The following triggered with CP2K:
gfortran -v -c -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -march=native
xc_xbecke88_lr_adiabatic.f90
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/gcc/configure
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-08-27 06:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=16153)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16153action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37251
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37251
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 06:41 ---
Minimized testcase:
int m(int *y, int x)
{
int a = y[x + 1];
int b = y[++x];
return a - b;
}
should be optimized to return 0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 07:14 ---
With this patch:
Index: fold-const.c
===
--- fold-const.c(revision 139423)
+++ fold-const.c(working copy)
@@ -7868,7 +7868,11 @@ fold_unary
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 07:15 ---
s/TER does not fold/SCCVN does not accept/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-08-27 07:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=16154)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16154action=view)
shorter Fortran only testcase
gfortran -v -c -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize -march=native
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-08-27 07:53 ---
This is the minimal command line to reproduce the bug:
gfortran -c -O1 -ffast-math -march=core2 bug_PR37251.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37251
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 07:59 ---
Confirmed on i686-apple-darwin9 for the code in comment #3. -O2 is sufficient
to trigger the ICE
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% gfc -O2 pr37251.f90
pr37251.f90: In function 'xb88_lr_adiabatic_lda_calc':
pr37251.f90:216:
--- Comment #7 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2008-08-27 08:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=16155)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16155action=view)
Test case from 2006.434.zeusmp
Though fail to extract a smaller case, hopeful it helpful.
Compile with gfortran
--- Comment #8 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2008-08-27 08:11 ---
GDB output:
(gdb) b tranx1_
Breakpoint 1 at 0x43a670
(gdb) r
Breakpoint 1, 0x0043a670 in tranx1_ ()
(gdb) b *0x43accd
Breakpoint 2 at 0x43accd
(gdb) b *0x43acf4
Breakpoint 3 at 0x43acf4
(gdb) b *0x43ad2f
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 09:25 ---
This regression has been introduced between revisions 137991 and 138210.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37106
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-27 09:40 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 06:41 ---
Minimized
--- Comment #5 from gcc at dpinol dot com 2008-08-27 10:05 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
error: 'operator new' takes type 'size_t' ('long unsigned int') as first
parameter
I don't understand why you get this error
What is the output of g++ -v ?
See below. It eventually fails
The attached code triggers a gnat bug:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.3.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Program_Error exp_disp.adb:6331 explicit raise |
| Error detected at test.adb:20:9 |
| Please submit a bug
--- Comment #1 from nivertius at gmail dot com 2008-08-27 10:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=16156)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16156action=view)
Testcase
The program text that triggers bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37252
The following code
module myMod
CONTAINS
real function proc3( arg1 )
integer :: arg1
proc3 = arg1+7
end function proc3
subroutine proc4( arg1 )
procedure(real), pointer :: arg1
print*, 'the func: ', arg1(0)
end subroutine proc4
end module myMod
program myProg
--
Summary: Reject valid (?) procedure pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy:
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 11:00 ---
Hit return too early!-(
The following code
module myMod
CONTAINS
real function proc3( arg1 )
integer :: arg1
proc3 = arg1+7
end function proc3
subroutine proc4( arg1 )
! real, external :: arg1
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 11:03 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
error: 'operator new' takes type 'size_t' ('long unsigned int') as first
parameter
I don't understand why you get this error
Because I am using a 64bit
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 11:05 ---
s/to PR27253./to PR37253./
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37254
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 11:13 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Perhaps we should just never warn about anything within EH BB, since they are
not properly marked as compiler-generated by the front-end and the middle-end
has problems dealing with them.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37227
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 11:42 ---
Please attach it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 11:58 ---
Hm, I don't know if the loop optimization code can peel the last iteration.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 12:08 ---
no, it does not and I think it should not except for this particular case (or
other similar ones).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37239
While working on a policy-based smart pointer I discovered that
copy-initialization, base-from-derived, using Colvin-Gibbons trick, does not
work for std::auto ptr with gcc. It also reproduces with OpenSUSE 11.0 with gcc
4.3.1 (now I am on 10.3 with gcc 4.2.1).
The technique and test is described
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from jlb dot for at free dot fr 2008-08-27 12:36 ---
not a bug,sorry, bit 0 to 1 means thumb mode for jump.
