gcc 4.0.0 generates code that has line (**) ignored (nothing is invoked in it's
place).
I am not sure in what kind of relationship does this code stand with C++
standard.
But although structure X::Z is undefined, technically method Y::r can be invoked
safely since X::Z definition isn't required
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 15080
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 06:31:51
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite :
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
06:45 ---
Subject: Bug 21610
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 06:45:49
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-typeck.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
06:48 ---
Subject: Bug 21492
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 06:48:19
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog cfgcleanup.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
06:51 ---
Subject: Bug 21454
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 06:51:48
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
07:02 ---
Subject: Bug 15080
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 07:02:18
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite :
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
07:08 ---
Subject: Bug 21610
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 07:07:59
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
07:10 ---
Subject: Bug 21454
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 07:10:40
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite :
In the following code snippet:
namespace odd {
templateclass T
void f(T);
}
namespace N {
struct A {};
int f(A);
void g()
{
A a;
using odd::f;
int assert = sizeof(f(a)); // --- here
}
}
according to the standard 3.4.2/2 int N::f(A) should be found. But gcc finds
void
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
08:04 ---
Fails on i386-freebsd, too. Problems with non-linux /dev/null semantic, looks
like.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
08:14 ---
SSA form after inserting ASSERT_EXPRs
main ()
{
int i;
int c;
int b;
int D.1576;
bb 0:
c_4 = f ();
if (c_4 = 0) goto L0; else goto L8;
L0:;
c_8 = ASSERT_EXPR c_4, c_4 = 0;
c_7
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21332
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-05-17 08:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Known gcc bug. Check out my patch in bug 19664:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00180.html
You may need to fix libstdc++ header files also.
in PR19664 i see
GCC produced this ICE when the attached program was compiled. I tried the fix
from http://gcc.gnu.org/PR18641 but it did not fix the problem.
commandline options
-O2 -msoft-float -m64 -c
gcc output
=
a.c: In function `do_select':
a.c:12770: error: unable to find
--- Additional Comments From raj dot khem at gmail dot com 2005-05-17
08:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=8907)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8907action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21616
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-17 08:57
---
Assuming that the intertwined compiler issues get fixed, the libstdc++ patch
should be trivial, I'm attaching to 19664 an old draft that maybe has now some
hunks wrong about copyright dates (if you can rework
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
09:00 ---
Subject: Bug 21595
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 09:00:03
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog builtins.c
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-05-17
09:58 ---
Fails with 3.4.4 too
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Using a 64-bit CRC algorithm implementation implemented using long long int,
it has been found that gcc fails to optimise the algorithm correctly when the
-O2 parameter is used. In fact, it is found that the processing time for CRC
calculation more than doubles compared to the processing time for
--- Additional Comments From m dot cave-ayland at webbased dot co dot uk
2005-05-17 10:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=8910)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8910action=view)
The crctest64 .c file mentioned, along with the .i and .s files
--
Hello!
gcc reports internal compiler error when compiling mysql-4.1.11:
Version:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /appl/tmo/be6/tmp/gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/appl/tmo/be6/32
--enable-shared --enable-threads --with-gnu-as --with-as=/appl/tmo/be6/32/bin/as
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:25 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:25 ---
Fixed in 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:26 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:34 ---
*** Bug 21618 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:33 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21173 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21619
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21595
The testcase
int f[__builtin_constant_p(Hello[0])?1:-1];
did work on gcc 3.4, but doesn't any longer on 4.0 and 4.1.
The parser gets an integer constant node from fold_builtin, but still
thinks it is not a compile time constant for the array bound.
--
Summary: [4.0/4.1 regression]
--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-17
11:42 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Over my dead body. :-)
Oh, come on. It isn't that bad an idea to localize substitution failures,
isn't it:-)
-- Gaby
Sven
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:43 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to fail|
--- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:58 ---
Closing, as nobody seems to care about GCC_EXEC_PREFIX being broken.
Arno
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-17 12:30
---
(In reply to comment #8)
- yes, however as the loigical extention of:
a null reference is undefined = may trap = will trap
is simply wrong, and is not justifyable; such an optimization
is target
I'm trying to compile gcc-4.0.0 using gcc-3.3.4, on x86_64-suse-linux.
