http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42304
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43682
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike 2011-10-03
13:06:38 UTC ---
Who can update the in-tree boehm-gc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36819
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48152
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46464
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike 2010-11-17
13:13:44 UTC ---
*** Bug 46464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike 2010-11-16
17:48:32 UTC ---
Configure:
../../../build/gcc/src/configure \
--target=i686-w64-mingw32 \
\
--prefix=/buildbot/mingw-w64/linux-x86_64-x86/build/build/root \
--with-sysroot=/buildbot/min
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
Summary: Relocatable toolchains still search --prefix
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17349
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46464
Summary: libiberty pointer size assumptions for Win64 incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46202
Summary: Makefile doesn't support install-strip
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike 2010-09-30
18:47:04 UTC ---
This bug is listed as NEW, not ASSIGNED, but it's set to be assigned to FX.
Can the status be updated to ASSIGNED?
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-06-14 17:35 ---
I can confirm this as a valid bug, but I don't have the bugzilla permissions to
do so. Can someone update this to New?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
--- Comment #26 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-05-27 23:26 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6
>
> Note: I have no urge or time to upgrade gcc's bugzilla anymore.
> If ya'll want to work on it, i'
--- Comment #24 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 17:18 ---
This is for mingw, not linux.
I can test again when our buildbot farm is back up. Should be in the next few
days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41219
--- Comment #14 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-04-29 11:53 ---
I'm running the testsuite now
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43844
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-04-01 15:27 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> night-strike can i ask a question that had x86_64-w64-mingw32 supported libgcj
> yet? I failed even explictly --enable-libgcj... and a so-called wiki of
> mingw-
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-04-01 11:54 ---
I'd recommend closing this as invalid. We build 12 relocatable toolchains for
windows daily for http://mingw-w64.sf.net/
I'm pretty sure it works :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42886
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-03-21 23:35 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Looks like we need a new variable for build includes
>
> I think, too. I've built successful with my patch. (I don't send my patch
> because it is half-finishe
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-03-21 14:56 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This is probably due to the way you built GCC. To have a completely
> > relocatable toolchain, you need to use the --with-sysroot option to
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-03-19 16:16 ---
Can we fix this before 4.5 is released?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40722
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-03-19 14:25 ---
This is probably due to the way you built GCC. To have a completely
relocatable toolchain, you need to use the --with-sysroot option to configure,
and you need to set it equal to prefix or below prefix in the
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2010-02-04 04:10 ---
The logs are not updated daily, but I try to do them frequently. I thought
there was date information within the logs themselves.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42950
--- Comment #20 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > (In reply to comment #17)
> > > > ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24:
> > > > warning
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 17:36 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > ../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24:
> > warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized in this function
>
> I
--- Comment #16 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 16:33 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Subject: Bug 41219
>
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Sat Sep 12 15:08:27 2009
> New Revision: 151653
As of r151914, this warning still exists when the host=linux64 and t
--- Comment #15 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 16:30 ---
Current list:
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/list_read.c:1847:10: warning:
variable 'elem' might be clobbered by 'longjmp' or 'vfork'
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libg
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-12 05:36 ---
Current warning list as of revision 151630:
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/write.c:328:8: warning: passing
argument 2 of 'write_default_char4' from incompatible pointer type
../../../../../bui
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-06-25 13:58 ---
I imagine this applies to any target, not just win64 targets. I can't change
that setting, though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40516
g
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: *-w64-mingw*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40376
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 05:28 ---
I can confirm that our 4.3 release worked, and that this is a 4.4 regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39356
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 16:00 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00639.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:57 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00640.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:54 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00641.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:52 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00634.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:49 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00636.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:46 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00638.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-09 02:10 ---
Was this broken in 4.3 compilers? Is it a 4.4 regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37121
--- Comment #9 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-02-14 22:56 ---
Verified to fail on win32 and win64, not just win64. Can someone with
sufficient privileges adjust "Target"?
Verified to work in 4.3, so this is a regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 04:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=17259)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17259&action=view)
Kai's attempt
This patch has a few caveats:
You can't use the winsup link hack to work arou
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-14 00:11 ---
To complete this patch, we need to make multilib not be the default.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #7 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-13 23:01 ---
Tested and verified on win64
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-13 21:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=16906)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16906&action=view)
Third attempt
There were a few lines in t-mingw32 that were commented out and shouldn't have
been t
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-13 21:19 ---
As per jakub, it is space separated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-08 07:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=16849)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16849&action=view)
Second attempt
This gets us further along
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-11-27 17:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=16785)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16785&action=view)
My first crack at enabling the support
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: x86_64-*-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-25 15:04 ---
I think that was a mistake. He was just trying to confirm the PR, and probably
meant to set it to WAITING as opposed to ASSIGNED. I saw your emails to
gcc-patches. If you could commit the change, that'd be aw
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-25 05:00 ---
What is the output of g++ -v?
Are you using the win32 cross compiler, or the win64 native compiler?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37121
portedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37641
--- Comment #23 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-21 17:06 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> I'm probably not the one who'll find the core of the bug but I'd like to
> mention two simple facts:
Thanks for your feedback!
