--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 08:49 ---
Have a patch for the testsuite. gen-vect-X.c vectorizer testcases should
probably be moved into gcc.dg/vect, at least those that scan for vectorized
loops.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 08:57 ---
Subject: Bug 35047
Author: uros
Date: Fri Feb 1 08:57:11 2008
New Revision: 131997
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131997
Log:
PR testsuite/35047
*
--- Comment #28 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 09:34 ---
A fix for the PR
This is regtesting as I write. It fixes the first three PRs but not that of
comment #25.
I'm not so happy about the != '(' in:
+ /* These are definitive indicators that this is a
At rev. 131985 with the last patch for PR35035, g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C fails
on i686-apple-darwin9 for both 32 and 64 bit modes with:
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C: In function 'void
foo()':
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/simd3.C:12: error:
--- Comment #14 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2008-02-01
09:38 ---
bootstrapped/regtested with BOOT_CFLAGS=-O3 -g:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg00014.html
There is a lot of unexpected failures, so I will retest with BOOT_CFLAGS=-O2
and without the
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:26 ---
Fixed.(?)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:14 ---
Subject: Bug 35042
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 1 10:14:08 2008
New Revision: 131998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131998
Log:
2008-02-01 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:14 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 09:47 ---
And I also believe all our examples in this PR are wrong.
In all the invalid examples given in comment #3, the dimension specification is
on the rhs of '::'. In my example it's on the lhs. If the latter is invalid
--- Comment #6 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2008-02-01 10:45
---
Nice, this is what I was seeing all along. Shouldn't this be a P1 though?
--
ismail at pardus dot org dot tr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:28 ---
Regressions should have a target milestone.
But -- this error is expected? For reference:
/* { dg-do compile } */
typedef int myint;
float __attribute__((vector_size(16))) b;
int
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:54 ---
gcse after reload removes the load imaginary part of the return value
(__complex__ float is returned in %eax/%edx pair):
@@ -274,12 +274,10 @@
callnanf
fstps -24(%ebp)
movl
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 10:33 ---
Confirmed. Fails with -O3 -mpc64 (it passes with -fno-gcse-after-reload and
also
with -ffloat-store)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 11:51
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code on i386 with -O3
I would say it is a target issue if the target return insn does not
mention that %edx is used.
--
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 11:58
---
Reduced testcase:
extern __complex__ float clogf (__complex__ float);
__complex__ float
mycacoshf (__complex__ float x)
{
__complex__ float res;
res = clogf (x);
/* We have to use the positive branch. */
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 11:53 ---
Mine to investigate.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 11:33 ---
I saw this also on i686-linux-gnu. The issue is we are not getting an error on
the second statement when we should be.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 11:32 ---
so, can you paste the full log of this FAIL?
Is this what you are asking for?
Executing on host: /opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 12:02
---
Re comment #9 - after postreload there is only
(insn 62 61 40 4 test-cacoshf.c:16 (set (reg:SF 0 ax [ result ])
(mem/c:SF (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 6 bp)
(const_int -20 [0xffec])) [0
48734
# of unexpected failures6
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected failures 165
# of untested testcases 35
# of unsupported tests 269
/home/jrp/build/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0 20080201 (experimental) (GCC)
=== gfortran tests
The example below illustrate that the .ali files do not always contain renamed
subprograms references:
--pb_renaming.ads
package pb_renaming is
function Plus(X, Y: Integer) return Integer;
function My_plus(X, Y: Integer) return Integer renames Plus;
function Add(X, Y: Integer) return
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:15
---
Let's CC some x86 maintainers
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=15074)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15074action=view)
patch for postreload-gcse
This fixes the oversight in postreload-gcse.c and this bug.
--
--- Comment #22 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 14:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code on i386 with -O3
Could you retain the gcc_assert (HARD_REGISTER_P (x)); please?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35045
--- Comment #21 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:45 ---
GCSE itself might or might not be safe, I haven't yet gone through all paths.
But normally it enters only pseudo regs into the hash tables. It does
remember invalidation of hard-regs, though, and that definitely is
--- Comment #18 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 14:14
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code on i386 with -O3
Why would we be calling expand_null_return to begin with, if there is
a proper return statement?
