [0 res$imag+0 S4 A]
on the edge from bb3 to bb4
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:10 ---
Reported almost 4 years ago, never confirmed. Is this still valid?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14743
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #23 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:59 ---
I haven't removed it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35045
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-02-01 14:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code
on i386 with -O3
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 14:14
>
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 12:53
---
Lets make this P1 until it is properly analyzed as eventually this also affects
functions returning DImode.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 15:31 ---
With the patch in comment #18, on a Core2Duo 2.16Ghz I get:
5000 0.54 secs
1 1.82
2 6.74
436.5
6 206
65535 258
65536 68 <-- Error: Initialization
--- Comment #19 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:39 ---
> The ICE for the second case on comment 10 goes away. However, compile time is
> very long as N increases:
I played around (w/o your patch) with several compilers and gfortran does not
do too bad (all compilers wi
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:19 ---
CCing half the world is not going to help anyone.
Try adding TODO_df_finish.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:22
---
Created an attachment (id=15073)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15073&action=view)
Patch
I don't think it's a regression, but it certainly is a annoying bug for people
who have a non-english
--- Comment #5 from jwlemke at specifix dot com 2008-02-01 16:43 ---
I ran into this problem as well. I was building x86 x mips64.
FWIW, my solution was this:
2008-01-31 James Lemke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.ac: For a cross, if --with-x was not specified supress it.
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-01 16:04 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:31:49PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
>
> With the patch in comment #18, on a Core
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Here is what happens (note that, differently from what was the case, now the
> warning is give three times in a row):
The "is used" warning is the same issue with virtual operands. The relev
--- Comment #36 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #50 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:48
---
# zD.203060_41 = PHI
The PHI is correct, you get one arg per incoming edge. But yes, we should
warn only once for default definitions that appear multiple times in
single PHI nodes and also in mulitple PHI nodes
--- Comment #23 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 16:41 ---
For large values of n, most of the time is spent in gfc_append_constructor,
starting from 5% and up to 92%. Most of the remaining time is spent in
find_array_section, starting from 75% down to 2.5%.
Although I did n
--- Comment #40 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:47
---
Well, I still meant that simplifying the cascaded addition into accumulator
into direct addition from base makes the code to simplify. I implemented
experimentally the trick in fwprop and will attach later, but the
--- Comment #26 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #18 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:29 ---
Changing subject to something more informative.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|entry and addressable and |[4.2 regression] entry and
|value-expr: and the
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29892
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30694
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
... to mark as a duplicate of PR 27289. They are almost the same testcase. The
other one is shorter.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27289 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
Argh, the other way around (this testcase is shorter).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:05 ---
See comment 17 and comment 19. This is fixed by chance by CCP, so not worth to
keep it open.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:58
---
Dave, is this test still failing on hppa? On the branch and trunk?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 16:58 ---
On ppc G5 1.8Ghz, I get an almost perfect quadratic behavior:
118 secs
272
4 290
6 655
65535 778
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #38 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
