--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:16 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:35 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-19 21:35 ---
Subject: Bug 35979
Author: tromey
Date: Sat Apr 19 21:35:02 2008
New Revision: 134471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134471
Log:
PR libgcj/35979:
--- Comment #10 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-20 18:59 ---
FYI -- when I tried this on the compile farm tester, it caused a couple
regressions. I'll redo it at some point and post the results here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14933
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-21 14:02 ---
Fixed on trunk.
As I doubt this will be back-ported to 4.3.x, I am closing the bug.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-21 14:02 ---
Subject: Bug 33415
Author: tromey
Date: Mon Apr 21 14:02:00 2008
New Revision: 134507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134507
Log:
libcpp
PR libcpp/33415:
* c
--- Comment #10 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-22 15:24 ---
I think this should be fixable now that mapped locations have gone in.
The key is to have c_lex_with_flags return a value for in_system_header
which comes from the token's "original" location
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 17:51 ---
Confirmed.
The bug is that we look at top[-1].value after overwriting it with the
value of the 'true' branch of the condition.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 18:48 ---
Confirmed.
I think this is related to PR 36088.
I think the operator precedence code is subtly wrong with ?:
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-01 19:31 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-01 19:31 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-04 18:43 ---
Note that this was fixed by:
2007-05-02 Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* expr.c (num_div_op): Don't overflow if the result is
zero.
This is in 4.3.
--
tromey at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-05 19:10 ---
test.c.t02.original says:
u = MAX_EXPR <(unsigned int) i, 1>;
... but this is wrong.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-05 22:27 ---
fold_binary sees both MAX_EXPRs and reassociates.
(I think this is why it works with intermediate variables.)
Then associate_trees creates a new MAX_EXPR, converting each
argument to unsigned:
return fold_build2
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 17:15 ---
Subject: Bug 36088
Author: tromey
Date: Tue May 6 17:15:07 2008
New Revision: 134989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134989
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR preprocessor/35313, PR prep
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 17:15 ---
Subject: Bug 35313
Author: tromey
Date: Tue May 6 17:15:07 2008
New Revision: 134989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134989
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR preprocessor/35313, PR prep
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 18:09 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 18:10 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-08 16:40 ---
I finally submitted this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-05/msg00520.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22231
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 22:17 ---
Subject: Bug 22231
Author: tromey
Date: Fri May 9 22:17:00 2008
New Revision: 135128
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135128
Log:
gcc
PR preprocessor/22231:
*
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 22:18 ---
Fixed on trunk.
It is very unlikely that this will be back-ported, so I'm closing the bug.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 23:02 ---
I think we should give an error by default, and only *not* give an
error if -MG is passed. My reasoning is that -MG exists only to disable
this error. I couldn't think of a reason to disable it in other cases
--- Comment #10 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-09 23:05 ---
On further reflection I think this is very minor and I'm unlikely
to back-port the fix. So, I am closing this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #17 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 22168
Author: tromey
Date: Tue May 13 14:50:27 2008
New Revision: 135264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135264
Log:
libcpp
PR preprocessor/22168:
*
--- Comment #18 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 15:20 ---
Fixed on trunk.
I think we're unlikely to backport this, so I'm closing it.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 19:52 ---
I don't see why this should be marked "wait".
Changing back to "new".
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-16 18:23 ---
Confirmed
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-16 19:03 ---
in build_jni_stub, build_class_ref returns NULL because
this_classdollar is NULL.
Probably we should call cache_this_class_ref here, but that
would mean making java_add_stmt work in the jni stub case.
--
http
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-16 19:39 ---
Also, note that a workaround is to put the native method after
a non-native method.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36247
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-21 21:53 ---
Subject: Bug 2
Author: tromey
Date: Wed May 21 21:52:57 2008
New Revision: 135740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135740
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR preprocessor/2:
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-21 21:56 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-22 19:51 ---
Treelang has been removed.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-22 19:52 ---
Treelang has been removed.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-24 16:21 ---
Confirmed. This seems like a weird design to me, but my reading of the
standard text agrees with yours.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-24 18:04 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-30 14:25 ---
Subject: Bug 36320
Author: tromey
Date: Fri May 30 14:25:09 2008
New Revision: 136209
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136209
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR preprocessor/36320:
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-30 15:07 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-30 15:15 ---
Not a regression, so I'm closing it.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-06 20:23 ---
By my reading of the standard, issuing an error here is correct.
The restrictions on #elif are only lifted if it is in a skipped group.
But, in this case, it is not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
d when code
expanded from macro
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36479
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-14 19:48 ---
Subject: Bug 36247
Author: tromey
Date: Sat Jun 14 19:48:05 2008
New Revision: 136786
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136786
Log:
PR java/36247:
* class.c (build_c
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-14 19:50 ---
Subject: Bug 36247
Author: tromey
Date: Sat Jun 14 19:49:45 2008
New Revision: 136787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136787
Log:
PR java/36247:
* class.c (build_c
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-14 19:50 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-19 15:27 ---
Confirmed; I think the analysis is correct here.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-24 18:32 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-24 18:32 ---
Subject: Bug 32198
Author: tromey
Date: Tue Jun 24 18:31:49 2008
New Revision: 137084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137084
Log:
PR libgcj/32198:
* tools/gnu/classpa
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 03:25 ---
Sorry, I somehow missed the followup comment.
>> #elif defined(BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH) && BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH() == 1
The expression has to be valid after preprocessing.
So, if BOOST_PP_ITERATIO
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-08 02:45 ---
My guess is that comment #3 is the right theory, because
this warning is issued from the front end. I did not
investigate deeply though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36760
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-12 17:06 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-12 17:10 ---
I tried this and it is fixed on trunk.