--
jlb dot for at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from cristian_anita at yahoo dot com 2008-08-27 12:44
---
Created an attachment (id=16157)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16157action=view)
The preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37255
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 13:12
---
I will have a look, but this issue cannot have a high-prioriry: auto_ptr is
deprecated for the next standard: there is a large consensus in the ISO C++
committee that the many flaws in its design cannot be
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 13:12 ---
Following comment #2, on i686-apple-darwin9 I have added -fipa-cp-clone to all
the tests gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-*.c and ipacost-*.c, than all the failures
disappeared, but for
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipacost-1.c scan-tree-dump
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 13:27 ---
New failures between revision 139588 and 139622 on i686-apple-darwin9
32 and 64 bit modes
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.eh/ia64-1.C execution test
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr36222-1.c scan-assembler-not movdqa
FAIL:
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 13:31
---
Also note that section 8.5, referred in the text of that 1997 paper, is rather
different in the actual, published standard, and I'm not sure exactly the same
conclusions apply.
Our implementation of auto_ptr
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 13:43
---
Yes, given the actual ISO C++ specifications, std::auto_ptrBase does not have
a suitable copy constructor, for a temporary, which would be required to
compile the code. We can't do much about this.
--
The following C++ code compiles (but doesn't link) with g++ 4.3.1:
template typename T_
struct B
{
T_ f();
};
extern template class Bint;
void f()
{
Bint t;
t.f();
}
With 'gcc () 4.4.0-pre built 20080827 (Gentoo SVN ebuild) rev
With revision 139538 these tests passed.
From revision 139546 and on, these tests have failed as follows:
Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ipa/ipa.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-1.c scan-ipa-dump-times cp versioned function 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-1.c scan-ipa-dump-times cp
--- Comment #56 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 14:52 ---
(In reply to comment #55)
Just in case, I am bootstraping gcc on ppc darwin9 with the patch. It should
finish tonight (GMT+2) and regtesting results available tomorrow morning. I'll
report any problem.
Thanks. Any
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 15:06 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37227 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 15:06 ---
*** Bug 37257 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #57 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-08-27 15:23 ---
I'll report any problem.
Thanks. Any news on the ppc-darwin and i686-darwin test results?
I meant: no news == good news == nothing to report, but success on both
platforms!-)
--
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 15:27 ---
The FE generates
if ((SAVE_EXPR cd2a24e__ident ((integer) c1) c1 || SAVE_EXPR
cd2a24e__ident ((integer) c1) c2) || cd2a24e__ident (4) = 3 c2 2)
{
where c2 is of type cd2a24e__check_type (an
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 15:36 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Please attach it.
See attachment 16144 (at PR 37217). Since the patch for PR 37217 fixes this PR
(well, the patch was generated based on the attachment for this PR), I mark
this PR as
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 15:36 ---
*** Bug 37230 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37217
--- Comment #58 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 15:40 ---
(In reply to comment #57)
I meant: no news == good news == nothing to report, but success on both
platforms!-)
Thanks for telling and for testing. (Really, I try to avoid interpreting lack
of information as other
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 16:07 ---
Subject: Bug 17880
Author: manu
Date: Wed Aug 27 16:06:00 2008
New Revision: 139625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=139625
Log:
2008-08-27 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 16:25 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.4.
only 4631 bugs to go ;-)
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #59 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 16:33 ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-08/msg02037.html.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 16:33
---
Just a clarification about the broken this, broken that way of putting
things: G++ started providing the extern template syntax *many*, and I mean it,
*many* years ago, well before the standardization in
--- Comment #10 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2008-08-27 16:33 ---
IRA degradation on rethrow6.C.
This test fails when compiled with -O0. The wrong code looks like
bb:
p93-ax
p96-dx
where p93 got dx and p96 got ax. The reason for this is that ax and dx are not
live regs at the
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 16:48 ---
pr37249.c:4: warning: conversion to int32_t from int64_t may alter its
value [-Wconversion]
Fixed in GCC 4.3, 4.4
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2008-08-27 16:48 ---
Is this by any chance related to bug 24511?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37256
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 16:53
---
Maybe you right Martin, I don't have at hand anything older than 4.0.4 ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37256
--- Comment #4 from ciaran dot mccreesh at googlemail dot com 2008-08-27
17:07 ---
I don't expect it to link. I do expect it to compile. In real code I would of
course have struct B in a header and template class Bint; in a different
source file.
