http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52860
Bug #: 52860
Summary: I/O: gfortran rejects writing after hitting END=
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
08:31:02 UTC ---
Revision: 186100
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52861
Bug #: 52861
Summary: (missed optimisation) missed transformation to memset
with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52668
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Desitter
2012-04-04 09:42:47 UTC ---
The patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-03/msg00124.html fixes
the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 09:57:51
UTC ---
I also see the same 64-bit failure on r186130. A lot harder to reproduce than
the 32-bit one I originally reported (which is still there on r186130). Likely
not a problem with .eh_frame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
10:39:07 UTC ---
Doh, I completely failed to notice yours is powerpc not powerpc64 so I wasn't
testing 32-bit, sorry. I'll re-check when I get home this evening.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
--- Comment #2 from Bastien Montagne 2012-04-04
10:56:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27084
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27084
preprocessed version of VideoFFmpeg.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Bastien Montagne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |c++
--- Comment #3 from Bastien Montag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
--- Comment #4 from Bastien Montagne 2012-04-04
10:59:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 27085
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27085
preprocessed version of VideoFFmpeg.cpp
grmpg… I should awake, some times. sorry again
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Bastien Montagne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27084|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
--- Comment #6 from Bastien Montagne 2012-04-04
11:08:45 UTC ---
Bah, it’s not my day :/
Now it appears the error was on our side – quoting commit r45392 on blender svn
(ten minutes ago):
"fix for building on linux with gcc4.7, an error was cau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 11:12:56
UTC ---
Heh. We're even. I didn't notice yours was a 64-bit failure until you told me
your gcc revision number.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48518
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
11:15:54 UTC ---
Clang appears to agree with GCC now.
This reminds me of PR 46824
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Bug #: 52862
Summary: ICE convert_to_pointer, at convert.c:50
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52826
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48518
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
11:38:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The following program instantiates wrap, but a very similar program
> that doesn't call an overloaded operator doesn't:
Neither does an even more similar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52853
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52849
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth 2012-04-04 11:48:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> For the 64-bit Solaris/x86 case, Solaris engineering has identified and fixed
> the bug:
>
> 7133114 fsbase (%fs:0) is not set properly after makecontext()/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
Bug #: 52863
Summary: Enable -Wall by default
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-04
11:56:31 UTC ---
Reduced testcase, fails with -O:
typedef struct _AVLPVNodeCore {
void * Key;
} AVLPVNODECORE;
void ASMAtomicWritePtrVoid(void * volatile *ppv, const void *pv);
typedef struct R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-04
11:58:44 UTC ---
More reduced:
void ASMAtomicWritePtrVoid(const void *pv);
void rtThreadDestroy(void)
{
void * const pvTypeChecked = ((void *)0);
ASMAtomicWritePtrVoid((void *)(pvTypeChecked));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.6
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-04
12:09:21 UTC ---
(1) WTF?
(2) Please don't.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-04
12:12:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 4 12:12:00 2012
New Revision: 186135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186135
Log:
2012-04-04 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52808
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52863
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
Mikka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Host|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Bug #: 52864
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Assignment to pointer
component for INTENT(IN) dummy argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Bug #: 52865
Summary: GCC can't vectorize fortran loop but able to vectorize
similar c-loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-04
13:27:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 27088
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27088
C test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52826
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52845
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 14:20:57
UTC ---
I caught the 64-bit failure in the act. It's dying on the gcc_assert in
unwind-dw2.c:_Unwind_SetSpColumn, with the value read from
dwarf_reg_size_table[1] being zero. The implication h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
--- Comment #3 from Mikka 2012-04-04 14:22:45 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> But what about cases such as (val1 == (ONE|TWO)) ?
>
> (ONE|TWO) is of type 'int' but that code is correct and shouldn't warn
In my opinion, there should be a warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52845
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-04
14:40:58 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 4 14:40:51 2012
New Revision: 186139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186139
Log:
PR c++/52845
* decl.c (finish_function): Up
/snap/gcc-snapshot-20120404/build/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/debug/c++11'
make[10]: Entering directory
`/home/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20120404/build/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/debug'
make[10]: *** No rule to make target `compatibility.lo', needed by
`libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
15:00:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > But what about cases such as (val1 == (ONE|TWO)) ?