--
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:13
---
Hm, it might be all due to the reg-stack.c hunk in rths patch:
+ /* A top-level clobber with no REG_DEAD, and no hard-regnum
+ indicates an uninitialized value. Because reload
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:08
---
The problem is that we retain
(insn 38 32 61 4 test-cacoshf.c:16 (clobber (reg/i:SC 0 ax)) -1 (nil))
after postreload and gcse rightfully assumes such clobbers are removed
(and hoists over them). They are
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:59
---
(In reply to comment #0)
Either the localized message should not be truncated - or the English version
of the string should be used throughout.
I'm afraid this one has my name on it, as I added localization
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:04
---
gcse-after-reload inserts
(insn 66 30 31 3 (set (reg:SF 1 dx [+4 ])
(mem/c:SF (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 6 bp)
(const_int -16 [0xfff0])) [0 res$imag+0 S4 A]
on the edge from bb3 to
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:10 ---
Reported almost 4 years ago, never confirmed. Is this still valid?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14743
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #23 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:59 ---
I haven't removed it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35045
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-02-01 14:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc-4.3 generates wrong code
on i386 with -O3
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #18 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2008-02-01 14:14
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 12:53
---
Lets make this P1 until it is properly analyzed as eventually this also affects
functions returning DImode.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 15:31 ---
With the patch in comment #18, on a Core2Duo 2.16Ghz I get:
5000 0.54 secs
1 1.82
2 6.74
436.5
6 206
65535 258
65536 68 -- Error: Initialization
--- Comment #19 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:39 ---
The ICE for the second case on comment 10 goes away. However, compile time is
very long as N increases:
I played around (w/o your patch) with several compilers and gfortran does not
do too bad (all compilers
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 13:19 ---
CCing half the world is not going to help anyone.
Try adding TODO_df_finish.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 14:22
---
Created an attachment (id=15073)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15073action=view)
Patch
I don't think it's a regression, but it certainly is a annoying bug for people
who have a non-english
--- Comment #5 from jwlemke at specifix dot com 2008-02-01 16:43 ---
I ran into this problem as well. I was building x86 x mips64.
FWIW, my solution was this:
2008-01-31 James Lemke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* configure.ac: For a cross, if --with-x was not specified supress it.
--- Comment #21 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2008-02-01 16:04 ---
Subject: Re: Implied do-loop in an initialization expression is broken
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:31:49PM -, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
With the patch in comment #18, on a
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Here is what happens (note that, differently from what was the case, now the
warning is give three times in a row):
The is used warning is the same issue with virtual operands. The relevant
--- Comment #36 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #50 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:48
---
# zD.203060_41 = PHI zD.203060_58(3), zD.203060_50(D)(6), zD.203060_51(7),
zD.203060_52(8), zD.203060_50(D)(12), zD.203060_53(13), zD.203060_50(D)(15),
zD.203060_54(\
16), zD.203060_50(D)(19), zD.203060_55(20),
--- Comment #23 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 16:41 ---
For large values of n, most of the time is spent in gfc_append_constructor,
starting from 5% and up to 92%. Most of the remaining time is spent in
find_array_section, starting from 75% down to 2.5%.
Although I did
--- Comment #40 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:47
---
Well, I still meant that simplifying the cascaded addition into accumulator
into direct addition from base makes the code to simplify. I implemented
experimentally the trick in fwprop and will attach later, but
--- Comment #26 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:53 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:52 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:29 ---
Changing subject to something more informative.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|entry and addressable and |[4.2 regression] entry and
|value-expr: and the
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29892
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30694
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
... to mark as a duplicate of PR 27289. They are almost the same testcase. The
other one is shorter.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27289 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:08 ---
Argh, the other way around (this testcase is shorter).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:05 ---
See comment 17 and comment 19. This is fixed by chance by CCP, so not worth to
keep it open.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:58
---
Dave, is this test still failing on hppa? On the branch and trunk?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-02-01 16:58 ---
On ppc G5 1.8Ghz, I get an almost perfect quadratic behavior:
118 secs
272
4 290
6 655
65535 778
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:55 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 16:54 ---
4.2.3 is being released now, changing milestones of open bugs to 4.2.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