So far as I can see this is a change
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 17:09
---
Fixed for 4.4.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 17:10 ---
Subject: Bug 35321
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 27 17:08:40 2008
New Revision: 139628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=139628
Log:
2008-08-27 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR c++/35321
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 17:17
---
Ok, *your* issue is about current mainline only, and only -O and above. Let's
CC Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Seen using r139610 on Ubuntu Feisty.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp13]$ current-gcc -O2 -w small.c
small.c: In function func_77:
small.c:33: internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:4957
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
--- Comment #1 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-08-27 17:37 ---
Also happens on r139628.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37258
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 17:50 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because
of signedness of addition
Maybe we can lookup the non-GIMPLE operands in simplify_unary_expression
and replace them with existing SSA_NAMES if they have been value numbered.
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-27 17:59
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] GCC 3.4 miscompiles trunk
(for cross compiling)
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, nightstrike at gmail dot com wrote:
How can you close this if the tuples merge makes it impossible to build
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 18:00 ---
Fixed for 4.4 by:
2008-06-28 Andrew Jenner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* regrename.c (build_def_use): Don't copy RTX.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
ПР0ДАЖА И М0НТАЖ САЙДИНГА И В0Д0СТ0К0В...
-
Наша компания продает высококачественный виниловый и цокольный сайдинг
производства Канады, Соединенных Штатов Америки, а также России...
ЦЕНЫ на материалы - значительно НИЖЕ рыночных, за счет прямых закупок
у экспортеров и специальных скидок...
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-27 19:12 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 17:50 ---
Subject: Re: missed
Consider this code:
int f1 (char *, char **);
int f2 (char *result)
{
return f1 (++result, result);
}
If I compile it with -Wall I get a warning:
opsy. gcc -Wall -c b.c
b.c: In function f2:
b.c:5: warning: operation on result may be undefined
However, I don't think this is undefined.
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:21
---
I can close this because this is a bug in GCC 3.4 which is out of maintainance
since years and not a bug in the mainline GCC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:35 ---
Confirmed.
#1 0x0845d476 in simplify_subreg (outermode=SImode, op=0xb7d50d2c,
innermode=DImode, byte=0)
at /home/richard/src/trunk/gcc/simplify-rtx.c:4956
4956 gcc_assert (GET_MODE (op) == innermode
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-27 19:36
---
And to be safe, let's mark it as Regression. Sorry for not having noticed the
issue about -O earlier.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:38 ---
I want to say this is caused by one of the unit at a time changes ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:39 ---
I think I have seen this before ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37259
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:41 ---
Oh yes PR 18050. I don't think this is a regression also ... since that bug is
against 3.3.3 ;). Unless we really fixed inbetween which I doubt it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37259
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:44 ---
Dup I say.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18050 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:44
---
*** Bug 37259 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:52 ---
Also the following version of Dominique's test case gives the same error, using
PROCEDURE statements without the POINTER attribute:
real function proc3( arg1 )
integer :: arg1
proc3 = arg1+7
end
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-08-27 19:53 ---
Yet another piece of the puzzle:
Index: tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- tree-ssa-sccvn.c(revision 139423)
+++ tree-ssa-sccvn.c(working copy)
@@ -2052,6
--- Comment #5 from mkl at pengutronix dot de 2008-08-27 20:11 ---
Hi Joseph,
I just backported the fix from gcc-4.4 to 4.3.2-RC. The patch fixes the
problem, any change to get that into 4.3.2?
cheers, Marc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-27 20:17 ---
Subject: Re: missed FRE opportunity because of
signedness of addition
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
Yet another piece of the puzzle:
Index: tree-ssa-sccvn.c
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 20:30 ---
call proc4( p )
should transfer to the tree code as
proc4(p)
(procpointer passed by reference) but it is actually
proc(p)
The latter is OK for a PROCEDURE dummy argument but nor for a PROCEDURE POINTER
dummy
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 20:33 ---
Actual, I have the feeling the attr.proc_pointer is not saved at all in
module.c, cf. ab_attribute in that file. One should check whether other
attributes are also missing.
Dominique: Thanks for finding it; may this
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-27 20:35 ---
Subject: Re: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
during cross compilation
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, mkl at pengutronix dot de wrote:
I just backported the fix from gcc-4.4 to 4.3.2-RC. The patch fixes the
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 21:10 ---
Actual, I have the feeling the attr.proc_pointer is not saved at all in
module.c, cf. ab_attribute in that file.
Exactly. Thanks for pointing this out. The following patch fixes it:
Index: gcc/fortran/module.c
--- Comment #5 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2008-08-27 21:59 ---
The problem occurs when a region and its nested region have more 4000
uncolorable allocnos. In this case splay tree is used to deal with the
uncolorable allocnos. Part of uncolorable_allocnos is temporarily stored
--- Comment #32 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #40 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:01 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #45 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #55 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:02 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
