http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
Summary: incorrect signed overflow warning when only 0 and 1
are used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #26 from Benjamin Kosnik 2011-03-22
08:59:02 UTC ---
Matthias, this should allow you to remove the current debian docs patch. Does
it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #27 from Matthias Klose 2011-03-22
09:09:26 UTC ---
yes, thanks! already done.
...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL g++ (GCC) 4.5.3 20110322 (prerelease)
FAIL g++ (GCC) 4.6.0 20110322 (prerelease)
FAIL g++ (GCC) 4.7.0 20110322 (experimental)
echo 'class C {} c;' | g++ -o 1.o -c -g -Wall -x c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48224
Evgenij changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48230
Summary: bootstrapping gcc-4.6.0-RC-20110321 fails for
lm32-rtems*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48231
Summary: bootstrapping gcc-4.6.0-RC-20110321 fails for
h8300-rtems*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
It affects any tested gcc:
gcc (GCC) 4.4.6 20110322 (prerelease)
gcc (GCC) 4.5.3 20110322 (prerelease)
gcc (GCC) 4.6.0 20110322 (prerelease)
gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20110322 (experimental)
echo 'int i;'|gcc -x c - -c -o 1.o -g;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
10:13:49 UTC ---
Btw, the minimal partition size is quite small (1000), 10 times smaller
than our large-unit-insns inline limit and 2.7 times smaller than our
large function inline limit. Upping th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48042
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48225
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48224
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48233
Summary: [4.6] can't bootstrap with ada, java and go on mingw
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
10:29:28 UTC ---
Hm, not similar. We have
Visiting PHI node: terminal_window_p_24 = PHI
Argument #0 (8 -> 9 executable)
terminal_window_p_3
Value: [0, 1]
Found new range for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
10:46:49 UTC ---
Which happens because of our way of handling iteration with PHIs. Which
of course is very overly conservative with single-arg PHIs (or PHIs w/o
backedges).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #10 from Richard Gue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48224
--- Comment #5 from Evgenij 2011-03-22
11:54:06 UTC ---
Jonathan, what the document "The C++ standard library" do you mean?
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/IEC 14882?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48215
--- Comment #4 from sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de 2011-03-22 12:06:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Looks like PR 46518 (the fix was not propagated from trunk to 4.5-branch).
> Can you please check whether below patch fixes these problems?
Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48215
--- Comment #5 from sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de 2011-03-22 12:07:01 UTC ---
*** Bug 48218 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48218
sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48219
sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48215
--- Comment #6 from sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de 2011-03-22 12:07:13 UTC ---
*** Bug 48219 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48143
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-03-22
12:34:02 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Mar 22 12:33:53 2011
New Revision: 171286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171286
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/48143
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48234
Summary: documentation bad sequence in toc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
12:40:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 22 12:40:09 2011
New Revision: 171287
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171287
Log:
2011-03-22 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48235
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
has_dependence_p (sel-sched-ir.c:3263) with
-fselective-scheduling2 and custom flags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
Summary: uint64_t and int64_t behave differently when
converting to float
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48224
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-22
13:03:34 UTC ---
yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48234
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48173
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose 2011-03-22 13:13:57
UTC ---
had to reproduce it with a local build ...
the ice is triggered with any warning, -Warray-bounds as in the example, or
faster with -Wlong-long, e.g.:
-g -O2 -Warray-bounds -Wlong-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48179
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48234
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48237
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at
final.c:2651 with -fselective-scheduling2 -mtune=core2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48198
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48193
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
13:45:33 UTC ---
*** Bug 48198 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #48 from blomqvist.janne at gmail dot com 2011-03-22 13:49:08 UTC
---
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 16:47, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
>
> --- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48235
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
Jon Valdes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juanval at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-22 14:18:32 UTC ---
Possibly an instance of PR 323.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48173
Hector Oron changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hector.oron at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
--- Comment #3 from Jon Valdes 2011-03-22 14:35:10
UTC ---
>From my understanding, a positive number should be casted to exactly the same
floating value representation regardless if the variable is signed or unsigned.