Closing.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-12 17:18 ---
This was fixed for 4.3, and I think it unlikely that anyone will
backport the doc fix. So, I am closing this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-12 17:19 ---
This was fixed for 4.3 and I think it unlikely that anyone will backport
the doc fix. So, I am closing this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-18 17:32 ---
Just FYI -- this is known fallout from the patch to remove
no-unit-at-a-time. Andrew Haley is looking into it.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 14:36 ---
Seems like a reasonable idea to me.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-29 21:26 ---
> I don't know why line_table was changed into a pointer
It was because PCH does not know how to write structs.
I agree with your analysis; we have to save that field
across PCH loading.
--
tromey at
--- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-30 17:44 ---
Please ping that patch on the gcc-patches list.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25934
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 16:37 ---
You may want to send the GC patch upstream, to the GC list.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 17:40 ---
Thanks for the concise report.
This abort occurs when computing a GC bitmap descriptor of a class.
What it means is that we think we've seen overlapping fields in the
class -- which is a "can't happe
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 18:32 ---
FWIW, some embedded users want to be able to remove ffi --
not for its own sake but because they also want to remove
the interpreter, reflection info (see David Daney's recent
proposal). It doesn't seem th
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 02:29 ---
Quick update... we debugged this a bit and found that
the field decl representing Three's superclass (the one made
by push_super_field) claims to have size 16 -- and yet
the 'b' field claims to have
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 02:45 ---
ISTR seeing this one before.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 02:47 ---
I believe this is fixed in svn.
Please reopen if it still fails.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 02:50 ---
The simplest way to solve the memory leak is to make a new structure
which holds all the data, then allocate an instance of this.
This structure can be allocated with _Jv_AllocBytes, I believe, as the
atable ought
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 21:49 ---
At least the change in push_type is wrong.
Perhaps others too, I'm looking.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26097
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 21:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=10778)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10778&action=view)
proposed patch
Please try this patch.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26097
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 22:29 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 22:29 ---
I played with this a bit today and I'm not able to reproduce.
Do you need special arguments to the test program?
I tried with my current 4.0.x and 4.1 builds.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 22:36 ---
Testing a patch.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #10 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 23:30 ---
Subject: Bug 26097
Author: tromey
Date: Sat Feb 4 23:30:01 2006
New Revision: 110598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110598
Log:
PR java/26097:
* expr.c (push_type
--- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 23:30 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 23:34 ---
Subject: Bug 25676
Author: tromey
Date: Sat Feb 4 23:34:06 2006
New Revision: 110599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110599
Log:
gcc/java
PR java/25676:
* bu
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 23:35 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 23:51 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24461 ***
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 23:51 ---
*** Bug 25948 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 21:05 ---
Testing a patch.
This may have been fixed, but it fails now.
Setting TREE_USED on the syms decl in GEN_TABLE fixes it.
But maybe that is just papering over the bug?
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #20 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 21:54 ---
The included xmlParserAPIs.jar and xercesImpl.jar compiled fine for
me on x86 FC4 using svn gcc 4.0.x.
So, I'm closing this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #9 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 22:12 ---
This seems to have stalled.
I think my preferred solution here would be to use memcmp and
let gcc and glibc fight it out for the best implementation.
How far are we from having that be a reasonable approach
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26139
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 18:28 ---
You can't build just the gcj bits of gcc -- you have to build the whole thing.
There are instructions on the gcc web site:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/
BTW, thanks for the self-contained bug report. We like t
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 18:43 ---
Andrew pointed out on irc that we could also implement this by
installing a pointer to a "constructor" which would simply throw
the appropriate exception.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 19:23 ---
I looked at this a bit more.
We don't want to set TREE_USED on the itable syms decl, because
that will still cause it to be emitted, even though it is not used.
It would be preferable to not create the various
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 20:12 ---
Testing a patch
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 18:06 ---
Subject: Bug 22578
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Feb 8 18:06:11 2006
New Revision: 110759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110759
Log:
gcc/java
PR java/22578:
* chec
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 18:08 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 18:54 ---
The regex changes are unlikely to cause big destabilization for 3 reasons:
* They are pure java
* The regex code has historically been somewhat broken, so we're unlikely
to make the situation worse
* They&#x
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:07 ---
Subject: Bug 17978
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Feb 8 20:07:29 2006
New Revision: 110763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110763
Log:
PR libgcj/26063, PR libgcj/17978, PR libg
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:07 ---
Subject: Bug 10598
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Feb 8 20:07:29 2006
New Revision: 110763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110763
Log:
PR libgcj/26063, PR libgcj/17978, PR libg
--- Comment #12 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:07 ---
Subject: Bug 26063
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Feb 8 20:07:29 2006
New Revision: 110763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110763
Log:
PR libgcj/26063, PR libgcj/17978, PR libg
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:08 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:09 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #13 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:10 ---
Fix checked in.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 20:13 ---
Note that this bug may not be as severe now that we've simplified
Class marking in _Jv_MarkObj.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18086
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 19:47 ---
Fixed in svn.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 19:52 ---
Subject: Bug 26202
Author: tromey
Date: Fri Feb 10 19:52:44 2006
New Revision: 110847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110847
Log:
Re-merged all regular expression code.
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 19:52 ---
Subject: Bug 26177
Author: tromey
Date: Fri Feb 10 19:52:44 2006
New Revision: 110847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110847
Log:
Re-merged all regular expression code.
--- Comment #9 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 19:53 ---
Fix checked in.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26177
901 - 1000 of 1570 matches
Mail list logo
