http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
06:03:56 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Apr 2 06:03:52 2011
New Revision: 171877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171877
Log:
Don't check zero/sign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #15 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
06:05:06 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Apr 2 06:05:03 2011
New Revision: 171878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171878
Log:
Promote pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48085
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
06:05:06 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Apr 2 06:05:03 2011
New Revision: 171878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171878
Log:
Promote pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48409
Summary: const qualifier for function type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48410
Summary: weird installation dir
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48411
Summary: Bogusly canonicalized $target-gccgo
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48412
Summary: [4.7 Regression] CP2K miscompiled due to some Fortran
frontend pass
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu|{i686,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48412
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48406
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14608
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyasskin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48409
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
11:52:57 UTC ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3236.html#547
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14608
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48409
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
12:13:48 UTC ---
this was changed intentionally for PR 37806 and PR 39310
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Riviere vincent.riviere at freesbee dot fr
2011-04-02 12:13:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 23850
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23850
Testcase
Here is my simplified testcase. It looks weird, but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48409
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
12:33:33 UTC ---
Tried on Gentoo yesterday, now on Ubuntu 10.04. Still not reproduced. How do
the files differ? Would anyone be willing to help debug this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-04-02 12:35:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Tried on Gentoo yesterday, now on Ubuntu 10.04. Still not reproduced. How do
the files differ? Would anyone be willing to help debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48413
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 403.gcc in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
13:13:57 UTC ---
May I suggest you try Debian 6.0 or Fedora 14?
I have the problem on RHEL 5 and SLES 10.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48413
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-04-02 13:16:00
UTC ---
Created attachment 23851
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23851
A testcase
[hjl@gnu-34 rrs]$ ./171649/usr/bin/gcc -w -m32 -O3 -funroll-loops
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48413
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
13:23:51 UTC ---
Tried on Gentoo yesterday, now on Ubuntu 10.04. Still not reproduced. How do
the files differ? Would anyone be willing to help debug this?
For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|{i686, x86_64}-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48413
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-04-02 13:30:24
UTC ---
This seems to be fixed. I will verify it after bootstrap is fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-04-02 13:38:00
UTC ---
Created attachment 23852
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23852
diff of disassemly
Configuring with
/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
13:43:19 UTC ---
Downloading Fedora 14 now, but that'll take a while to get set up.
Potentially helpful would be scheduling dumps from stage1 and stage2 compilers
for these
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44374
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44374
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-04-02 13:55:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Bernd, if you have a compile farm account: It reproduces on gcc17 for me.
Can you try
gcc20: a dual Xeon X5670 2.93 GHz 12 cores 24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |---
--- Comment #16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-04-02 15:01:18 UTC ---
Well, then someone will have to debug this somehow; it really looks
like we're producing the same output before and after...
I have bootstrapped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02 15:04:05
UTC ---
Created attachment 23853
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23853
OK @ 171815
bootstrapped - and then deleted _clz*, - then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48414
Summary: Missing uninitialized warning in simple switch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02 15:07:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 23854
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23854
171816 + patch - not working
removed i686-apple-darwin9/* ... bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #17 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
15:08:33 UTC ---
FWIW: 171842 is OK, 171843 gives the comparison failure. No surprise, I
suppose, but for the record...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48398
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
15:34:05 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Apr 2 15:34:01 2011
New Revision: 171889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171889
Log:
2011-04-02 Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-04-02 16:00:46 UTC ---
AFAICT the problematic objects are only _clz_s.o and _popcount_tab_s.o.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48415
Summary: GC Warning: Repeated allocation of very large block
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #121 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-04-02 16:58:16 UTC ---
I'm inclined to close this as Fixed for 4.6.0.