In fact, checking the failin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48238
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr47939-0.c scan-assembler
on *-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46262
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-22
14:50:32 UTC ---
> From my understanding, a positive number should be casted to exactly the same
> floating value representation regardless if the variable is signed or
> unsigned.
> In fact, c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48237
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48238
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
14:50:40 UTC ---
On x86-linux it is
.uleb128 0x5# (DIE (0x4b) DW_TAG_typedef)
.long .LASF4 # DW_AT_name: "Harry_t"
what we match.
Better regexps appreciated.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
--- Comment #5 from Jon Valdes 2011-03-22 14:56:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Above 2^24 and below 2^25, only even integers are not rounded when converted
> to
> float and odd integers are rounded. I think it is what you report in commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48238
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48238
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-22
15:11:16 UTC ---
> Better regexps appreciated.
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler
"DW_TAG_typedef\[^\\r\\n\]*\[\\r\\n\]+\[^\\r\\n\]*(DW_AT_name:
\"Harry_t\"|\"Harry_t..\".*DW_AT_name)" } } */
work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juanval at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48235
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48238
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2011-03-22 15:28:56
UTC ---
You should avoid .* because that can result in multi-line matches. Use [^\n]*
instead.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48144
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-03-22
15:58:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 23751
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23751
Current patch
The ICE turned out to be the new one. We are updating the data sets on the
bookk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48239
Summary: ARM Thumb: Undefined reference to `__aeabi_lmul'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey 2011-03-22 16:20:15
UTC ---
I agree. The test is not verifying whether or not snprintf is getting inlined
and that was what bug 47917 was about. This should be a compile test that
looks for snprintf in the assem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48237
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-22
16:31:12 UTC ---
I strongly disagree. The test is testing also whether the optimization works
correctly. Feel free to xfail the test on targets that don't have C99
compliant snprintf, but on targets
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48240
Summary: libgo assertion failure at runtime/mem.c:114 on 64-bit
Solaris 10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2011-03-22 16:59:03
UTC ---
I guess we disagree on what the test should be doing. I agree that it is a
valid test for showing that nothing gets broken when doing the optimization,
but it is not a test that shows
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48241
Summary: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-1.c FAILs on Solaris
10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-22
17:07:08 UTC ---
We have gcc.dg/pr47917.c test for that purpose.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey 2011-03-22 17:13:29
UTC ---
OK, that is what I was missing. I didn't notice there was a second test to
check for that, sorry for the confusion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48242
Summary: gotest needs timeout mechanism
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Summary: Several libgo tests fail on Solaris 10/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@air
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244
Summary: iso-c-binding support missing on NetBSD (with patch)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-22 19:01:21 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, sje at cup dot hp.com wrote:
> In running this test on IA64 and x86, the first call is the only one that I
> see
> getting inlined on both platfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |sje at gcc dot gnu.org
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
--- Comment #16 from Pawel Sikora 2011-03-22 20:03:09
UTC ---
i've tested the latest 4.5 branch head. it produces less objdump errors
but the core issue still exists. afaics the gdb-7.2 on win32 has problems
with cfi_esacpes before ___main.
_mai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48144
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-03-22 20:07:05
UTC ---
Hello Andrey,
the patch from comment #3 (r171299) prevents ICE on all (three) testcases I
had.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17943
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35044
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arc-elf32 |
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38440
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39600
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41188
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arc-elf32 |
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41747
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42116
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39685
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39718
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40424
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11519
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14629
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32262
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32431
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42940
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19960
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35651
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48229
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39719
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20529
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20528
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48220
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-22 21:05:32 UTC ---
> Yes, I can do that. Do you know how the test fails on HP-UX 10.*?
> Does it fail to compile or does it compile and then fail during execution like
> it does on HP-UX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr46940 c_lto_pr46940_0.o assemble on
*-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45844
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-22
22:03:41 UTC ---
Any plan to backport the fix or should I close this pr?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48238
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-22
22:06:10 UTC ---
> You should avoid .* because that can result in multi-line matches. Use [^\n]*
> instead.
Is
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr47939-1.c2011-03-21
19:22:
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
