http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-09-30 07:37:46 UTC ---
So it works with 4.6.0 20100924, but it still doesn't work with 4.6.0 20100921.
Unfortunately, I cannot use the latest revision,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45829
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
08:10:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
But -a (or 0.0-a) is not a constant expression, so having an in-class
initializer seems suspicious, couldn't we warn at least?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45054
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
David Krauss potswa at mac dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #2 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com 2010-09-30 08:30:09
UTC ---
Well, that's almost certainly my fault, because that patch directly implements
that testcase. However, I can't reproduce it, even after updating and
rebuilding the
# of unexpected failures20
# of unexpected successes2
# of expected failures61
# of unresolved testcases2
# of unsupported tests67
/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc version 4.6.0 20100930 (experimental) [trunk
revision 164743p2] (GCC)
=== obj-c++ tests ===
Schedule
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45790
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-30 08:45:26 UTC ---
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45790
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45842
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45352
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
08:50:14 UTC ---
Are you sure you have applied the right patch? With the patch from comment #7,
the test doesn't fail for me, and moreover there is no assert on line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36580
Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicola at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #17 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-09-30 09:23:25 UTC ---
ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Eric, Olivier,
could you please have a look at Jan's question in Comment #6? This
bug currently breaks Ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
09:24:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
So it works with 4.6.0 20100924, but it still doesn't work with 4.6.0
20100921.
Unfortunately, I cannot use the latest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45842
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30 09:40:14
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Sep 30 09:40:11 2010
New Revision: 164747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164747
Log:
PR objc/45842
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #4 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com 2010-09-30 09:52:48
UTC ---
Ah, I didn't even notice the target line before.
This is unbuffered I/O, which can be challenging to the codecvt. But this isn't
a failure I would anticipate. If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45842
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45748
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45758
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45764
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45842
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30 10:14:23
UTC ---
Sendinggcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/const-str-12.mm
Sendinggcc/testsuite/obj-c++.dg/const-str-7.mm
Sending
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #6 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com 2010-09-30 10:15:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Challenging to the codecvt?!? Isn't this a *char* testcase?
Oh, my bad. I thought constraint_filebuf included that automatically. Guess
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45788
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45794
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
10:24:25 UTC ---
Did it really work in 4.5? Thus, why's this a regression?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-30
10:24:49 UTC ---
After this message I will not be in CC anymore. I'm sorry, I'm getting too many
distracting messages and cannot help much here anyway, at least not at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45801
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45703
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45700
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6] app SIGABRTs |unwinding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45843
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] __builtin_va_arg
overwrites into adjacent stack location
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45843
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45843
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45843
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45819
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39213
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45352
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-09-30 11:03:51
UTC ---
Yes, sorry, I applied correct patch, but pasted assert from unpatched r164716:
The correct assert is:
$ FLAGS=-O1 -freorder-blocks -fschedule-insns2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39725
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40959
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40974
--- Comment #50 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
11:09:47 UTC ---
So, is this fixed anywhere?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45447
Yao Qi qiyao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qiyao at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
11:19:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1
(test for excess errors)
Ah. The following
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #10 from Michiel MichieldeB at aim dot com 2010-09-30 11:23:58
UTC ---
To get to know what a formula does, I usually compute some examples. When doing
so, I was warned, but ignored them and that was stupid.
There are however also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45325
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2010-09-30 11:33:54
UTC ---
-1 works for any integer type, ~0 only works for unsigned (int|short|char).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45381
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45394
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45568
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45570
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
11:46:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Or do you guys happen to have a setup I can ssh into? :v)
Nominally, you *could* repeat my findings with a cross-compiler setup as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45585
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45844
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr45714-b.f -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45667
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45693
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45701
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45831
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
12:12:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
To get to know what a formula does, I usually compute some examples. When
doing
so, I was warned, but ignored them and that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45721
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45732
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45743
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45702
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
12:22:41 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 30 12:22:33 2010
New Revision: 164749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164749
Log:
2010-09-30 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45394
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
13:00:38 UTC ---
For the records, I have a reduced testcase and a patch. ETA is next week.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-09-30 13:03:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Actually, I am confused: From that comment it sounds as if 20100921 does not
have the bug 45746 - but it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43959
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-09-30 13:13:05 UTC ---
Ah. The following fixes it for me on a cross. Can you bootstrap
regtest and
install it? It's pre-approved if it works for you.
Will test and install
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45845
Summary: g++.dg/ext/visibility/anon6.C scan-assembler 1BIiE1cE
regressed on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45845
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-09-30
13:47:26 UTC ---
Caused by...
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 29 13:59:08 2010
New Revision: 164719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164719
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
But I have run valgrind now. It was the first time, so I don't understand the
result. Is it somehow the fault of my hardware/OS?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #8 from Atsushi Nemoto anemo at mba dot ocn.ne.jp 2010-09-30
13:59:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The PR 42956 bugzilla shows same fix was applied to both 4.5.0 and 4.4.4,
but they behave differently on this test case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-30 14:14:13 UTC ---
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, anemo at mba dot ocn.ne.jp wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #8 from Atsushi Nemoto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #32 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2010-09-30 15:36:02 UTC ---
Which target milestone do you intend for a fix? It is still present in 4.6.0
20100925.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
16:01:01 UTC ---
I don't see it as different at all; I am arguing that the initial bug report
was not actually a bug, and that the patch should be reverted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42628
Artem Anisimov aanisimov at inbox dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aanisimov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42628
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
16:44:17 UTC ---
IA-64 seems to be fine with unlikely section at least at our periodic tester
setup, otherwise SPEC2000 FDO testing would break. So it might be specific for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45845
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-09-30
17:02:29 UTC ---
The failing testcase was introduced with the proposed patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg00438.html
that added the ability to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45837
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45801
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||45837
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-09-30 17:28:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Using -fno-inline-functions, the program recovers the speed of the no-LTO
version.
This does not work on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45846
Summary: Partial attachments in bugzilla
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45846
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-09-30 17:41:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The decision is reasonable (I suppose partial inlining will inline the
if (!init) case) as the function is called exactly once then and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45700
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
17:47:19 UTC ---
If we call build[1-5] just to call protected_set_expr_location next, then by
all means, use build[1-5]_loc and be done with it.
Ideally we should strive to
Hi, please, can you add the testcase to PR? I guess problem might be that as
the function is split and then
inlined back together the profile gets confused...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-09-30 17:47:39 UTC
---
Hi, please, can you add the testcase to PR? I guess problem might be that as
the function is split and then
inlined back together the profile gets confused...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45781
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-30
18:21:29 UTC ---
I think I am hitting instance of PR45846. I get just part of the testcase:
typedef union tree_node *tree;
struct tree_exp { tree operands[1]; };
union
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