> 1: mingw-w64-bin_i686-mingw_200
--- Comment #7 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-12 20:32 ---
*** Bug 37503 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-12 20:32 ---
Marking as duplicate of 30484.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30484 ***
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-12 20:32 ---
Re-opening, valid PR as per 30484. Will close as duplicate.
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
nu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37503
--- Comment #14 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-12 05:47 ---
I just wanted to confirm that Joesph's patch does indeed work (thank you!), and
ask that the status of this PR change from INVALID to FIXED.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #10 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-22 17:41 ---
How can you close this if the tuples merge makes it impossible to build gcc
with version 3.4? The minimum gcc is still 2.95.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-22 06:47 ---
I can confirm this bug (seeing as how the one I wrote got duped to here). Can
someone update the status to confirmed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-13 14:23 ---
Is 2.95 still the minimum gcc required for the build?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-12 04:46 ---
Preprocessed source added as attachment. Also note that the bootstrap gcc was
built with cygwin's gcc, which is a modified 3.4.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37091
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-12 04:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=16057)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16057&action=view)
Preprocessed source
This is the preprocessed source for the file that causes the ICE
--
http://gcc.
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-07-14 17:09 ---
On 4.2.4 and 4.3.1, I get this:
$ cat > a.c
int f(void) {}
$ cat > b.c
int f(void) {}
$ /opt/cfarm/release/4.3.1/bin/gcc -combine a.c b.c
a.c:2: error: redefinition of 'f'
a.c:1: error: previous
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-07-10 00:49 ---
Kai, can you apply FX's fix?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-25 06:54 ---
I am regtesting it now. Note that it will take a very long time to complete
(several days).
This does apply to 4.3 and 4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36321
--- Comment #21 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-13 13:23 ---
ping.. Is there anyone that can help us with this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-04 23:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=15577)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15577&action=view)
Preprocessed source
This is the preprocessed source that is used in the compilations mentioned in
oduct: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36126
--- Comment #7 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-24 14:21 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > I am set up for running the testsuite on x86_64-pc-mingw32, however it takes
> > several days to complete. Is there a reduced set of tests that
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-23 23:04 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > BTW: The testcase doesn't fail for x86_64-linux. Can you please regression
> > test the patch (and write a testcase ;) on *-mingw target?
> I'm not set up for reg
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-12 19:37 ---
I made the title more appropriate. Also, I think this has now been fixed, so
should the status be changed to Resolved - Fixed?
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-06 16:03 ---
What is the status on this? I am having a lot of test timeouts when testing
the x86_64-pc-mingw cross compiler, as sometimes there are slow programd and
annoying ssh network delays. Extending the timeout in a
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-06 15:07 ---
To clarify the title, the ICE goes away with all optimization levels when
-fno-tree-ch is used.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35842
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-06 14:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=15434)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15434&action=view)
Preprocessed source
This is the preprocessed source that causes the ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35842
--- Comment #19 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-03-06 16:08 ---
Ok, compiling the aforementioned "Hello, world!" program using "gfortran
--save-temps hello.f90" results in f951.exe maxing out the CPU forever.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-03-06 05:09 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> What is the Fortran test case that makes this is a gfortran issue?
PROGRAM HelloWorld
WRITE(*,*) "Hello World!"
END PROGRAM
I haven't tested that again with
--- Comment #16 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-03-06 03:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=15267)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15267&action=view)
Preprocssed source for the testcase mentioned
I took the code that I mentioned in the first post in t
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-24 03:31 ---
This is a very simple fix. Can someone add it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-23 11:12 ---
Here's an even better way to do it:
Index: configure.ac
===
--- configure.ac(revision 132554)
+++ configure.ac(working
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35256
--- Comment #9 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 22:23 ---
Was this patch ever submitted?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34571
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 05:32 ---
Here is the email thread that started it all:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-02/msg00197.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
t_modules= { module= gnuserv; };
host_modules= { module= gprof; };
host_modules= { module= gzip; };
--
Summary: gmp and mpfr are erroneously configured with --target
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
--- Comment #14 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-16 17:22 ---
edited title to reflect gfortran failure, as well.
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 14:29 ---
Addendum - this applies to gfortran, as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 14:27 ---
Subject: Re: g++ inoperable with no error message
On 14 Feb 2008 08:15:35 -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 01:53 ---
Can we have this fixed before 4.3.0? x86_64-pc-mingw32 is a new target for
this release, and it shouldn't be delivered completely broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 01:17 ---
This bug needs to be finished off before 4.3.0 closes...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35124
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-12 02:39 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00350.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35124
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
t gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35151
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-12 17:33 ---
Does anyone know why the %ld formats are not recognized as valid?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-12 17:33 ---
What do they mean?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34316
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-11 16:10 ---
This is impeding development of the x86_64-pc-mingw32 toolchain. Is there any
way to gain help on this from the gcc community?
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
-pc-mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet
201 - 300 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
