--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 18:48
---
Subject: Bug 24782
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jan 4 18:48:38 2006
New Revision: 109342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109342
Log:
PR c++/24782
*
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 18:49
---
Subject: Bug 24782
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jan 4 18:49:21 2006
New Revision: 109343
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109343
Log:
PR c++/24782
*
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 18:50
---
Subject: Bug 24782
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jan 4 18:50:07 2006
New Revision: 109344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109344
Log:
PR c++/24782
*
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 18:53
---
Fixed in 4.0.3.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 00:56
---
Subject: Bug 25663
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Jan 15 00:56:50 2006
New Revision: 109713
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109713
Log:
PR c++/25663
*
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 00:57
---
Subject: Bug 25663
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Jan 15 00:57:22 2006
New Revision: 109714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109714
Log:
PR c++/25663
*
--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 00:57
---
Subject: Bug 25663
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Jan 15 00:57:47 2006
New Revision: 109715
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109715
Log:
PR c++/25663
*
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 00:59
---
Fixed in 4.0.3.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:11
---
I'm leaving this at P3 until we have more information. Clearly, if this is a
general problem that affets primary/secondary targets, we should increase the
priority.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:13
---
We're generating correct code, so I've marked this as P2, rather than P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:19
---
I agree that this looks related to PR 16269.
In that PR, RTH suggests that the right way to fix this is for the front end to
be more explicit about the lifetime of the temporaries, which definitely seems
the
--- Comment #1 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:20
---
Marking as P2, since this is just an accepts-invalid regression.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:27
---
This kind of code is common so this is a P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:30
---
This is not critical, as it only affects secondary uses of the compiler.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:43
---
The claim in Comment #9 is that this is a 4.1 regression as well as a 4.0
regression, so I've udpated the subject line. It would be interesting to know
if this affects mainline as well.
--
mmitchel a
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:43
---
This is a relatively obscure case with a relatively minor failure mode; P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:47
---
68k is not a primary platform; P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:50
---
I think it's unwise to backport -Wstrict-aliasing for C++ to 4.0. As Jakub
says, this is going to break -Werror builds for some packages, and, contrary to
Andrew's claim, there are relatively common
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:51
---
I think we should understand this problem, at least, before 4.0.3.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:54
---
ICE on valid; P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:57
---
Wrong code on primary platform; P1.
Kazu, does your patch for PR 23150 apply to 4.0? If so, would you please test
that change?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:57
---
ICE on valid; P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:58
---
gcov is not core functionality; P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 22:59
---
SH is not a primary platform; P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 23:12
---
I agree that this should be a P1.
Why do we think I::B is a non-dependent type? It should be considered
dependent, because we may have a specialization of I for which B is not a base
class. There are some
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 23:15
---
This is valid code, but not particularly commonplace code. Furthermore, it
doesn't look like we've got any good way to fix this -- except for the patch in
Comment #8. What were the results of t
--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 23:57
---
The problem is that we originally encounter the nested name specifier I::B
during a call from cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p. That function sets
check_dependency_p to false, because we do have to resolve
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 00:04
---
Created an attachment (id=10650)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10650&action=view)
Patch that disallows nested-name-specifiers for constructors when in class
scope.
This patch
--- Comment #16 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 21:55
---
I'm still wrestling with this PR.
As I suggested earlier, I turned off the caching of nested-name-specifiers
unless we're in the check_dependency_p case. However, that causes
g++.dg/parse/operator2
--- Comment #17 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-18 22:25
---
In retrospect, I wonder if we should be complaining about a using-declaration
in a template in the first place.
For example, is:
struct X { void f(); };
template
struct S : public T {
using X::f
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 06:53
---
Subject: Bug 25836
Author: mmitchel
Date: Thu Jan 19 06:52:56 2006
New Revision: 109943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109943
Log:
PR c++/25836
* c
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 06:53
---
Subject: Bug 25836
Author: mmitchel
Date: Thu Jan 19 06:53:34 2006
New Revision: 109944
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109944
Log:
PR c++/25836
* c
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 06:55
---
Subject: Bug 25836
Author: mmitchel
Date: Thu Jan 19 06:55:53 2006
New Revision: 109945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109945
Log:
PR c++/25836
* c
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 06:59
---
Fixed in 4.0.3.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 20:44
---
David has indicated to me that it's possible (but not certain) that the PowerPC
GNU/Linux community wants this on by default in GCC 4.1. Since we'd very much
like to avoid ABI changes throughout the
--- Comment #18 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 21:27
---
I've spoken with the folks at EDG, and we all agree that we should not be
checking that, in "using S::f", "S" is a base class of the current class if
we're in a template; the set o
--- Comment #19 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-20 03:07
---
Subject: Bug 22136
Author: mmitchel
Date: Fri Jan 20 03:07:49 2006
New Revision: 110016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110016
Log:
PR c++/22136
* name-
--- Comment #20 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-20 03:08
---
Subject: Bug 22136
Author: mmitchel
Date: Fri Jan 20 03:07:58 2006
New Revision: 110017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110017
Log:
PR c++/22136
* name-
--- Comment #21 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-20 03:36
---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-20 22:37
---
RTH's comments are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01390.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25654
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 00:22
---
Subject: Bug 28235
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 00:22:43 2006
New Revision: 115576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115576
Log:
PR c++/28235
* pt.c (tsu
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 00:25
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 00:45
---
This is certainly a serious problem.
