http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54199
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-09 08:05:51 UTC ---
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
>
> --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-08
> 15:31:09 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #1 from Johan Lundberg 2012-08-09
08:08:46 UTC ---
confirmed... I agree with this. Among other things it's important for
boost/C++11 interop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54206
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53902
T.J. Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tjyang2001 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-09
10:21:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27965
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27965
idea
Uh, the constant pool is filled via force_const_mem and I thought about
beefing up the wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-08-09 10:45:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from damz 2012-08-08 17:40:37 UTC
> ---
> How I wish that the supportability matrix was published.
I hope you understand that this is completel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53902
--- Comment #2 from T.J. Yang 2012-08-09 10:58:54
UTC ---
Found following URLs could be helpful to resolve the issue.
http://echelog.com/logs/browse/oi-dev/1315000800.
https://github.com/richlowe/gcc/commit/610511a2a04185795a2e0d08ff2536912671934
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54207
Bug #: 54207
Summary: ICE in build_noexcept_spec when bool is
#defined/typedef'd
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53902
--- Comment #3 from T.J. Yang 2012-08-09 11:05:55
UTC ---
Also at
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/configure.ac?revision=189803&view=markup,
around line 2461. the previous fix is included in gcc trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53902
--- Comment #4 from T.J. Yang 2012-08-09 11:11:22
UTC ---
I tried the gcc trunk src and named it as 4.7.2. but I am getting same error
message.
tjyang@b-solaris11-amd64:~/build/gcc-4.7.2-objdir/i386-pc-solaris2.11/libitm$
pwd
/home/tjyang/build/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54207
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-09
11:39:10 UTC ---
4.7.1 gets an ICE too, but it works on trunk.
As it's undefined behaviour (bool is a keyword) and it already works on trunk
it might not be worth changing anything.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #9 from damz 2012-08-09 12:02:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > --- Comment #7 from damz 2012-08-08 17:40:37 UTC
> > ---
>
> > How I wish that the supportability matrix was published.
>
> I hope you understand that this is co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54199
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-09
12:06:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Aug 9 12:06:31 2012
New Revision: 190251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190251
Log:
2012-08-09 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54199
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54199
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54206
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2012-08-09
12:39:14 UTC ---
I didn't do it, but I had to debug a user's gcc config who did it.
WONTFIX would be wrong, if you really don't support it error out in configure
please instead of silent breakage (glibc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54027
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53701
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-08-09
14:08:38 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Aug 9 14:08:31 2012
New Revision: 190253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190253
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/53701
* sel-sched.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-09
15:33:36 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:33:28 2012
New Revision: 190256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190256
Log:
Don't return identity for CONST or symbolic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
Bug #: 54208
Summary: compilation error for ubound construct in PARAMETER
statements
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09
15:51:25 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:51:20 2012
New Revision: 190257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190257
Log:
PR target/50751
* config/sh/sh.md (*extendq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #46 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09
15:55:23 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:55:18 2012
New Revision: 190258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190258
Log:
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.md: Add negc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
Bug #: 54209
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Failed to build gcc for Android/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09
15:58:08 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:58:04 2012
New Revision: 190259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190259
Log:
PR target/39423
* config/sh/predicates.md (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
Bug #: 54210
Summary: gcc unable to detect -mprfchw flag in bulldozer
machines
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54211
Bug #: 54211
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed building
freetype with -Os
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
--- Comment #2 from chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-09 17:23:40 UTC ---
MIPS provides a version of link.h in Android NDK as follows:
Ex:
>From android-ndk-r8b/platforms/android-9/arch-mips/usr/include# cat link.h
/*
For building unwind-dw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54211
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
--- Comment #1 from GGanesh
2012-08-09 18:04:39 UTC ---
Calling the cpuid function 0x8001 does it for bulldozer architecture.
Is it OK for upstream?
Index: gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.v.chupin at gmail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
--- Comment #4 from chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-09 18:45:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > MIPS provides a version of link.h in Android NDK as follows:
> > Ex:
> > From android-ndk-r8b/platforms/android-9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-09 19:08:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> >
> > Why isn't link.h in AOSP Bionic C library?
>
> ARM doesn't use eh_frame, so there is no need to create link.h at the
> beginning for the Android project,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54212
Bug #: 54212
Summary: ARM: invalid instruction (vdupeq.32) generated
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
Bug #: 54213
Summary: please help to determine wether it is an PostgreSQL
error or GCC error (combobox and SQL data sorting)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
--- Comment #1 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
19:56:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 27969
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27969
additional files to source asked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
--- Comment #2 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
19:57:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 27970
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27970
object file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
--- Comment #3 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
19:58:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 27971
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27971
assembler source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
Bug #: 54214
Summary: (corrected copyright notes in source file)please help
to determine whether it is an PostgreSQL error or GCC
error (combobox and SQL data sorting)
Classificati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
--- Comment #1 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
20:15:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 27973
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27973
additional files to source asked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
--- Comment #2 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
20:18:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27974
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27974
object file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
--- Comment #3 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
20:19:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 27975
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27975
assembler source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
--- Comment #4 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
20:22:40 UTC ---
operation system is Windows XP Home Edition(I guessit is an OEM version) with
Service Pack 3 installed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
--- Comment #5 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
20:24:54 UTC ---
my operation system is Windows XP Home Edition(I guess it is an OEM version)
with Service Pack 3 installed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54211
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-08-09 20:36:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is it OK for upstream?
