https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82599
Bug ID: 82599
Summary: Assignments from statically initialized flexible
arrays copy too much
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
>
> Eric Gallager changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82550
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Oct 18 08:55:27 2017
New Revision: 253848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253848=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82550
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82596, 82588, 82585, 82583,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Bug ID: 82603
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in ifcvt_local_dce w/ -O2
-ftree-loop-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79474
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69057
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 18 07:53:27 2017
New Revision: 253844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253844=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601
Bug ID: 82601
Summary: missing uninitialized warning with -O0 / -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
--- Comment #5 from Mason ---
Slightly smaller testcase, similar to bug 80907.
extern int M[16];
void foo(int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j)
M[i+j] = 0;
}
$ gcc-7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82585
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Probably one form is folded to [4] and p->a + 4 is not folded to >a[4].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Bug ID: 82575
Summary: [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim,
ld test liblto-17 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81422
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
Confirmed, I can see that tests have started passing on my side. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82593
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82545
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Oct 18 08:14:47 2017
New Revision: 253845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253845=gcc=rev
Log:
Do not put gimple stmt on an abnormal edge (PR sanitizer/82545).
2017-10-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82545
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
void *b[10];
template
void **
foo (int x)
{
void **a = b;
return [x];
}
void **
bar (int x)
{
return foo <0> (x);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79474
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 18 07:24:50 2017
New Revision: 253841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253841=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68884
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 18 07:43:06 2017
New Revision: 253843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253843=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Paolo Carlini
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68884
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #2 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
the command line:
/usr/bin/g++-8 -std=gnu++11 -o Unified_cpp_memory_build0.o -c
-I/root/firefox-gcc-last/obj-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/dist/system_wrappers -include
/root/firefox-gcc-last/config/gcc_hidden.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #3 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
Created attachment 42389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42389=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Petr Cvek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petrcvekcz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Bug ID: 82600
Summary: Address of local variable returned
[-Werror=return-local-addr] when building
mozilla-central
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69057
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, lsan_preinit.o shouldn't be linked into liblsan.so.*, either we should
just ignore it completely, or install and link in like asan_preinit.o or
tsan_preinit.o is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I think this bug can be closed now: it was fixed for gcc 6+ and gcc 5.4+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80991
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82599
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73650
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Bug ID: 82602
Summary: IRA considers volatile asm to be moveable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 18 09:20:31 2017
New Revision: 253851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253851=gcc=rev
Log:
PR lto/82598
* simple-object.c (handle_lto_debug_sections): Copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Patch now bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82612
Bug ID: 82612
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a non-zero offset from the
address of a non-array object
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #27 from Chris Johns ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #25)
> (In reply to Chris Johns from comment #24)
> Doesn't cross-compiles set GLIBCXX_HOSTED_FALSE such that install-data-local
> is set to install-freestanding-headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81890
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #28 from Marc Glisse ---
I am also failing to see how this can happen without a bug in make or macos.
The failing command is the recipe for ${pch1b_output}. That rule has
${allstamped} as a dependency, which includes stamp-bits-sup,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Chris Johns from comment #24)
> I would welcome a patch attached to this ticket.
>
> My efforts with .NOTPARALLEL cannot get RTEMS's cross-compiled tools to
> build. I have seen a build work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82607
--- Comment #1 from i at jsteward dot moe ---
Seems like a simple Hello world directly compiled with gccgo will work as
normal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82585
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Probably one form is folded to [4] and p->a + 4 is not folded to >a[4].
That's right. (a + 4) is MEM_REF (char[3], ADDR_EXPR (char[3], VAR_DECL (a)))
and (p->a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, cross-compiles are not automatically freestanding, and .NOTPARALLEL ignores
any prerequisites, so it makes no difference whether you say
.NOTPARALLEL: install-freestanding-headers
or
.NOTPARALLEL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, perhaps powerpc64, aarch64 or other targets could benefit from similar
approach. Shall we clone this PR for those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #8 from Andi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andi from comment #0)
> > Building firefox with gcc8 trunk i get this error:
>
> This is a warning, not an error.
>
> If you use -Werror to cause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:35:26 2017
New Revision: 253856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253856=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66031
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slash.tmp at free dot fr
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|uros at gcc dot gnu.org|ubizjak at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The fact that flags is live is the reason why the
(define_peephole2
[(parallel [(set (reg FLAGS_REG) (match_operand 0))
(match_operand 4)])
(set (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42393|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42394=edit
gcc8-pr82580-peephole2.patch
Untested incremental patch with the 2 peepholes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I'll have a look.
Oh, I already have a patch...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nice. I wonder about one further thing.
With your patch, we generate e.g. in f0:
xorq%rdx, %rdi
xorq%rcx, %rsi
xorl%eax, %eax
orq %rsi, %rdi
sete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
By the way, in kernel code (compiler-gcc.h) there is a comment:
/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
So the developer(s) actually think "volatile" is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |uros at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So maybe somebody should submit the patch to the mailing lists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> I'm still not convinced this is a bug. For example, all kernel code
> uses `asm volatile ("" ::: "memory")` as barrier to stop GCC to reorder code
> through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:54:18 2017
New Revision: 253865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253865=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/82233
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> Removing the last
>call execute_command_line(command , wait=.false., exitstat=i)
> or moving it before
>call execute_command_line(command ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
Bug ID: 82609
Summary: missing -Warrray-bounds on an argument in parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Bug ID: 82608
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds VLA index
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 42393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42393=edit
Prototype patch
Attached patch generates:
foobar:
cmpq%rdx, %rdi
sbbq%rcx, %rsi
setb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> i.e. for the flags we first clear %eax and then setX %al, but for f2
> cmpq%rdi, %rdx
> sbbq%rsi, %rcx
> setb%al
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryxi at stu dot xidian.edu.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #7 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
There is no intention to make "asm volatile" a barrier, as you get with a
memory clobber. The intention is to stop it moving past other volatile code
(such as other asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.3
Summary|[8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
Bug ID: 82605
Summary: ICE in insert_parameter_exprs, at fortran/decl.c:3154
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Bug ID: 82606
Summary: ICE in gfc_extract_int, at fortran/expr.c:641
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:47:38 2017
New Revision: 253863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253863=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
using cached values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
BTW, with an invalid modification (--> fortran/decl.c:3244) :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
type t(a, b, *)
integer, kind :: a
integer, len :: b
real(a) :: r(b)
end type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82607
Bug ID: 82607
Summary: SPARC Linux: go frontend runs infinitely on 5.4.0,
6.4.0 and 7.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:44:27 2017
New Revision: 253862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253862=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #10)
> Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
> And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
> using cached values.
But you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235
Mukesh Kapoor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mukesh.kapoor at oracle dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think I understand the problem better now, after a few experiments, and a
discussion with proot's author.
The testcase finishes with a call to execute_command_line with wait=.false, so
the main process
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo