--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-05 07:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=17802)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17802&action=view)
Full summary for the tests with -fwhole-file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40011
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-05 07:05 ---
After filtering the useless warning with a line
> regsub -all "(^|\n)cc1: warning: command line option .-fwhole-file. is
> valid for Fortran but not for C" $text "" text
gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.expI get:
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 08:04
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> gcc version 4.1.2 20071124 (Red Hat 4.1.2-42)
Well, your original bugreport is with gfortran 4.2.4, but anyway: both the 4.1
and 4.2 branches have been closed, so this won't be fixed. Y
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
gcj-compiled multithreaded programs trigger Segmentation Faults in emutls.c:76
This clearly comes from the deletion of an uninitialized pointer.
I found this patch on toolchain-commit, and it works, but it does not seem to
be committed to gcc subversion tree.
ref:
http://www.mail-archive.com/toolc
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 08:18
---
As far as I can say, the targets with this problem are: avr, bfin, h8300,
picochip and sh (for some subtargets of sh).
On avr, bfin, h8300 and picochip, we're doomed anyway because there is no
double-sized type
The change introduced in [1] is most annoying; it means that gnatmake now
thinks it knows better than I do what soname my libraries should have. This is
wrong. As the maintainer of multiple libraries in Debian over multiple
versions and many years, I know better and I insist that gnat honour *exac
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 08:30
---
I can confirm it's missing a break:
Index: error.c
===
--- error.c (revision 147105)
+++ error.c (working copy)
@@ -533,6 +533,7 @@
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 09:02 ---
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
struct A
{
struct A *a;
};
struct B
{
struct A *b;
};
__attribute__((noinline))
struct A *
foo (struct A *x)
{
asm volatile ("" : : "g" (x) : "memory");
return x;
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 09:07 ---
Mark as regression based on Dominique's comment.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from ruben at tapir dot caltech dot edu 2009-05-05 09:36
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> These functions will *not* be implemented, period.
>
> And even if they would be implemented, they'd internally just return
> sin(arg*180/pi) & co. The compiler and the runtime libr
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
ht
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 09:54 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40023
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 09:58 ---
Confirmed.
#1 0x00befdf6 in output_constructor (exp=0x77fd0cc0, size=80,
align=256) at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/varasm.c:4716
4716 gcc_assert (pos >= total_bytes);
(gdb)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|4.4 regression breaks "reply|[4.4 Regression] breaks
|to all" in alpine
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 10:01 ---
Introduced during tuples merge apparently (haven't bisected the tuples branch
though).
To me this looks like a phiprop bug.
In *.alias (trunk, -O2) we have:
# BLOCK 3 freq:9100
# PRED: 4 [91.0%] (true,exec)
# VU
--- Comment #9 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 10:06
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Sorry for my ignorance to gcc. What types of instructions reload will add?
> Spilling and loading registers? and more?
>
That's pretty much it, but...
> By reading the the implementatio
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 10:10 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-05 11:33 ---
The summary of the attached file in comment #9 is:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bounds_check_strlen_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bounds_temporaries_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.d
--- Comment #1 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 11:34
---
Only fails in trunk. I haven't checked, but could it be caused by the fix for
PR26693 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40007
--- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-05-05 12:41 ---
Reproduced on x86_64-suse-linux.
Seems that, somehow, the vectorized version of loop in line 29 is performed,
even though the number of scalar iterations is 1.
--
irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 12:47 ---
Confirmed.
typedef __builtin_va_list va_list;
typedef struct {
va_list ap;
} ScanfState;
void
GetInt(ScanfState *state, long llval)
{
*__builtin_va_arg(state->ap,long *) = llval;
__builtin_va_end(state->
--- Comment #18 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 13:07
---
I think this fix caused Bug 40007
--
jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 13:08
---
gcc-4.5-20090327 works, gcc-4.5-20090402 doesn't
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40007
--- Comment #5 from toon at moene dot org 2009-05-05 13:33 ---
Hmm, I said I'd put it in waiting until I found the definite wording in the
Standard about this use of namelist values ...