Compilation stops with this error:
/usr/local/src/gcc-4.0.0/obj/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/local/src/gcc-4.0.0/obj/gcc/
-B/usr/local/gcc-4.0/x86_64-suse-linux/bin/
-B/usr/local/gcc-4.0/x86_64-suse-linux/lib/ -isystem
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
13:18 ---
Huh, you did not configure with --diable-multilib.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21620
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
13:25 ---
For ia-64, this can be exposed with prctl:
$ gfortran packtest.f90
$ prctl --unaligned=signal gdb ./a.out
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.1post-1.20040607.52rh)
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
13:32 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
The bug is that gfortran apparently does not support printing of namelists. I
don't know if this is in the fortran standard or not, but it is a very common
compiler extension,
-aachen dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: GCC 4.1.0 20050517
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21621
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-17 14:07
---
(In reply to comment #23)
Sorry if it is not belong here. Just a quick question: There are still
unaligned
exceptions generated (even by gcc(libgcj) code itself). Should I open a new
bug
report or could
SUBROUTINE Eval(mind,p)
INTEGER :: mind
REAL, DIMENSION(mind:) :: p
p(mind)=0
END SUBROUTINE Eval
Works with g95
Fails with : GNU Fortran 95 (GCC 4.1.0 20050517 (experimental))
downloaded from http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries
--
Summary: ICE
Using crosstool-0.34, building glibc-2.3.5 on sh4 is ok with gcc-3.4.3,
fails with gcc-4.0.0. The attached reduced testcase shows the error:
foo2.i: In function 'plural_eval':
foo2.i:78: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 190 188 275 24 (set (reg/v:SI 76 fr12 [orig:169 n ]
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-05-17 14:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=8911)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8911action=view)
reduced source from glibc-2.3.5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21623
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||21624
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20155
The simplest crash that I found is this:
public class AAA
{
static final Object cm = new Integer (2);
}
This is blocking 20155, which could easily be fixed now that libjava is built a
directory at a time.
--
Summary: java files cannot be compiled to bcabi
Product: gcc
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
14:44 ---
It can be fixed using the per-directory build infrastructure, but .java files
cannot be reliably compiled to the binary-compatibility abi.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21264 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** Bug 20088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21624 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:49
---
*** Bug 18945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:53
---
.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21624 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17 14:53
---
*** Bug 20088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mustafa at il dot ibm dot com 2005-05-17
15:05 ---
Janis, can you try this patch?
Index: modulo-sched.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/modulo-sched.c,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -c -p
The attached test case does not initialize to NULL() the inner pointers after an
ALLOCATE statement.
Note that the problem only surfaces if the heap is sufficiently dirty.
- output ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMP]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Additional Comments From sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2005-05-17
15:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=8912)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8912action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21625
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/projet/gujin$ cat tmp.c
typedef struct {
enum { INIT = 0 } mode;
unsigned very_big_array[4096];
struct short_struct { int a,b,c; } str[5];
} z_stream;
struct short_struct fct (unsigned val) {
z_stream gzlib = { .mode = INIT };
compiling with -Wall gives the following erroneous errors about the ctor and
dtor -- but not about the method.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:33g++ foo.ii -Wall -c
foo.ii:4: warning: inline function `TPLT::TPL() [with T = int]' used but
never defined
foo.ii:5: warning: inline function `TPLT::~TPL() [with T
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
15:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=8913)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8913action=view)
test case, compile with -Wall
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21627
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||gkajmowi at tbaytel dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21627
-- forwarded message --
Path: news.xs4all.nl!newsspool.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Sender: Marcel van Kervinck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Marcel van Kervinck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug in gcc4 initialisers suspected
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
I first posted this problem at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was advice to post my
problem here.
I have a program with many many inline template functions.
It is essential for the execution speed that every (or almost every) function
marked as inline, becomes really inlined by the compiler.
I already
The minimum requirements referenced in install.texi for GNAT seem to be out of
date. Someone more Ada knowledgeable needs to confirm a minimum version for
4.0.0 and 4.1.0.
