--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
08:01 ---
I checked again with a current x86 gcc, 3.4.4 20041206, and the problem is
still there. Note that this only happens with cc1plus.
Sorry, you're right, I was able to reproduce on i586-redhat-linux-gnu
I see the following ICE with the appended source file:
$ gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I. -I.. -Wall -O2 slocal.c -save-temps -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-suse-linux/4.0.0/specs
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07 08:22
---
Created an attachment (id=7695)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7695action=view)
Preprocessed file for Linux/PPC
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18864
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2004-12-07 08:25
---
This came about with the scalar_mode_supported_p work. Patch in testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18442
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
08:30 ---
Investigating.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2004-12-07
08:44 ---
Confirmed with 4.0.0 20041206
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
The following error occurs both with a 32-bit build on i686 and one with gcc
-m32 on x86-64.
/opt/gcc/4.0-devel/libexec/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux-gnu/4.0.0/cc1plus -m32
-fpreprocessed libskim_la.all_cpp.ii -quiet -dumpbase libskim_la.all_cpp.cpp
-march=i686 -mtune=i686 -ansi -auxbase-strip
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07 08:49
---
Created an attachment (id=7696)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7696action=view)
Preprocessed and compressed file for Linux/x86
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18865
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
As a matter of fact, the implementation of complex is criticized,
once in a while, because it does NOT use the grammar school rule you
present above. However, for float, double, long double it specializes
to __complex__ T which is what the
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:01 ---
This PR makes my 3GB x86-64 box go swapping.
--
What|Removed |Added
Last
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:15 ---
Fixed:
Counted GLOBAL_POWER_EVENTS events (time during which processor is not
stopped) with a unit mask of 0x01 (mandatory) count 10
samples %symbol name
63499 4.4898
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:27 ---
This dies at -O1 -fno-inline when allocating the conflict graph:
#0 xmalloc_failed (size=142104496) at xmalloc.c:118
#1 0x007c774b in xcalloc (nelem=Variable nelem is not available.)
at
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:28 ---
For the record:
(gdb) p current_function_name ()
$2 = 0x1d8124a0 int main(int, const char* const*)
(gdb) p n_basic_blocks
$1 = 29662
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17340
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:31 ---
The end of the backtrace looks like this:
#18159 0x004d2ac8 in compute_avail (block=0x2aa7c9f0e0) at
tree-ssa-pre.c:1866
#18160 0x004d2ac8 in compute_avail (block=0x2aa7c9de00) at
--- Additional Comments From ansgar dot radermacher at cea dot fr
2004-12-07 09:33 ---
Subject: Re: gcc-3.4.2 fails to compile glibc-2.3.3
I understand that this is a glibc bug, a patch is available here:
http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc37/patches/glibc-2.3.2/fixup.patch
I
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:40 ---
With -fno-tree-pre we still die in global.c, only somewhere else this time:
#0 xmalloc_failed (size=4072) at xmalloc.c:118
#1 0x007c in xmalloc (size=Variable size is not available.) at
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:40 ---
Not Alpha-specific
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|alphaev56-unknown-linux-gnu |
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
09:46 ---
When we die in PRE we have a huge number of SSA names too:
(gdb) p ssa_names-elements_used
$8 = 159414
GCC just doesn't scale to such sizes. I wonder how the function could
grow this large. Even at
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com 2004-12-07 10:20
---
// reduced testcase
struct T
{
T ();
T (const T);
T operator= (const T);
};
struct S {
void *p;
T t;
void *q;
};
void foo ()
{
S s = {0, T (), 0};
}
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at lubercy dot com 2004-12-07 10:25
---
Why did you mark this bug as a duplicate?
Because all these bugs (18542, 18563, 18564) triggered on one testcase and have
identical backtrace.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18564
Dear all,
I would like to post a fault report for the GNU C/C++ compiler 3.3-e500.
We use the compiler to generate code for a PowerPC processor.
Used invokation line for the GNU C++ compiler:
ccppc -c -x c++ -ansi -Wall -Werror -mcpu=8540 -fverbose-asm -mbig
-fmerge-templates -mmultiple
current mainline crashes on this invalid code:
void f()
{
float x;
switch (x) {case 0: break;};
}
bug.c: In
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.0
Known to work||3.4.4
Target Milestone|---
As you mentinon it if have missed the specilization at the end of
std_complex.h. Sorry. I still think that we should have and other
implementation for complexfloating_point, but I cannot change the code
of __complex__ T in the complier.
Interestingly, it looks like the discussed improved algorithm
--- Additional Comments From walles at mailblocks dot com 2004-12-07 12:04
---
Bug 18854 deals with *potential* NULL pointer dereferences, while this one
mentions only *confirmed* NULL pointer dereferences, i.e:
1 #include stdlib.h
2 int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
3 volatile char
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
12:24 ---
Bug related to PR18793.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18865
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
12:34 ---
Patch for 3.4 is submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00450.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18100
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
13:05 ---
Test this:
Index: c-common.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/c-common.c,v
retrieving revision 1.589
diff -u -p -r1.589 c-common.c
---
Hello
Interestingly, it looks like the discussed improved algorithm is
*already* implemented, just not used!
