--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 08:46 ---
There are several issues. One is what H.J. mentioned, seen e.g. on:
char buf[8] __attribute__((aligned));
char A = 'A';
int len = 1;
void __attribute__((noinline))
check (void)
{
if (__builtin_memcmp (buf,
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 09:09 ---
--- i386.c.jj42008-12-27 10:12:25.0 +0100
+++ i386.c2009-01-03 10:03:05.0 +0100
@@ -18012,13 +18012,12 @@ ix86_expand_setmem (rtx dst, rtx count_e
Epilogue code will actually
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 10:24 ---
Reviewer said: So, this is ok with or without the volatile restriction. (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00070.html). The committed patch
still seems to have this restriction...?
--
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 10:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=17025)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17025action=view)
gcc44-pr38708.patch
For size_needed, we never want any epilogue. This cures memset-2.c at -O2, but
-O3 still
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 10:26 ---
I meant for size_needed == 1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 11:28 ---
Yes. Just removing the restriction is wrong, because then volatile from the
wrong side of the copy would be used. So extra code would be needed to handle
that, and I really don't think it is worth it.
--
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 11:32 ---
Confirmed, goes back at least to 4.2 (so not a regression).
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 11:39 ---
I ran check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='execute.exp
--target_board=unix/{-m32,-m32/-mtune=pentium-m,-m64}/-mstringop-strategy={rep_byte,libcall,rep_4byte,rep_8byte,byte_loop,loop,unrolled_loop}'
before and after the patch. In
struct S
{
int m
};
This compiles as a C program (not as C++) with warning: no semicolon at end of
struct or union.
I checked the c99 document and the semicolon seems to be mandatory.
--
Summary: gcc allows last member of a struct or union without a
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 11:51 ---
Ok. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38586
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 11:53 ---
gcc -S t.c -pedantic-errors
t.c:4: error: no semicolon at end of struct or union
thus, this works for me. We accept it by default with an unconditional
warning for legacy reasons. Use -pedantic-errors to force
If __attribute__((optimize(...))) does not specify an optimisation
level (-Ox), we act as though the prevailing -Ox level had been restated.
So:
__attribute__((optimize(no-gcse)))
behaves like:
__attribute__((optimize(Ox, no-gcse)))
where Ox is the current optimisation level. This means
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2009-01-03 14:13 ---
You're right that it works with trunk. I was wrong when I said it still
shows up with trunk. However, it's not fixed with 4.3 from SVN, so this
bug should be left open.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 14:15 ---
I have just posted a patch on the list.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from martinwguy at yahoo dot it 2009-01-03 14:42 ---
gue...@gcc50:~$ ./install-trunk-142808/bin/gcc -mfpu=maverick -mcpu=ep9312
-mfloat-abi=softfp is also needed to generate Maverick instructions, and the
resulting binary should give illegal instructions on an Xscale.
--- Comment #18 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:24 ---
Closing this as a dup of bug 38582 because that bug has a test case.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38582 ***
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:24 ---
*** Bug 15023 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:26 ---
valid or not? If so then it's a rejects-valid, otherwise it is error-recovery.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36607
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:28 ---
only arm-eabi is in the list of primary/secondary targets.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.2
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:32 ---
This occurs only with checking enabled, so IMHO not worth fixing on the
branches.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-03 15:39 ---
I do indeed get an illegal instruction when I add -mfloat-abi=softfp
I don't have the skills to fix this but thanks for your offer :).
Note: gcc50 is an n2100, part of the GCC compile farm:
--- Comment #6 from tristan at wibberley dot org 2009-01-03 15:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with variadic
templates partial specialization
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 15:26 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=17026)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17026action=view)
gcc44-pr38707.patch
Patch that I'm going to bootstrap/regtest.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:57 ---
*** Bug 38710 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38707
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 15:57 ---
It is the same bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38707 ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-03 16:57 ---
Can you create a reduced testcase?
gcc bootstrapped OK a couple of days ago on alphaev56-unknown-linux-gnu
(gcc30.fsffrance.org).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38706
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-03 16:58 ---
BTW: Did you build from a clean build directory?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38706
Similar to this bug:
jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29587
I am compiling gcc on a machine with 1024 MB of memory and can't get past here:
gmake[5]: Leaving directory
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 17:16 ---
Do you have virtual memory turned on because it sounds like you don't.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2009-01-03 17:19 ---
The type long double does not have uniform standard.