I've taken the file mentioned in the previous comment and followed the
instructions in the readme. The times for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #122 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-04-02 17:05:10 UTC ---
Just to be clear, the command to do the test is
gsi/gsi -e '(define a (expt 3 1))(set! *bench-bignum-fft* #t)(define b
(* a a))'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48416
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Revision 171890 failed to build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48416
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02 18:41:53
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sat Apr 2 18:41:49 2011
New Revision: 171892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171892
Log:
2011-04-02 Kai Tietz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48416
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48366
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #18 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
19:16:17 UTC ---
Something appears to be wrong with the allocation of scheduled_insns:
* It is VEC_alloc'ed on the heap in sched_extend_ready_list() but it is never
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
19:25:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 23855
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23855
second proposed patch
The fault is 100% with ld. GCC is producing valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48398
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
19:32:18 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Apr 2 19:32:15 2011
New Revision: 171894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=171894
Log:
2011-04-02 Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48398
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #19 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
19:37:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 23856
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23856
Attempt at correcting memory management for scheduled_insns
Currently
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48417
Summary: -ffixed-regs option can't work in mips-elf-gcj
compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #20 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
19:55:07 UTC ---
Doesn't fix the comparison failure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48366
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
19:56:50 UTC ---
With pa_secondary_reload fixed, the following code is generated at -O0:
subi 63,%r31,%r31
std %r31,80(%r3)
fldd 80(%r3),%fr22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48418
Summary: Bit shift operator =
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48418
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
Summary: Reduce gfortran stack usage for procedures doing IO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
--- Comment #1 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02 21:12:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
For #2 there are a few options. Say,
a) A char array containing all the data. Walk over the flags variable, and for
each set bit,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #6 from nbi at wideopenwest dot com 2011-04-02 21:16:47 UTC ---
I continue to get the originally reported error:
make[3]: Entering directory
`/usr/src/gcc-4.6-4.6.0.orig/gcc-4.6.0/host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc'
build/genhooks \
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
21:25:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I continue to get the originally reported error:
It looks as though you continue to build in the source dir, but I can't know
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
21:26:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Maybe there's something wrong with the packaging of the source?
It works for everyone else.
Actually maybe that's not true,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420
Summary: Missed -Wconversion-null warning when passing const
bool to T*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48418
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2011-04-02 21:43:15 UTC ---
GCC 4.x regression, for x = 5:
$ cat foo.c
unsigned foo(void)
{
#ifdef CONST
const
#endif
unsigned i = sizeof(unsigned) 3;
unsigned x = 1000;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #9 from nbi at wideopenwest dot com 2011-04-02 22:24:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
I continue to get the originally reported error:
It looks as though you continue to build in the source dir, but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
22:52:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
I continue to get the originally reported error:
It looks as though you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-04-02 22:59:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 23855 [details]
second proposed patch
Unfortunately it does not work either.
The fault is 100% with ld. GCC is producing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #11 from nbi at wideopenwest dot com 2011-04-02 23:18:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
I continue to get the originally reported error:
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
23:32:10 UTC ---
The docs for --with-gmp also point out you might need to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH so
the gmp/mpfr/mpc libs will be found, which is the cause of the cannot compute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
23:39:58 UTC ---
what my makefile does is put the gmp sources in the gcc tree as gcc-4.6.0/gmp
(not as gcc-4.6.0/gmp-5.0.1 as you seem to have it) and similarly for mpfr and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #15 from nbi at wideopenwest dot com 2011-04-02 23:42:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
The docs for --with-gmp also point out you might need to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH
so
the gmp/mpfr/mpc libs will be found, which is the cause of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-02
23:44:47 UTC ---
you can tell it to use local copies of the files if you've already downloaded
them, look at the LOCAL_SRC variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48403
--- Comment #21 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03
00:10:06 UTC ---
Okay, the problem showed up on Fedora 14 (no idea why only there). The bug is
that I've missed some uses of last_scheduled_insn. Will probably be able to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #17 from nbi at wideopenwest dot com 2011-04-03 00:13:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
you can tell it to use local copies of the files if you've already downloaded
them, look at the LOCAL_SRC variable
Thanks for your help.
Your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03
00:21:32 UTC ---
because x86_64 builds a multilib compiler by default, which is what most people
want.
use CONFIGARGS=--disable-multilib if you don't want that, or install
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48421
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in build_new_method_call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48421
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48421
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48421
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03
01:01:27 UTC ---
Thanks, Paolo. I'm not sure how to reduce it further, the only header that's
needed is memory but removing the others prevents the ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48378
--- Comment #19 from nbi at wideopenwest dot com 2011-04-03 02:48:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
because x86_64 builds a multilib compiler by default, which is what most
people
want.
use CONFIGARGS=--disable-multilib if you don't want
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #18 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03
02:57:45 UTC ---
Both the first and second hunks are part of the same change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48400
--- Comment #19 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03
03:06:35 UTC ---
What are the changes *after* the second patch? The first two hunks
ought to have disappeared.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307
rfm at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23702|0 |1
is obsolete|
85 matches
Mail list logo