--
toon at moene dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 14:28 ---
Bah. This va_list type stuff is exceptionally bad. The backends expect the
bogus address form :/
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
The linux kernel build on the gcc.opensuse.org base tester currently fails with
./cc1 -quiet sched.i
kernel/sched.c: In function 'build_sched_domains':
kernel/sched.c:6325: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 15:12 ---
Reduced testcase, maybe due to the C const expression changes(?)
typedef struct {
unsigned long bits[(((128)+64 -1)/64)];
} cpumask_t;
struct sched_domain {
cpumask_t span;
int flags;
};
void
cpu_to_alln
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 15:13
---
Jules, is the ARM GNU/Linux build still broken?
David, how about AIX?
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
As first reported here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2009-04/msg00292.html
bootstrapping 4.4.0 fails on Solaris 10 x86 if you configure with
--build=i686-pc-solaris2.10
/var/tmp/build-gcc/gcc-4.4.0/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/32-bit/4.4.0
--enable-languages=c --with-gnu-as
--with-as=/var/tmp/bu
--- Comment #10 from carrot at google dot com 2009-05-05 15:32 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Sorry for my ignorance to gcc. What types of instructions reload will add?
> > Spilling and loading registers? and more?
> >
> That's pretty much it, but...
Before
--- Comment #7 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 15:32 ---
The problem is the expansion of this code:
:
...
D.1650_109 = D.1648_107 | 1;
if (D.1650_109 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
plus the fact that we need to insert something on edge 4->6. Note how the
condition
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[4.4/4.5 Regression]|[4.4/4.5 Regressi
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] CSE|[4.3/4.4/4.5 regr
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39898
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 15:44 ---
Which back-end expects that form? Only x86-64 or others?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 15:48
---
Yes, we've been discussing the interaction between attributes and the type
system for at least a decade. :-) In type-theoretic terms, the address of a
packed int has type pointer-to-packed-int, not pointer-to-int
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39958
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39974
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39978
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39987
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40026
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39856
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39862
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-05 15:57 ---
Reduced test for gfortran.dg/contained_3.f90:
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% cat contained_3_red.f90
MODULE ksbin1_aux_mod
CONTAINS
FUNCTION binden()
INTEGER :: binden
INTEGER :: setbd
binden = 0
ENTRY setbd
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39886
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39959
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 15:59
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Michael, unfortunately, if it was your change that introduced this regression,
> you are responsible for solving the problem. The Right Answer, as you
> suggest,
> is to include the p
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39960
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:00
---
Steve --
Is there still an issue here?
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-05-05 16:05 ---
This bug is fixed, I don't think this bug fixes PR 29209 but I will look into
that bug some more and post a comment there.
Resolving as fixed.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #17 from jules at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:07 ---
This still seems to be broken as of r147126 for ARM Linux.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39929
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40021
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39666
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:08 ---
Subject: Bug 40023
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 5 16:08:24 2009
New Revision: 147127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147127
Log:
2009-05-05 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/40023
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:09
---
HP, is this still a problem?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 40022
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 5 16:09:46 2009
New Revision: 147128
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147128
Log:
2009-05-05 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:10
---
Janis, is this still an issue?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:10 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:10
---
Fixed for trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to wo
--- Comment #8 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=17803)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17803&action=view)
fix for the problem
I'm regstrapping this patch, it fixes the problem in the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:11
---
Richard, can this be closed now?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30210
RFE - It would be great if gcc had a couple (ATI / NVidia) of GPU libraries
that gcc could use to speed up programs similar to what is done here:
http://www.pgroup.com/resources/accel.htm
"
The PGI 8.0 x64+GPU compilers automatically analyze whole program
structure and data, split portions of th
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:25 ---
Yes GPU libraries would be nice but this needs a lot of work to begin with.
First you have to support the GPUs. This also amounts to doubling the support.
If you really want them, since this is open source, start
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=17803)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17803&action=view) [edit]
> fix for the problem
>
> I'm regstrapping this patch, it fixes the problem i
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 16:53 ---
It hasn't been fixed on the 4.4 branch yet, so it can't.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40022
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Summary|Bad debug info for local|[4.5 Regr
--- Comment #15 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 17:26 ---
The struct-layout-1 failures were fixed by the patch from Michael Matz, which
Michael Meissner checked in as r147021. The new failures in gcc.target/powerpc
still exist and, as far as I know, haven't yet been investi
--- Comment #10 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-05-05 17:52 ---
The test case in comment #1 of PR 29209 still happens on ToT with
hppa*-*-hpux11.11 so it doesn't look like backporting this fix will fix
anything.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39977
CPU2000's swim and mgrid had ~10% slowdown after the merge of the alias
improvement branch.