Curious
Have a look to expand_complex_division in gcc/tree-complex.c, then
gcc/toplev.c for flag_complex_divide_method.
Andreas, just for curiosity, are you willing to rebuild your
Andreas Klein wrote:
Have a look to expand_complex_division in gcc/tree-complex.c, then
gcc/toplev.c for flag_complex_divide_method.
Andreas, just for curiosity, are you willing to rebuild your gcc
with flag_complex_divide_method = 1 and report???
Willing is not the problem. But I have only
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07 13:18
---
Just to mention that arm-elf has the same oversight; missing
NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C. (The only define of it in config/arm, is in
config/arm/linux-elf.h.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15834
The following construct seems to have issues with gij (3.4 and 4.0) but works ok
with kaffe and jamvm (output lower down)
public class C {
public static void main(String[] arg) {
System.err.println(A.instance);
System.err.println(A.instance.getInstance());
}
}
interface A {
public
--- Additional Comments From konqueror at gmx dot de 2004-12-07 13:24
---
The bug only occurs when compiling the testcase with jikes (1.22) and not when
compiling gcj (3.4.2 or 4.0.0).
--
What|Removed |Added
Paolo Carlini wrote:
I will try to do the same as soon as possible...
I can confirm that setting flag_complex_divide_method = 1 leads to (0, 0).
Paolo.
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-07
13:42 ---
Fixed already with the new C++ parser, available since GCC 3.4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-07
13:45 ---
Is this a regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18863
--- Additional Comments From kghazi at verizon dot net 2004-12-07 13:47
---
Subject: Re: [3.3 only] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in
gcc.dg/overflow-1.c with -mabi=64
Fine with me. Then we should XFAIL it on the 3.3 branch at mabi=64. I
don't have access to irix anymore (or
gfortran rejects the following valid syntax:
$ cat common.f90
program main
common /foo/ a, /bar/ b
common /baz/ c /foobar/ d
end program main
$ gfortran common.f90
In file common.f90:2
common /foo/ a, /bar/ b
1
Error: Syntax error in COMMON statement at (1)
In file
--- Additional Comments From konqueror at gmx dot de 2004-12-07 13:55
---
Created an attachment (id=7699)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7699action=view)
Testcase compile by jikes 1.22
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18868
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|konqueror at gmx dot de |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
||dot org
--- Additional Comments From simonb at wasabisystems dot com 2004-12-07
14:15 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in find_reloads
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-07
13:45
Is this a regression?
Yes it is. gcc
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-12-07 14:19
---
This is most likely the same as PR 18865.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18793
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2004-12-07 14:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits
cause 340% performance regression
On 6 Dec 2004, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
Looks like I get 4fold speedup on tree profiling with
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-12-07 14:36
---
Subject: [3.4/4.0 Regression] -ftrapv borks up simple
integer arithmetic
--- Additional Comment #8 From Eric Botcazou 2004-12-06 18:45
The (useless?) mode promotion from SImode to DImode comes from:
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2004-12-07 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2004-12-07 14:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2004-12-07 14:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2004-12-07 14:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0
$ cat common-2.f
program main
common /foo/ a
common /bar/ b
equivalence (a,c)
equivalence (b,c)
c=3.
print *,a
print *,b
end
$ gfortran common-2.f ./a.out
3.00
3.00
$ gfortran -v
Reading specs from
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2004-12-07 15:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits
cause 340% performance regression
On 7 Dec 2004, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
Yes, it seems so. Really nice improvement. Though
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:11 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18641 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:11 ---
*** Bug 18864 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:13 ---
This is a dup of bug 18793, just reduced differently.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18793 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:13 ---
*** Bug 18865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From darcypj at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-07
15:21 ---
Wow - curiously, I don't have a problem with it, but that is because when I
added the -fexec-charset option, I no longer got the branch to puts().
Examples follow:
===
If I
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.3.3
Summary|ICE in find_reloads |[4.0 Regression] ICE in
|
While compiling the ada part of itself, gcc seems to use the option -W,
which is deprecated in favour of -Wextra:
../../xgcc -B../../ -c -g -O2 -W -Wall -gnatpg s-tasini.adb -o
s-tasini.o
--
Summary: Should use -Wextra instead of -W during ada bootstrap
Product:
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2004-12-07 15:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits
cause 340% performance regression
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Richard Guenther wrote:
static inline void foo() {}
void bar() { foo(); }
$ cat common-2.f
program main
common /foo/ a
common /bar/ b
equivalence (a,c)
equivalence (b,c)
c=3.
print *,a
print *,b
end
$ gfortran common-2.f ./a.out
3.00
3.00
$ gfortran -v
Reading specs from
Hello
However I think if flag_complex_divide_method = 1 fix the problem it would
be a good idea to set it by default.
... but notice that this issue is tricky: there are computational issues
(we are adding
at least a branch for each division) and correctness issues (what about
C99?)