Please post the patch to gcc-patches@ mailing list, with correct ChangeLog and
testing information.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54211
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-08-09
21:06:22 UTC ---
Ah, actually we're generating a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR when a PLUS_EXPR is called
for. I see what's going on, shouldn't be hard to fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54214
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-09
21:50:59 UTC ---
Why is this marked "enhancement" ?
Is this the same issue as PR 54213 ? If so please close that one.
What exactly is your question and why do you think it's anything to do with
GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54215
Bug #: 54215
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||54211
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-08-09
22:44:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> I'm not sure whether this should be back ported to 4.6.x or 4.7.x or not.
> Kaz,
> what do you think?
Looks a bit intrusive for the stable branches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:17:54
UTC ---
OK, I checking out the preprocessed file reveals the following relevant pieces:
typedef struct page {
struct list_head list;
struct address_space *mapping;
unsigned long index;
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54180
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:27:55
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 23:27:51 2012
New Revision: 190273
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190273
Log:
PR target/54089
* config/sh/sh-protos (shift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54180
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:36:10
UTC ---
Kaz, another thing I'm a bit unsure about ...
#define SH_DYNAMIC_SHIFT_COST \
(TARGET_HARD_SH4 ? 1 : TARGET_DYNSHIFT ? (optimize_size ? 1 : 2) : 20)
Do you have any idea, why this is n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54213
--- Comment #5 from Denis Kolesnik 2012-08-09
23:37:18 UTC ---
please see comments for the bug 54214, because it is the same, but with
corrected copyright notes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:42:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Kaz, another thing I'm a bit unsure about ...
>
> #define SH_DYNAMIC_SHIFT_COST \
> (TARGET_HARD_SH4 ? 1 : TARGET_DYNSHIFT ? (optimize_size ? 1 : 2) : 20)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-09 23:46:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 27976
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27976
Cutdown test case
I have attached a new test case, cut down from the original. I have duplicated
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54216
Bug #: 54216
Summary: Missing diagnostic for ill-formed anonymous enum
declarations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54216
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54217
Bug #: 54217
Summary: setup_save_areas() duplicates hard reg uses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54217
--- Comment #1 from DJ Delorie 2012-08-10 00:22:22 UTC
---
Created attachment 27978
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27978
test case for rl78-elf, from newlib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-08-10
00:39:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> #define SH_DYNAMIC_SHIFT_COST (TARGET_DYNSHIFT ? 1 : 20)
Sounds reasonable. Perhaps some historical reason for the original
one, though I don't know why.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54211
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-08-10
01:14:41 UTC ---
The following patch is tested and awaiting approval:
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
===
--- gcc/gimple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54215
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54211
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #37 from Jan Hubicka 2012-08-10 03:45:31
UTC ---
>
> I suppose it's the old issue that we update fibheap keys along each
> inlining decision - and with flatten there are just very many ... Honza?
Well, I killed most of updating for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka 2012-08-10 03:50:26
UTC ---
> I don't understand how inline_merge_summary is supposed to work, so I'm going
> to leave that one for Richi and Honza.
Well, it produces inline summary for function that is result of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka 2012-08-10 03:53:46
UTC ---
> Martin, can you look at comment #14 and the patch? I think what we want to
> do in flatten_function is before
>
> inline_call (e, true, NULL, NULL);
>
> reset the edge predic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #40 from Jan Hubicka 2012-08-10
04:34:54 UTC ---
OK,
my simple ^C profiling shows:
#14 0x0091f17f in estimate_edge_size_and_time (e=0x7fffb7192d68,
size=, time=0x7fffc04110b0, prob=1) at
../../gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka 2012-08-10
05:18:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27979
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27979
Path for inliner slowness
Hi,
this is patch I am testing. After some consideration I do not like the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-08-10
06:17:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
seems to work for me now
> jh@gcc10:~/trunk/build/gcc$ ./gfortran -O2 -c t.f90 -B ./
> jh@gcc10:~/trunk/build/gcc$ cat t.f90
> SUBROUTINE goo()
> IMPLICIT N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54205
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #42 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-10
06:32:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> Quite an achivement that Steven managed to
> chase out all the other cases.
Thanks for the compliment :-)
I'm still working on the rewrite_into_loop_cl
87 matches
Mail list logo
