--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-03-14 14:25
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] libgcc2.h
Improperly determines required built-in function size requirements.
> --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-13
> Closing as fixed,
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-13
15:04 ---
Closing as fixed, then. Paul, you can open a new enhancement PR to keep track
of the libgcc problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1888
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-28 22:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] libgcc2.h
Improperly determines required built-in function size requirements.
> - Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com 2005-02-28 22:10
> We've already gone over
--- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com 2005-02-28 22:10
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] libgcc2.h Improperly
determines required built-in function size requirements.
schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-28 22:02
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Hi,
>
> since this bug has been fixed by a patch of Roger Sayles a couple of weeks
> ago, I suggest to mark it as "fixed".
It's true that the original failure mode, which nesses
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-02-28 21:49 ---
Hi,
since this bug has been fixed by a patch of Roger Sayles a couple of weeks
ago, I suggest to mark it as "fixed".
Yours,
Björn
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18887