As
struct D { D(); };
struct E : D { E(); };
struct C { E e[4000]; };
struct A
{
A () {}
struct C m[128];
};
struct B : public A
{
B () {}
};
with any -Ox and with any of -m{32,64} segfaults with the default stack rlimit
(10MB) in GCC 3.4.3, HEAD and 3.2.3 as well.
empty_base_offsets has
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:45 ---
I'll have a look.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:45 ---
The warnings options come from the top level makefile so this is generic
makefile bug it is hard to fix
as you will need to check for support before using it.
--
What|Removed
Andreas Klein wrote:
... but notice that this issue is tricky: there are computational issues
(we are adding
at least a branch for each division) and correctness issues (what about
C99?)
As I see it the naive formula needs
6 multipications, 2 divisions and 3 additions/subtractions
and the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:47 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18462 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:47 ---
*** Bug 18873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:49 ---
Mark, the regression appeared with your patch for PR 15172:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-11/msg2.html
The example still compiles fine on the 3.4 branch although
you applied the patch there, too.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:49 ---
Note there is a patch to fix splay_tree_delete in PR 18602.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:51 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18870 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:51 ---
*** Bug 18872 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18870
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
15:52 ---
DJ, are you going to push your new splay_tree_delete_helper? If it works,
this fixes a regression wrt. earlier GCCs...
--
What|Removed |Added
Andreas Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
|
| As a matter of fact, the implementation of complex is criticized,
| once in a while, because it does NOT use the grammar school rule you
| present above. However, for float, double, long double it
Andreas Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| This look like a good deal. However for floting point computations I
| prevere good results over fast results.
You're in the minority (including me :-)).
-- Gaby
I this issue has been raised by two people earlier, but there has been no
response on their
threads -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1997-12/msg00185.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1998-08/msg00032.html
And I am facing the same problem...
I am running following version /configuration of
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
16:08 ---
I'd probably leave them as the same bug for now. Neither are being fixed for
4.0 so I don't think it's a problem having one bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
16:11 ---
not fixed. still rejecting
./include/mmintrin.h: In function 'int _mm_cvtsi64_si32(int __vector__)':
./include/mmintrin.h:91: error: invalid cast from type 'int __vector__' to type
'long long int'
--
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07 16:17
---
Any reason why that patch hasn't been applied?
Just verified it works and on the testcase in PR 18873 it is even tiny
bit faster than the recursive variant.
Though splay_tree_splay_helper is recursive too, so
Typing ? for a namelist input is supposed to
yield a description of the input variables on
standard output. This doesn't work with g77:
$ g77 -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/ia64-redhat-linux/3.2.3/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
17:07 ---
I'm building this for 3.4 right now.
If it works ok I will submit it.
I don't plan to try it for 3.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14853
When using a version of GCC that does not support -Wno-long-long as the
bootstrap compiler (such as GCC 2.8.1), it is not possible to build GCC 4.0:
gcc -I../../gcc-head/libcpp -I. -I../../gcc-head/libcpp/../include
-I../../gcc-head/libcpp/include -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||zack at gcc dot gnu dot org
Component|bootstrap |preprocessor
Keywords|
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
17:29 ---
Mark, it looks like your patch only fixed conversion from integer to
vector but not the other way round. The following patch fixes the problem
for me. Does this look right?
Index: typeck.c
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2004-12-07 17:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Inlining limits cause 340% performance regression
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2004-12-07 15:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:19 ---
Can you attach the config.log for libcpp?
Because we do check for -Wno-long-long in configure:
ACX_PROG_CC_WARNING_ALMOST_PEDANTIC([-Wno-long-long])
Did you change CC after configuring?
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:51 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:52 ---
Patches should be submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:54 ---
Does this happen at -O0 and -O2?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18818
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:54 ---
Does this happen at -O0 and -O2?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18819
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18386
(Debian bug #284651)
with ada.finalization;
package Test_137 is
type T1 is new ada.finalization.controlled with null record;
procedure p(x: access T1);
end Test_137;
package body Test_137 is
procedure p(x: access T1) is
begin
null;
end p;
y: T1;
begin
p(new T1'(y));
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:57 ---
Can you attach the .t14.oplower dump which you can get via -fdump-tree-oplower?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18858
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
18:59 ---
Confirmed on the mainline:
+===GNAT BUG
DETECTED==+
| 4.0.0 20041204 (experimental) (powerpc-apple-darwin7.6.0) GCC error: |
| in gnat_to_gnu_entity,
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
19:01 ---
I don't know if any libf2c bugs are going to be fixed any more since 4.0.0 uses
a different library for
fortran library.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18874
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18875
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18073
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-07
19:07 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00461.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
is an
pseudo register.
For i686 and gcc version 4.0.0 20041207 (experimental), such an assert fails
for the following example (compiled with -O1,-O2,-O3 or -Os):
long a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i;
int test()
{
long x1,x2,x3,l,l1,l2;
t1(x1,x2,x3);
x1+=2;
l=c+2;
l1=d+2;
l2=e+2
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18877
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