> >
> > (ONE|TWO) is of type 'int' but that code is correct and shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
Bug #: 52867
Summary: Compilation of gcc-4.4.7 with gcc-4.2.4 fails on arm
platform
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52865
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-04-04
15:20:41 UTC ---
Seems it doesn't like non-empty latch block in Fortran case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||24985
--- Comment #39 from Manuel L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855
--- Comment #1 from Mike Thompson 2012-04-04
15:29:47 UTC ---
This bug can be reproduced using the standard gcc 4.6.3 packages that is part
of the Debian wheezy armhf port. The command line to trigger the bug is:
gcc -DPERL_CORE -c -D_REENTRAN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52845
--- Comment #2 from mattipee at yahoo dot co.uk 2012-04-04 15:29:49 UTC ---
r186139 works for me.
Thank you, Jason.
Matt.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-04
15:28:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27089
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27089
caret diagnostics patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
Bug #: 52868
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] 4.6 is faster on Atom
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52845
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Bug #: 52869
Summary: "this" not being allowed in noexcept clauses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52854
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
15:49:31 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 4 15:49:23 2012
New Revision: 186140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186140
Log:
Use long long in gtm_jmpbuf for x86-64
2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52762
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52854
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04
15:51:23 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 4 15:51:15 2012
New Revision: 186141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186141
Log:
Use long long in gtm_jmpbuf for x86-64
2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52870
Bug #: 52870
Summary: ICE during SLP pattern matching
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52870
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52793
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52871
Bug #: 52871
Summary: segmentation fault with wrongly-formed lambdas
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52861
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #14 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-04
17:06:09 UTC ---
Patch in comment #12 is ok to check in. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
Bug #: 52872
Summary: --enable-plugin; incorrrect test for "exported
symbols" and "-rdynamic" in gcc/configure.ac
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-04
17:18:22 UTC ---
It really won't change that much as -rdynamic and exported symbols are not
supported on windows right now anyways.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52871
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
17:22:09 UTC ---
already fixed in 4.7.0, this is almost certainly a dup of PR 47687
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Emrich 2012-04-04
17:22:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It really won't change that much as -rdynamic and exported symbols are not
> supported on windows right now anyways.
Agreed, but I think it's pretty easy to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #15 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-04
17:23:52 UTC ---
Patch in comment #13 is ok to check in, sadly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-04 17:25:41 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Apr 4 17:25:27 2012
New Revision: 186142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186142
Log:
Partially revert:
2012-03-28 Benja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52867
--- Comment #2 from Szűcs, Gábor 2012-04-04 18:28:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> GCC 4.4 series is now end-of-life. No further maintenance is planned. Please
> upgrade to a more recent set of sources
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback; sin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52873
Bug #: 52873
Summary: A.18.2 Vectors To_Index (C) = 0 though C /= No_Element
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-04
18:47:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 27092
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27092
Patch to add -fno-diagnostics-show-caret for testing
This seems like what you want for the last bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-04
18:52:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Created attachment 27092 [details]
> Patch to add -fno-diagnostics-show-caret for testing
>
> This seems like what you want for the last bit.
Great
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27092|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-04
20:22:57 UTC ---
I can reproduce this with -m32 on gcc110
If I compile with -D_GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS then I no longer get the
double-free, after running in a loop for several minutes - can you co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52854
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37619
nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.boulenguez at f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-04
21:41:02 UTC ---
> This looks like a combine problem:
>
> (insn 8 6 9 2 (set (reg/f:SI 59 [ D.1705 ])
> (subreg/s/u:SI (reg:DI 60) 0)) pr52838.c:6 64 {*movsi_internal}
> (expr_list:REG_DE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 22:27:43
UTC ---
glibc/ntpl/pthread_once.c:
static int once_lock = LLL_LOCK_INITIALIZER;
int
__pthread_once (once_control, init_routine)
pthread_once_t *once_control;
void (*init_routine) (vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 23:02:34
UTC ---
Huh, so glibc has a powerpc specific pthread_once, and that one has a different
bug. Lack of lwsync before atomic_increment (once_control);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52840
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52874
Bug #: 52874
Summary: Which directory in gcc contains error or exception
message templates?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra 2012-04-05 04:00:07
UTC ---
Created attachment 27094
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27094
config patch
Yes, the 32-bit failure seems to be gone if we use the gcc builtin atomics.
Multiple cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52874
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-05
05:03:45 UTC ---
Do you *really* believe this is a Bug, and as such, Bugzilla is the proper
place to handle it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52875
Bug #: 52875
Summary: ADL failure + ICE in decltype
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
96 matches
Mail list logo
