http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56096
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-24
08:54:44 UTC ---
Bad is ambiguous, it could mean sub-optimal or it could mean incorrect or
wrong. In this case it means sub-optimal, please change the PR summary to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56087
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-24
09:31:20 UTC ---
I've checked and gcc-4.6 does miscompile this test case, but gets it right with
the PR52573 fix applied. Vanilla gcc-4.7 doesn't seem to miscompile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56087
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56076
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
10:30:29 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Jan 24 10:30:26 2013
New Revision: 195420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195420
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 11:34:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
Tested proposed patch from Comment 37 on x86_64-apple-darwin11 and
x86_64-apple-darwin12 with Xcode 4.5.2 on both systems. No
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-01-24 12:07:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I cant reproduce the crash with any version
Here is what I get with my mingw-64 gcc 4.8.0 20130120 (experimental):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 12:21:06 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:20:57 2013
New Revision: 195421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195421
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 12:21:33 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:21:24 2013
New Revision: 195422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195422
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-24 12:45:44 UTC ---
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-23
16:49:05 UTC ---
Is it still a regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56097
Bug #: 56097
Summary: Segmentation fault with -01 -ftree-vrp
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns -funswitch-loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:27:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 29264
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29264
gcc48-pr56078.patch
Patch I've bootstrapped/regtested. It seems in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #37 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 13:30:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
Bill, tests in Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer are compiler-only tests
and thus are mostly platform independent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:33:13 UTC ---
Before my patch we got:
20030305-1.c:15:5: warning: excess elements in struct initializer [enabled by
default]
20030305-1.c:15:5: warning: (near
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #23 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:37:05 UTC ---
You are right from the target maintainer point of view, as you understand what
really happens in the code. But this is not what the compiler sees
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #38 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:46:17 UTC ---
OK. Please let me know if we can assist setting up a PPC bot in the future,
to
help maintain compatibility.
Oh, that'll be great even now.
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
--- Comment #3 from mirimiri66 at gmail dot com 2013-01-24 13:53:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29265
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29265
gcc-4.6.3 QA Notices
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
--- Comment #4 from mirimiri66 at gmail dot com 2013-01-24 13:54:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 29266
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29266
gentoo package systeme emerge --info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
mirimiri66 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirimiri66 at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
14:19:17 UTC ---
On a brief look, this doesn't look like using location of neighbouring
statement, given:
grep 66:1 pr56094.c.115t.cunroll | wc -l
0
grep 66:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 14:52:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Here is a patch to accept the test case in comment 0:
It fails on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/associate_6.f03 -O (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
14:54:02 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:53:56 2013
New Revision: 195425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195425
Log:
2013-01-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-24
14:54:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
My understanding from Nick's comments was that the ld64/dyld behavior is
now as follows. For performance reasons,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2013-01-24 14:58:58 UTC ---
Yes, it is not a very important thing, but it should not be harder to maintain
then -fuse-ld=bfd, -fuse-ld=gold options. It is not like I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
15:06:28 UTC ---
So, the reason seems to be:
mod = build2 (INIT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (t), t, unshare_expr (val));
SET_EXPR_LOCATION (mod, EXPR_LOC_OR_HERE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #41 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-24
15:23:54 UTC ---
Iain,
I believe the current behavior of dyld in darwin10/11/12 is clearly
described in...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
15:34:28 UTC ---
Since you haven't provided a use case or explained why you want it, and
maintainers have said they don't want it, I think the onus is on your to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
15:41:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:41:04 2013
New Revision: 195429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195429
Log:
2013-01-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56057
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
16:18:35 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:18:26 2013
New Revision: 195430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195430
Log:
2013-01-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
16:37:23 UTC ---
It does not matter if the scheduler knows that insns 17, 20, 26 and 29 really
are calls. The clobbers express everything important.
