in:
#include cstddef
static const signed char lwb = 0x80;
static const signed char lwba = -128;
static const signed char upb = 127;
static const size_t cnta = upb - lwba;
static const size_t cnt = upb - lwb;
int main() {
return 0;
}
the two variables lwb and lwba are of identical type
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libunwind-exceptions
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 08:51
---
Created an attachment (id=8211)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8211action=view)
bzip2 compressed preprocessed source dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20022
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libunwind-exceptions
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 08:55
---
Created an attachment (id=8212)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8212action=view)
bzip2 compressed proprocessed dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20023
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-17
09:42 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Using Mathematica I get for
(10^20 + 10^12 I)/(1 - 10^-8) = 10^20 + 2 * 10^12 I
so really neither of them are mathematically correct.
The test case was
--- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 10:00
---
FWIW: openoffice.org 1.9.77 side patch to workaround at
http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/gcc4/xmlsecurity.gcc20008.gcc4.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20008
Using a combined tree and Geoff K's regression tester script, a multitude of
failures have been introduced between LAST_UPDATED Thu Feb 17 03:51:44 UTC
2005 and Thu Feb 17 08:42:30 UTC 2005. There's only one change in that
time-frame:
+ 2005-02-17 Jason Merrill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ PR
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 10:16
---
Created an attachment (id=8213)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8213action=view)
Preprocessed source for __Div
_divsi3.i
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20024
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 10:23
---
Here's the faulty program flow for the __Div call for
gcc.c-torture/execute/20010222-1.c -O0.
(-72 / 12; -72 in R10, 12 in R11; R10 holds the return value which should be
-6, not 0):
ffb8c6
--- Additional Comments From jmoro at latentzero dot com 2005-02-17 10:47
---
I am sorry but that is not good enough. If I read correcly, you recommend that
to solve the problem with my template function member of a class is ... not to
use template functions as members of the class.
My
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-17
11:34 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect overflow warning
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
03:14 ---
No the warning is correct
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-17
11:58 ---
Maybe it is not very clear to you, but this is the GCC Bugzilla. This is where
people report *bugs* of the GCC compiler. It is not a help desk for C++
programmers. If you have a BUG to report about GCC,
--- Additional Comments From jmoro at latentzero dot com 2005-02-17 12:11
---
Fair enough, you can indeed resolve the circular dependencies by moving the
definition but you still have more dependencies between files than you used to
with 3.3.
It's all good to follow the standard but
While compiling the routine datatypes.cpp in the GDL package, g++ generates an
internal error. This appears to be powerpc specific.
Command line Error messages follow.
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/python2.3 -O2 -MT datatypes.o
-MD -MP -MF .deps/datatypes.Tpo -c -o
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 12:21
---
BTW, this breaks glibc build, so it is quite important to get this fixed
for GCC 4.0 release.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-17
12:45 ---
Confirmed then.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20025
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:03 ---
../../../../inc/bf_sw/horiornt.hxx:89: internal compiler error: vector
VEC(deferred_access) last domain
error, in perform_deferred_access_checks at cp/semantics.c:288
Please submit a full bug report,
with
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:04 ---
Investgating.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:15 ---
Hmm, I cannot reproduce this with 4.0.0 20050215 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, so
either this is new as of
yesterday or it was just a fluk. I am thinking the former.
--
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-17 13:20
---
(In reply to comment #6)
What should get a warning is the assignment of 0x80 to a char.
Not that either, as although the two differ in sign, the value does not exceed
the type's precision.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:21 ---
It also broke Alpha too see the message from RTH:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00978.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From gj at pointblue dot com dot pl 2005-02-17
13:26 ---
Fixed for that specific testcase, but can't compile kernel today.
Kernel version 2.6.11-rc4 vanilia,
gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050217 (experimental)
CC arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.o
arch/x86_64/kernel
LAPACK tries to determine behavior of present double pre-
precision numbers. One of used methods is based on property
that (on IA32) 9.0071992547400992E+015 + 1 will be the same
9.0071992547400992E+015, but 9.0071992547400992E+015 + 2 will
be differ.
This sample demonstrates that any level
--- Additional Comments From denis dot nagorny at intel dot com 2005-02-17
13:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=8214)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8214action=view)
sample for error reproducing
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20026
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Component|fortran |target
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:37 ---
The problem is that on x86, we use the excessive precision, see PR 323.
This is a dup of bug 323.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 323 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:37 ---
*** Bug 20026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:38 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Fixed for that specific testcase, but can't compile kernel today.