Right now, the C++ front end relies on TREE_PUBLIC in various places to
determine whether or not something has external linkage. Instead, we could
compute that, by looking at
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 00:46
---
Yes, extern "C" should make the function have external linkage in the object
file. Namespaces have no impact on extern "C" functions, except from the point
of view of lexical scoping.
--
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 05:09
---
Subject: Bug 28235
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 05:09:00 2006
New Revision: 115577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115577
Log:
PR c++/28235
* pt.c (tsu
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|mark at codesourcery dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 05:15
---
Subject: Bug 28048
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 05:14:25 2006
New Revision: 115579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115579
Log:
PR c++/28048
* sem
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 05:18
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28419
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 06:43
---
Subject: Bug 28048
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 06:42:56 2006
New Revision: 115581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115581
Log:
PR c++/28048
* sem
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 06:43
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 17:06
---
This test now passes.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 17:31
---
Subject: Bug 28337
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 17:31:51 2006
New Revision: 115596
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115596
Log:
PR c++/28337
* typeck.c (build_b
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 17:32
---
Subject: Bug 28337
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 17:32:38 2006
New Revision: 115597
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115597
Log:
PR c++/28337
* typeck.c (build_b
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 17:35
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 17:38
---
This test case now works for me on both the 4.1 and 4.2 branches.
Martin, would you please confirm that, at your convenience?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28225
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 22:49
---
Subject: Bug 28338
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Jul 19 22:49:20 2006
New Revision: 115600
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115600
Log:
PR c++/28338
* decl.c (layout_
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 22:51
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|mark at codesourcery dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 02:55
---
Subject: Bug 28338
Author: mmitchel
Date: Thu Jul 20 02:55:24 2006
New Revision: 115606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115606
Log:
PR c++/28338
* decl.c (layout_
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 03:59
---
I do not believe this is a bug. The problematic conversion is:
SdOptionsPrint &rOldUnconst = (SdOptionsPrint&)(rOther);
Here, rOther is declared as:
const SdOptionsPrintItem &
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-21 01:42
---
In C99, a compound literal in the body of a function has automatic storage
duration associated with the enclosing block. That's what the C++ front end
now does. In that context, the error given is ent
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28363
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-21 08:38
---
I think that Comment #10 shows that handle_externally_visible should not be
registering things with cgraph, as we shouldn't ever have anything pointing at
a re-declaration.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-23 20:28
---
Subject: Bug 28025
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Jul 23 20:28:26 2006
New Revision: 115687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115687
Log:
PR c++/28025
* cp-tree.h (LOOKU
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-23 20:32
---
Subject: Bug 28025
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Jul 23 20:32:28 2006
New Revision: 115688
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115688
Log:
PR c++/28025
* cp-tree.h (LOOKU
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-23 22:02
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28418
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28420
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28432
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-31 23:32
---
Shouldn't this issue be closed now?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28450
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28479
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28480
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28489
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28490
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28495
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28506
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28513
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28516
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28523
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28528
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-31 23:42
---
Java is not release-critical.
--
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=28557
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28558
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28559
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28560
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-31 23:49
---
Should this issue be closed now that Roger's patches have been applied?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28247
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-01 18:27
---
DJ --
Thanks for the detailed comments. I understand that the assertion is guarding
against some cases where we may silently generate wrong code (as with the
situation with pointers on the m16c). However
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-01 20:05
---
Subject: Bug 28523
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Aug 1 20:04:57 2006
New Revision: 115862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115862
Log:
PR c++/28523
* tree.c (stabil
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-01 20:05
---
Subject: Bug 28523
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Aug 1 20:05:49 2006
New Revision: 115863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115863
Log:
PR c++/28523
* tree.c (stabil
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-01 21:33
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-02 20:34
---
Subject: Bug 28557
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Aug 2 20:33:48 2006
New Revision: 115885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115885
Log:
PR c++/28557
* pt.c (tsubst_
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-02 20:35
---
Subject: Bug 28557
Author: mmitchel
Date: Wed Aug 2 20:35:41 2006
New Revision: 115886
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115886
Log:
PR c++/28557
* pt.c (tsubst_
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-02 20:37
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
901 - 1000 of 4520 matches
Mail list logo