For sure, to avoid problems building a cross GNAT, you should have a native GNAT
version that is the same as the version
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:27
---
Discussing the exact wording is nitpicking. The problem is real so let's
confirm this PR.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:33 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
Further helps this situation in both testcases referenced below. Basically
it removes the unwanted ADDR_EXPRs earlier in the optimization path. While the
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:37
---
All gcc versions I have take the template in namespace odd, and so does
icc in strict mode. I see nothing in 3.4.2 that should prevent this
from happening. What is relevant here is that the using declaration
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:39 ---
Fixed with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 19626 depends on bug 17141, which changed state.
Bug 17141 Summary: *a-b is not folded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17141
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 19986 depends on bug 17141, which changed state.
Bug 17141 Summary: *a-b is not folded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17141
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:39
---
Andrew's argument has been made a number of times, and is considered
irrelevant
until someone actually comes around and implements the 'export' keyword.
This request is therefore definitely valid, but I
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
16:40 ---
Confirmed, it is a regression from 3.2.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 16:41
---
This is already fixed in gcc4.0 which says
g/x /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4*/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc:5: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of #8216;T#8217; with no type
x.cc: In instantiation of #8216;BA#8217;:
On May 17, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Marcel van Kervinck wrote:
Dear all,
1. Is this a compiler bug or a display of undefined behaviour?
This is a compiler bug
2. Is this gcc4-specific or only in combination with PowerPC?
This bug is only in Apple's gcc and not in the FSF released GCC.
Please report this
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may
generate stores to read-only memory
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 16:52 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot
Just in case you did not get this before, the mail server which I was
using
broke for a second.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 17, 2005 12:50:33 PM EDT
To: Marcel van Kervinck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: (fwd) Bug in gcc4
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:23 ---
Hmm, I think we get an error mark node but no error.
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:24 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21478 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:24 ---
*** Bug 21626 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:30 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19358 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:30 ---
*** Bug 21622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|GCC 4.1.0 20050517 |
GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet||i686-pc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:31 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From arjanv at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:33
---
I think you mean bug 18267
However bug 18267 is about static versus non-static linkage.
What I'm suggesting is visibility attribute level, eg non-static but hidden
visibility.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:35 ---
We now get:
dX.D.2296.D.2252.domain_m[0].D.2209.D.2200.D.2154.domain_m = 1;
dX.D.2296.D.2252.domain_m[1].D.2209.D.2200.D.2154.domain_m = 0;
k.D.2296.D.2252.domain_m[0].D.2209.D.2200.D.2154.domain_m =
--- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-05-17 17:38 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hmm, I think we get an error mark node but no error.
Why is this the wrong code? It's easy to execute it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21614
--- Additional Comments From arjanv at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:44
---
As for andrews comment, the default could be hidden/private, where export
would override the default to be non-private.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
17:48 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Hmm, I think we get an error mark node but no error.
Why is this the wrong code? It's easy to execute it.
No the wrong-code keyword says that GCC is
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-17 17:52
---
Confirmed. Here is a simpler case:
-
extern void findme();
struct Z *p;
void (Z::*m) ();
void rr () {
findme();
(p-*m)();
findme();
}
--
if one greps for
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||21247
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21629
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21629
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21247
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
18:03 ---
in .t02.orginal, we get:
Unknown tree: expr_stmt
error
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21614
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
18:05 ---
Hmm, this is undefined code IIRC.
Also this has been failing since 3.5.0 20040909.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21614
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
18:10 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 18:20
---
After talking with jason I think this is a legitimate request.
--
What|Removed |Added
The failure
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-none.c scan-tree-dump-times vectorized 1 loops 1
appeared on mainline on i686-pc-linux-gnu between 20050516 and 20050517. It may
not be straightforward to tell which patch was responsible since the test ICEd
(bug 21448) with the former compiler and a pass
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-17 19:05
---
This patch looks sensible to me, but it should be approved by a V3
maintainer.
Thanks a lot Mark, I'll try to get to it soon. But, the real reason we don't
have those bits already is that there are outstanding
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
19:20 ---
updated patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01768.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-05-17 19:28
---
Created an attachment (id=8914)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8914action=view)
Pre-processed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21613
--- Additional Comments From flash at pobox dot com 2005-05-17 19:29
---
Created an attachment (id=8915)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8915action=view)
-v -save-temps output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21613
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