This is most likely the same as PR 20009.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:45 ---
Actually this is not a problem in DOM at all but in fold, say we have (which is
the reduced testcase):
unsigned int glob1;
int imm0limm1 (int r0)
{
if (22 = ((unsigned int)glob1))
return 1;
else
--- Additional Comments From gj at pointblue dot com dot pl 2005-02-17
13:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name,
have addr_expr in vrp_hash
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:49 ---
This is caused obviously by:
* convert.c (convert_to_integer) case POINTER_TYPE: Pass
TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) as type_for_size's UNSIGNEDP argument.
--
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-17
13:52 ---
Another datapoint - the fact that slarrb has problems
has been confirmed by a Lapack developer. A new version is
slated to appear as a patch soon. Hopefully, this will reduce
the potential hang in the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
13:59 ---
It was the former, it regressed from the last two days, reducing.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-17
14:00 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect overflow warning
schlie at comcast dot net wrote:-
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-17 13:20
---
(In reply to comment #6)
What
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 14:04
---
Oops, started reducing it a couple of minutes already.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20023
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
14:05 ---
Reduced testcase:
void f(void);
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
void g(void *a)
{
size_t b = (size_t)a;
switch (b)
{
case 1:
f();
break;
}
}
This looks very much related to PR 20009 as
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-17 14:33
---
(In reply to comment #8)
char x = 0x80; warning: value changes sign during integer type conversion
Implying an analogous warning for all assignments between dissimilarly
signed variables (i.e. signed x;
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 14:34
---
Yeah, it is caused by that part of my patch.
The result of convert_to_integer is in one case
nop_expr (size_t) convert_expr (unsigned int) param_decl (pointer)
and without that part of the patch:
nop_expr
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
15:04 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
BTW, this breaks glibc build, so it is quite important to get this fixed
for GCC 4.0 release.
There is followup on how to get this fixed after the patch was rejected.
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-17
15:12 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect overflow warning
schlie at comcast dot net wrote:-
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-17 14:33
---
(In reply to comment #8)
char x =
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 15:31
---
Yes I did read RTH's message at the time, but this breakage seems
different than what he described: it looks as if the whole inlined
do_31div (the one with the aggregate return value) is misoptimized
away. Hope
gcc.c-torture/execute/20050121-1.c execution has recently started
failing on multiple targets.
It's appeared for me on hppa64-hp-hpux11.23 between 20050212 and
20050217. gcc-testresults also shows it on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
This would be a regression relative to 3.4 branch (though not to 3.4.3
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
15:43 ---
I want to say this is related to PR 20024.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
15:46 ---
Looks like more than that is failing:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-1.c execution, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-1.c execution, -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-1.c execution,
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Priority|P2 |P1
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20024
Apparently g++ isn't recognizing protected members in inheritance before the
class declaration. Furthermore, G++ segfaults when adding the first line, and
the friend class.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ cat a.cc
class Foo;
template class T class A
{ friend class Foo;
--- Additional Comments From jcobyrne at cox dot net 2005-02-17 16:08
---
By the way, when removing the friend class and line 1 of the source file, the
code WILL compile on g++3.2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20028
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:12 ---
Fixed in the mainline by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg02230.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:17 ---
Subject: [PR c++/20008, middle-end] handle switch with all cases out-of-range
Sure enough, the testcase relied on undefined behavior, but that's no
reason for us to ICE at compile time. I suppose it might
Whenever you try to use java.awt.Robot you will get an error like:
program name unknown: relocation error:
/usr/local/gcc40/lib/lib-gnu-java-awt-peer-gtk.so.6: undefined symbol:
XTestQueryExtension
This is probably because the following Change didn't come correctly from the gui
branch onto the
Broken arguments access
Starting February 13th, gfrotran fails on the following test case on
ia32/ia64/x86_64 platforms with all kinds of optimizations: -O0, -O1, -O2 etc.
The issue is critical because it affects SPEC cpu2k tests wupwise and galgel on
all platforms.
$ cat foo.f
program
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:42 ---
Subject: Bug 20022
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-17 16:42:10
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog semantics.c
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:43 ---
Fixed with the patch above.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:44 ---
Confirmed, now in the norun.lst file.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bredelin at ucla dot edu 2005-02-17 16:45
---
Note that this bug breaks BOOST.
Here is a reduced testcase, which comes from
boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:
-- begin testcase
template typename T, T N
struct integral_c
{
static const
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:45 ---
Confirmed as of today on x86.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
16:46 ---
Investigating.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
I'm getting two different ICEs in certain compilation situations, with trivially
small files. This seems to be about where source/class files are located, not
what's inside them (although the second bug does only occur if class B has the
abstract modifier).