GCC was configured with the following:
/gcc/HEAD/configure --target=powerpc64-linux --host=powerpc64-linux
--build=powerpc64-linux --with-cpu=default32 --enable-threads=posix
--enable-shared --enable-__cxa
--- Comment #12 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-05-05 17:54 ---
I retested the test case in comment#1 on a hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 box and it
still gives an ICE with 4.4.0 and with ToT (r147128). I don't have a PA linux
box so I did not test the example from comment #9 on a linux box.
Take:
#define vector __vector
vector float f(vector float a, vector float b, vector float c)
{
return a * b + c;
}
--- CUT ---
Currently for Powerpc (with -O2 -maltivec), we get:
vspltisw 0,-1
vslw 0,0,0
vmaddfp 3,2,3,0
vaddfp 2,3,4
But this should really just pr
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 18:03 ---
Another testcase but using intrinsics:
#include
vector float f(vector float a, vector float b, vector float c)
{
vector float d = (vector float)(-0.0f);
return vec_add (c, vec_madd (a, b, d));
}
--
http://
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
...snip...
> [ibook-dhum] f90/bug% a.out
> 42
> 42
> Abort
>
This turns out to be the same bug as that which caused the segfault in
gas_dyn.f90. Use associated procedur
Testcase:
double c;
double d;
double *f(int a)
{
if(a) return &c;
return &d;
}
--
Summary: ARM broken with addresses in PHIs with -fPIC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, build
Severity
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40031
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 19:15
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Jules, is the ARM GNU/Linux build still broken?
Yes it is still broken; I filed a seperate bug for that though, see PR 40031.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39929
--- Comment #14 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-05 19:28 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I have been thinking hard about type cheating - I am likely to allow it for
> std-f77 and legacy, to warn with other standards and fail with -pedantic.
this sounds reasonable. Note the othe
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
The following invalid testcase triggers an ICE on the trunk:
=
struct A
{
enum E : 8;
};
=
bug.c:3: warning: '' is narrower than values of its type
'
Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report, [etc.]
The C++ frontend is not affected.
The bug appeared b
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40032
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:35 ---
Extended test case, including six similar cases, of which only the first three
are detected (comment #0 corresponds to case 'E'):
! Detected:
interface
real function A ()
end function
end interface
rea
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:41 ---
Subject: Bug 39998
Author: janus
Date: Tue May 5 20:41:00 2009
New Revision: 147133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147133
Log:
2009-05-05 Janus Weil
PR fortran/39998
* expr
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:45
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I have a gdb session open, but I'm rather clueless. I have this:
> but the following fails:
>
> (gdb) call debug_tree((*x).generic.type.next_variant)
> Cannot access memory at address
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:47 ---
Fixed in r147133. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 20:47
---
Is there a self contained (one file) source that I could use? Gfortran is known
to emit a lot of blocks inside blocks and I wonder if this is the cause. And
the GC is only setup to do chaining through the sibling
The following invalid testcase triggers an ICE on trunk:
==
void foo()
{
({ 0,; });
}
==
bug.c: In function 'foo':
bug.c:3: error: expected expression before ';' token
bug.c:3: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have
'exceptional' (error_
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5 regression] ICE with |[4.5 regression] ICE with
|inavlid statement expre
Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty) x86-64 system builds gcc-4.4.0 just fine. Just used
../gcc-4.4.0/configure --prefix=/opt/pkg/gcc-4.4.0 to build.
Make clean results in:
true "AR_FLAGS=" "CC_FOR_BUILD=" "CFLAGS=-g -O2" "CXXFLAGS="
"CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD=" "CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=" "INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -c"
"INSTAL
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:09 ---
Subject: Bug 39666
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 5 21:09:16 2009
New Revision: 147136
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147136
Log:
PR middle-end/39666
* gimplify.c (gimplify_switch
--- Comment #7 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:13
---
*** Bug 35241 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:13
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39637 ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:19
---
*** Bug 36740 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:19
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39639 ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:33 ---
Subject: Bug 39909
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 5 21:32:38 2009
New Revision: 147137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147137
Log:
2009-05-05 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/39909
*
--- Comment #8 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 21:44 ---
Subject: Bug 39909
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 5 21:44:27 2009
New Revision: 147138
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147138
Log:
2009-05-05 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/39909
*
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo