--- Comment #14 from echristo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 07:09
---
Subject: Bug 28995
Author: echristo
Date: Sun Sep 10 07:09:38 2006
New Revision: 116810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116810
Log:
2006-09-09 Eric Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #15 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-10 07:11 ---
So, just committed a patch for the 32-bit problems with literal16 sections.
(No, they won't be valid for 32-bit.)
I'm holding on the configure patch since 2.4 seems to work fine with the patch
for people and I find it
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 07:13
---
Subject: Bug 27681
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sun Sep 10 07:13:12 2006
New Revision: 116811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116811
Log:
gcc/
PR target/27681
Backport from
--- Comment #15 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 07:13
---
Subject: Bug 22209
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sun Sep 10 07:13:12 2006
New Revision: 116811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116811
Log:
gcc/
PR target/27681
Backport from
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 07:17
---
Patch committed.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-10 07:18 ---
But wouldn't that change make it fail on platforms that don't want an r?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28950
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 07:21 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
But wouldn't that change make it fail on platforms that don't want an r?
Does {,r} work for regex in dejagnu tests?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28950
--- Comment #16 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-09-10 07:48 ---
I believe this is fixed with the above change.
--
echristo at apple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-10 07:55 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/28266
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00367.html
--
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.4.0:
==
namespace N
{
templateint void foo();
}
templateint struct A
{
friend void typename N::foo0();
};
==
bug.cc:8: internal compiler error: in
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28999
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline:
templateint int foo()
{
return ({foo;})==0;
}
bug.cc: In function 'int foo()':
bug.cc:3: internal compiler error: in type_dependent_expression_p, at
cp/pt.c:12955
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29000
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since at least GCC 2.95.3:
===
void* operator new (__SIZE_TYPE__) { return; }
===
bug.cc: In function 'void* operator new(unsigned int)':
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 3.3:
struct A {};
int A::* x[];
bug.cc:2: internal compiler error: in build_zero_init, at cp/init.c:226
Please submit a full bug report, [etc.]
--
Summary: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE on
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29002
The following invalid code snippet is accepted since at least GCC 2.95.3:
typedef int operator! ();
With such a broken declaration it's easy to crash the compiler afterwards:
struct A {};
typedef int
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 10:59 ---
In GCC3, the label is not removed because it is in label_value_list. In GCC4
we don't have that list anymore. That means we have to trust LABEL_NUSES, or we
have to force preservation of the label via
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 11:16 ---
I've decided to go with LABEL_PRESERVE_P after all...
Index: builtins.c
===
--- builtins.c (revision 116785)
+++ builtins.c (working copy)
@@ -760,6
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 11:56 ---
Patch was approved, but Zdenek still has to commit it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28887
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 12:12
---
Please provide a testcase as well as the other required bits of info.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 12:26
---
Works with 4.0.4pre so regression on 4.1 branch.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 12:26
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 13:24 ---
Compile time is reasonable again, memory usage regressions are just tree-ssa,
we have plenty of other PRs for this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
Compiling the code:
extern void doSomething(unsigned v);
void irq_() __attribute__ ((interrupt(IRQ)));
void irq_()
{
unsigned v;
doSomething(v);
}
with:
arm-elf-g++ -O0\
-fno-exceptions\
-fomit-frame-pointer\
-S -o irq-bug.s\
irq-bug.cc
results in:
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-10
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-10
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-10
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 14:31
---
This still should be waiting for a testcase.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 14:35 ---
Confirmed, a minor problem with the testsuite.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 14:38 ---
3.2.3 gave:
t.cc:8: syntax error before `' token
Which is just as helpful as the ICE anyways.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28999
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 14:40 ---
3.2.3 just slightly accepted this code.
4.1.x gave the following error message:
t.cc:3: error: overloaded function with no contextual type information
t.cc:3: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
Where
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28914
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 15:41 ---
Another testcase:
struct A {A();int A::* t;};
A x[];
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 15:50 ---
I have a fix for both testcases, the problem is the same.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21952
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28077
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28183
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28307
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28326
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28376
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28463
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28726
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28754
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28781
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28827
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28949
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:13 ---
Subject: Bug 28923
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:13:29 2006
New Revision: 116815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116815
Log:
2006-09-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:18 ---
Subject: Bug 28959
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:17:57 2006
New Revision: 116816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116816
Log:
2006-09-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:21 ---
Subject: Bug 28947
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:21:44 2006
New Revision: 116817
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116817
Log:
2006-09-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:27 ---
Subject: Bug 28947
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:26:54 2006
New Revision: 116818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116818
Log:
2006-09-10 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:32 ---
Subject: Bug 28959
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:32:22 2006
New Revision: 116819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116819
Log:
2006-09-09 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:32 ---
Subject: Bug 28947
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:32:22 2006
New Revision: 116819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116819
Log:
2006-09-09 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 17:32 ---
Subject: Bug 28923
Author: pault
Date: Sun Sep 10 17:32:22 2006
New Revision: 116819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116819
Log:
2006-09-09 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-09-10
18:39 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C fails
The linux output doesn't have the -4 offset:
ldi 1,%r28
stw %r2,-20(%r30)
.LCFI0:
copy %r28,%r21
ldo 128(%r30),%r30
--- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-10 18:40 ---
Subject: Bug number PR26983
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00370.html
--
When libgfortran/intrinsics/signal.c is built at -m64, a number of warnings
occur...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.999-20060910/darwin_objdir/./gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.999-20060910/darwin_objdir/./gcc/
-B/sw/lib/gcc4/powerpc-apple-darwin8/bin/
-B/sw/lib/gcc4/powerpc-apple-darwin8/lib
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 18:55 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26540 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 18:55 ---
*** Bug 29005 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-10
19:04 ---
Andrew,
The comment...
These warnings are semi expected in that signal is expected not to work with
64bit, this is due to g77 compatibility.
..is confusing. If this is the case, why don't we use
gcc will use swl/swr instead of sdl/sdr to zero an unaligned
64-bit field. This can be seem with a testcase like:
struct __attribute__((__packed__)) s { char c; unsigned long long x; };
void __attribute__((__noinline__)) foo (struct s *s) { s-x = 0; }
int main (void) { struct s s = { 1, ~0ULL };
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:08
---
I'm about to commit a fix.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Andrew,
The comment...
These warnings are semi expected in that signal is expected not to work with
64bit, this is due to g77 compatibility.
..is confusing.
How is it
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-09-10 19:23 ---
Maybe this should not be done with -fbounds-check, but put into a different
option. (NAG uses not -C=array but -C=call for this.)
The reason is that some programs (e.g. Exciting.sf.net) passes an
--- Comment #6 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-10
19:24 ---
The confusing part was the words signal is expected not to work with 64-bit
which left the impression that it only works with 32-bit currently.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26540
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:28
---
Subject: Bug 29006
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sun Sep 10 19:28:48 2006
New Revision: 116822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116822
Log:
gcc/
PR target/29006
*
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:31
---
Subject: Bug 29006
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sun Sep 10 19:30:53 2006
New Revision: 116823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116823
Log:
gcc/
PR target/29006
*
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4
.2/objdir/gcc/ /home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/long-long-cst1.c
-fno-show-column -lm -o ./long-long-cst1.exe(timeout = 300)
PASS: gcc.dg/long-long-cst1.c (test for excess errors)
Setting
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:36
---
Subject: Bug 29006
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sun Sep 10 19:36:20 2006
New Revision: 116824
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116824
Log:
gcc/
PR target/29006
*
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:38
---
Patch applied to trunk, 4.1 and 4.0.
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.0.3 4.1.1 4.2.0 |4.0.3 4.1.1
Known to work|3.3 |3.3
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:40 ---
I am going to take care of this, it is also missing a cast for 64bits reason.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:43 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:44 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 19:44 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 20:09 ---
Subject: Bug 26983
Author: steven
Date: Sun Sep 10 20:08:58 2006
New Revision: 116826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116826
Log:
PR middle-end/26983
gcc/
* builtins.c
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 20:10 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from mkoeppe at gmx dot de 2006-09-10 20:14 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Update for gcc-4.2
==
When installing GNU sed (I used 4.1.5) before configuring, the Makefile is
created and building starts. make bootstrap nevertheless fails with:
[...]
The code:
class foo {
public:
templatetypename T
foo(int i) : j(i) {}
templatetypename T
void bar(int i) { j = i; }
templatetypename T
static
void baz(int i) {}
int j;
};
int main() {
foo::bazbool(3);
foo* p; p-barbool(3);
new foobool(3);
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 20:41 ---
I don't think this is valid code. ICC also rejects the code.
It is valid for template constuctor but not specify which templated constuctor
you will call.
foo is not a template so that error message is correct.
--- Comment #2 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2006-09-10 21:18 ---
On further checking, you can have a templated constructor and invoke it - so
long as it is fully resolved by the data arguments. You only get the diagnostic
when the desired template has to be explicitly qualified. The
(force_to_mode): Test for side-effects before
substituting by zero.
(simplify_shift_const): Likewise for zero or other constants.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20060910-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/combine.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite
(force_to_mode): Test for side-effects before
substituting by zero.
(simplify_shift_const): Likewise for zero or other constants.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20060910-1.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc
(force_to_mode): Test for side-effects before
substituting by zero.
(simplify_shift_const): Likewise for zero or other constants.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_0-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20060910-1.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_0-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 21:34
---
Fixed everywhere.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I just tried to compile Linux kernel 2.6.17.13 with the new
GNU C compiler version 4.2 snapshot 20060909.
The compiler said
/home/dcb/gnu/42-20060909/results/bin/gcc -g -O3 -Wall
-Wp,-MD,arch/x86_64/kernel/.asm-offsets.s.d -nostdinc -isystem
--
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 #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-09-10 21:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=12217)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12217action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29009
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 21:59 ---
gcc_assert (preferred_alignment = PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY / BITS_PER_UNIT);
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29009
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 22:03 ---
Caused by the patch which fixed PR 13685. Jason removed the check for
TARGET_64BIT which was incorrect.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 22:04
---
I am not convinced that the code in Comment #8 is valid.
Although the operand of sizeof is not in fact evaluated, it seems odd to permit
an operand which cannot, even in principle, be evaluated. This is not
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 22:09
---
The rules in the standard regarding destructor lookup, what constitues the same
name, etc., are not well-specified. The last time I investigated this, the EDG
front end used rules which did not seem to match the
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28988
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28989
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 22:26 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Yup. And a regression too because previous GCCs could dump without sending
your
machine to swap space land.
Not really, anyways this is fixed now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-10 22:26 ---
As I mentioned already this is not a regression.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