Instead of painfully explaining what
--- Additional Comments From bonniot at users dot sf dot net 2005-02-17
16:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=8215)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8215action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20031
--- Additional Comments From bonniot at users dot sf dot net 2005-02-17
16:57 ---
I forgot, here is the output I get:
/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcj -d classes -C pkg/A.java pkg/B.java
/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcj classes/pkg/B.class
jc1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
17:03 ---
I think this is a bug in fold_indirect_ref and not in the fortran front-end as
Jason as has said, the front-
end provides a cast to char* and then dereferences the pointer.
--
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20030
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Keywords|
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20031
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
17:25 ---
This is a bug in fold_indirect_ref.
We get now:
D.485 = (*ca)[0]{lb: 1 sz: 1};
See how the lower bound is 1, that is wrong.
A related C testcase is:
typedef char a[1];
int f(a * b)
{
char a1 =
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
17:40 ---
I have a fix which I am testing.
Yes this was a bug in fold_indirect_ref and not in the fortran front-end (it
could also effect Ada too but I
have no test case for Ada).
Basically what happens is that
Here you find two files:
http://people.inf.elte.hu/pentek_i/doksik/Linux/bugs/gcc/
they caused an internal error, and asked me to report a bug.
--
Summary: internal error
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
17:45 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01002.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
17:48 ---
Can you read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html like the ICE said and provide all the
needed information.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
17:55 ---
The code is invalid.
But this is a regression from 3.3.3 where we did not ICE.
Reduced testcase:
class Foo;
template typename T class Foo { };
int main ()
{
Fooint x;
return 0;
}
--
What
--
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 2005-02-17
18:04 ---
Confirmed, this is a java front-end bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 18:12
---
Adding Steve Kargl to CC, as this is most likely the BLAS bug he's been looking
into.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 18:27
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-02-17 19:17 ---
Tobi, thanks for adding me to the CC list. Andrew's patch
fixes the problems with BLAS. I extemely happy someone else
was able to find a small testcase, because I was starting
to trim 10K
--- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat dot com 2005-02-17 19:18
---
Yes, I'll have to re-add the -lXtst flag. The problem I've seen is that
re-adding this causes an abort failure.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
19:25 ---
Subject: Bug 20028
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-17 19:25:05
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog class.c
--- Additional Comments From gary at intrepid dot com 2005-02-17 19:35
---
The MAX_FIXED_REC_SIZE defintion is a relatively recent addition to
config/rs6000.h (and from a quick review of the cvs log, it seems that this
change hasn't yet been incorporated into a release.) Just fyi.
Bootstrap fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.23.
This may be related to bug 20027.
../../gcc-mainline/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__multc3':
../../gcc-mainline/gcc/libgcc2.c:1637: error: Invalid operand to binary operator
a___0D.3239
../../gcc-mainline/gcc/libgcc2.c:1637:
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 20:00
---
Also fails on ia64-hpux.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:00 ---
Critical and P1 because this is primary target and there is no workaround
except for reverting the patch
as of now.
And Yes I doubled check to make sure that this is a primary target:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:02 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01020.html for 3.4.x.
--
What|Removed |Added
On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:35 PM, gary at intrepid dot com wrote:
The MAX_FIXED_REC_SIZE defintion is a relatively recent addition to
config/rs6000.h (and from a quick review of the cvs log, it seems that
this
change hasn't yet been incorporated into a release.) Just fyi.
Yes so, just a note the patch
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-02-17
20:05 ---
Subject: Re: x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode
On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:35 PM, gary at intrepid dot com wrote:
The MAX_FIXED_REC_SIZE defintion is a relatively recent addition to
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 20:07
---
Also fails on hppa64-hpux (same link failure). Not a regression there either.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:12 ---
I would not doubt that this is related to what RTH reported on alpha:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00978.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20033
g++.dg/inherit/thunk2.C fails on hppa64-hpux. Regression, new since 20050212.
Not tested on 32-bit HPPA because of bootstrap failure there (bug 20033).
/scratch/joseph/gcc-mainline/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/inherit/thunk2.C: In member
function 'ClassC ClassB::_ZTv0_n24_N6ClassB1fEv()':
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:20 ---
I would not doubt this was caused by the same patch which caused bug 20033
and many other
failures.
--
What|Removed |Added
well, building gcc cvs trunk for sparc-linux and running the testsuite shows
tests not run and the log file message is this:
failed run-time assertion : Tasking not implemented on this configuration
--
Summary: failed run-time assertion : Tasking not implemented on
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=8216)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8216action=view)
Ada system file
I don't know if this will do anything as I didn't record the before and after
failures
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
20:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=8217)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8217action=view)
V9 version
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20035
Testsuite failes with the same error for this four testcases:
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-1 c_compat_x_tst.o compile
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-1 c_compat_y_tst.o compile
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-2 c_compat_x_tst.o compile
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-2 c_compat_y_tst.o compile
Called manually
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