Confusion has turned out.
Accuracy of type double suits me.
Let's complete this talk.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38704
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 17:23 ---
I agree with Vlad, this is not a regression.
It'd still be nice if you can figure out a way to make this work, Vlad. It is
possible, perhaps, to split huge basic blocks up in chunks (e.g. separate basic
blocks or
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 38594
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jan 3 17:47:20 2009
New Revision: 143032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143032
Log:
2009-01-03 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #13 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 18:05
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Maybe this weekend :). I guess I have been really behind on my FSF bugs.
Yearly reminder.
Any progress here? :)
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 19:08 ---
Runtime checking is PR 37746, BTW, I'm working on it and have a pending patch.
Would this fix this bug or should we wait for the whole-file checking?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24886
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-03 19:15 ---
Since this bug is related to the assembler I tried setting the --with-gnu-as
--with-as= options for configure and while that allowed the build to continue
it then went down a path of uncharted waters (and numerous problems
--- Comment #3 from arthur dot loiret at gmail dot com 2009-01-03 19:24
---
I tried again with trunk 143029, still on a clean build directory, and I get
the same failure, even with --disable-bootstrap. Hardware is an 21264C
(ev68cb), I'll try to make a reduced testcase and to build on
--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 19:46
---
Maybe realted: PR29697?!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23169
--- Comment #33 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-03 19:53 ---
With gcc version 4.4.0 20090102 on i386-pc-solaris2.11 I'm getting:
# gcc -v -o test_gmp_1 test_gmp_1.cc -lgmp -lstdc++
/usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.4.0/../../../libstdc++.so: undefined
reference to
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 19:54 ---
And this is documented in the installation documentation.
(Confusion may also result if the compiler finds the GNU assembler but has not
been configured with --with-gnu-as.)
--- Comment #34 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 19:55
---
(In reply to comment #33)
With gcc version 4.4.0 20090102 on i386-pc-solaris2.11 I'm getting:
# gcc -v -o test_gmp_1 test_gmp_1.cc -lgmp -lstdc++
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 20:04 ---
I wouldn't expect this to be optimized as 'a0' creates temporary arrays in
different contexts. The same call used twice, as in PR22572, seems to be more
likely. WONTFIX?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 20:28
---
PR27989 and PR30939 essentially describe the same problem, once with an
implicit, once with an explicit interface. The explicit case is sort-of solved,
the implicit case will be if we ever get whole-file checking.
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:01
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Count PR32317 in as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:12 ---
Subject: Bug 38707
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 3 21:11:30 2009
New Revision: 143036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143036
Log:
PR target/38707
* expmed.c (store_bit_field_1):
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:12 ---
Fixed in trunk. Both testcases give:
$ gfortran-svn pr32707.f90
pr32707.f90:5.12:
xx = [boy,girl]
1
Error: Different CHARACTER lengths (3/4) in array constructor at (1)
Testcases are already present in
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:22 ---
For constant arguments, the simplifier (which isn't implemented yet) should
make detection possible. Blocking 29969 although no init expression is involved
here. However, PACK is one of those functions that require
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:26 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:26
---
For the interested reader, see another approach here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00306.html
Instead of guessing the arguments, I fused existing decls with later
interfaces. It generally
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:39 ---
Not specific to the ALL intrinsic.
$ cat ctor.f90
INTEGER :: i, n, a(5)
n = 5
a = (/ (i, i = 1, n) /)
END
$ gfortran-svn -Warray-temporaries ctor.f90
ctor.f90:3.9:
a = (/ (i, i = 1, n) /)
1
--- Comment #17 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 21:43
---
Closing as fixed as it wasn't reproduced since 10 months.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 22:11 ---
array.c (gfc_get_array_element) states:
Access is not efficient at all, but this is another place where things do not
have to be particularly fast.