insn 15 produces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
16:59:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:59:44 2013
New Revision: 195432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195432
Log:
PR c/56078
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
17:26:48 UTC ---
--- gimplify.c.jj2013-01-11 09:02:55.0 +0100
+++ gimplify.c2013-01-24 18:15:54.246157569 +0100
@@ -8600,6 +8600,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55856
--- Comment #6 from simonb at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 18:10:44 UTC ---
Author: simonb
Date: Thu Jan 24 18:10:26 2013
New Revision: 195435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195435
Log:
svn merge -c 194864
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #36 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
18:12:41 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 24 18:12:23 2013
New Revision: 195436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195436
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56098
Bug #: 56098
Summary: conditional write through volatile pointer produces
unintended read
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-24 18:37:30 UTC ---
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #6 from Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
18:39:18 UTC ---
During original gimplification, I can understand the OR_HERE (aka
input_location) part there, or in passes that maintain input_location.
I thought
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Bug #: 56099
Summary: Empty static noinline functions aren't called from
optimized code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
--- Comment #16 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 18:50:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
In my case the issue seems to be weird debuginfo emitted by gcc;
look at what the breakpoint reports:
Breakpoint 1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2013-01-24
18:54:47 UTC ---
Re-confirmed with: g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20130124 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #2 from Yuri yuri at tsoft dot com 2013-01-24 19:06:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 29267
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29267
asm of the testcase showing there is still no noinline function
I am trying
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54793
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:11:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 29267 [details]
asm of the testcase showing there is still no noinline function
You need the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #4 from Yuri yuri at tsoft dot com 2013-01-24 19:16:10 UTC ---
You are saying I also need to place some __asm__ into this noinline function?
Doesn't this look like working around some bugs in gcc? User doesn't need to
know how
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
Tilo Schwarz t...@tilo-schwarz.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:22:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
You are saying I also need to place some __asm__ into this noinline function?
Doesn't this look like working around some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #6 from Yuri yuri at tsoft dot com 2013-01-24 19:24:43 UTC ---
I think 'noinline' flag should be factored into the removal decision.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:28:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I think 'noinline' flag should be factored into the removal decision.
No because this is not about inlining. This is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-24 19:30:54 UTC ---
manu at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #9 from Manuel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56066
--- Comment #1 from Solomon Gibbs solomon.gibbs.lists at gmail dot com
2013-01-24 19:42:15 UTC ---
I'm looking at the objdump -x output for the c++ object and I note that there's
a separate section for the inlined function. It appears to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #37 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:44:31 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 24 19:44:23 2013
New Revision: 195438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195438
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 20:24:18
UTC ---
It seems that I read the wrong frame info in my original report.
However, the bug still exists. Here is a new and hopefully more
correct example showing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
20:49:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Input_location should only be used from parsing. Other places reuse the
variable and those happen to eventually pick up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Bug #: 56100
Summary: spurious -Wshadow warning with local variable in
template class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
21:14:51 UTC ---
I think this is an artifact of warning during instantiation rather than at
definition time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de 2013-01-24
21:25:09 UTC ---
I guess many warnings can only be given correctly during instantiation because
they depend on the actual arguments.
But shadowing is not one of them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 21:52:04
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:51:58 2013
New Revision: 195444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195444
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51376
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 21:52:03
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:51:58 2013
New Revision: 195444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195444
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56101
Bug #: 56101
Summary: pthread program abort
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56081
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 23:58:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 24 23:58:12 2013
New Revision: 195447
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195447
Log:
2013-01-24 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55994
--- Comment #6 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-25
00:26:43 UTC ---
Author: janis
Date: Fri Jan 25 00:26:34 2013
New Revision: 195458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195458
Log:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
Bug #: 56102
Summary: Wrong rtx cost calculated for Thumb1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
--- Comment #1 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2013-01-25
03:46:59 UTC ---
I have investigated this issue.
GCC uses function init_lower_subreg to initialize costs of MOVE insn with
different mode, then uses this information
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
--- Comment #2 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2013-01-25
07:25:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29270
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29270
correct test case
The previous test case is not appropriate,
86 matches
Mail list logo