As get_array_element shows up in #2, this might be a place to
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 22:26 ---
Ping?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-03 22:37
---
Changes reverted for now, consistently with the discussion:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg4.html
Waiting for the resolution of a new DR (# to be added Summary).
--
paolo dot carlini
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38678
--- Comment #12 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 22:38
---
Jerry, do you think we can (finally) commit/fix this?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 22:48 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Fair enough. We should thus apply the script to gcc/contrib/ (ok for
adding it?) and consequently close this as fixed.
thanks,
Hasn't been added yet. I think it's still useful.
Please
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 22:58 ---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:00 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
See also question posted at:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/b1e8c8d0af9d16e8/
(when writing this, the question was not yet answered)
Conclusion at
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:01 ---
Mikael,
Now the solutions:
(1) Add some conditions to the if before to prevent executing this.
(2) Remove the gfc_match_whatever that has nothing to do in resolve.c and
find
a better way (yes, I prefer (2),
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:02 ---
Patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00010.html
impliments simplifiers for MINVAL/MAXVAL and character arguments.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:26
---
(In reply to comment #7)
Good question. FX and Joe don't like the idea, but Fortran files (.h/.inc
and .mod files one can find in /usr/include in some Linux distributions.
Whoever requires .mod files probably
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:28 ---
Yes, this is definitely related to that patch. The usual arithmetic
conversions do not include promotions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38472
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:33 ---
Do you plan to commit this?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:46 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31560 ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:46 ---
*** Bug 35951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:52 ---
*** Bug 36029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:52 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35732 ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:58 ---
No idea about translation, but PR38573 is surely related.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:58 ---
Also translation related: PR36161.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 23:59 ---
This is still an issue. Confirmed.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:04 ---
Following Steve's suggestion. Closing as WONTFIX.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:10 ---
See also: PR36462.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29600
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:10 ---
See also: PR29600.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:13 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Let me recheck tomorrow.
Found anything?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:15 ---
Subject: Bug 38584
Author: steven
Date: Sun Jan 4 00:15:08 2009
New Revision: 143040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143040
Log:
PR middle-end/38584
* cfgexpand.c
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:16 ---
Subject: Bug 38586
Author: steven
Date: Sun Jan 4 00:15:58 2009
New Revision: 143041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143041
Log:
PR middle-end/38586
* function.c (struct
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:17 ---
.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:17 ---
.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:20 ---
*** Bug 36935 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:20 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33341 ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:22 ---
PR33341 belongs here as well.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:29 ---
Anything left here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37605
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:40 ---
Among the unneeded temporaries, the array constructor (e.g. PR33341) is the
most annoying, i.e. the most often reported, one.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:40 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=17016)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17016action=view) [edit]
fix
Does anyone know the use of the block
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:43 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Try to make sure that the testcases you attach reproduce the
problem, by testing your testcase ;-)
Marked as waiting for a testcase.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:48 ---
See also PR35161.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 00:48 ---
See also: PR38386.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35161
--- Comment #6 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 01:02 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Mikael,
Now the solutions:
(1) Add some conditions to the if before to prevent executing this.
(2) Remove the gfc_match_whatever that has nothing to do in resolve.c and
find
a
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 01:23 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 01:23 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from arthur dot loiret at gmail dot com 2009-01-04 03:49
---
Created an attachment (id=17027)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17027action=view)
reduced testcase
Here is a first reduced testcase, with it I get:
$ ./gcc/cc1plus -quiet /tmp/bug.cc
--- Comment #5 from arthur dot loiret at gmail dot com 2009-01-04 04:16
---
Created an attachment (id=17028)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17028action=view)
more reduced testcase
--
arthur dot loiret at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #16 from ian at airs dot com 2009-01-04 04:21 ---
I'm not working on this, sorry.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ian
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-04 06:08
---
hmm, forgot all about this. I will apply the patch, retest, and commit if OK
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35009
96 matches
Mail list logo
