Hello!
As explained in the PR [1], alpha constructs a strange REG_EQUAL note
for the TFmode xfloating compare call. A recent mainline change that
tries to invalidate any buried refs trips on this note and segfaults
on null expr_list terminator:
(gdb) p debug_rtx (insn)
(insn 65 64 66 2 (set
When trying to figure out whether it can re-materialize a memory
load before the use in
read ... = equiv_mem;
write dest = ...;
use
IRA manages to get alias queries wrong by using true_dependence
(which is for read-after-write) instead of anti_dependence as
it wants to test
Hi,
With the aarch64_cmoptabdi patterns a bug was introduced. While the
unsplit versions of these patterns, which operate in the
SIMD register set, do not clobber CC_REGNUM, the split versions, which
operate in the general purpose register set, do clobber CC_REGNUM.
This causes a problem if
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:58:50AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
2013-05-23 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
PR rtl-optimization/57341
* ira.c (validate_equiv_mem_from_store): Use anti_dependence
instead of true_dependence.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr57341.c: New
This is another case of ADDR_EXPRs not comparing equal from
operand_equal_p if they contain volatile field references.
The issue is that we should compare the FIELD_DECLs with
retaining OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF (or maybe not set TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS
on them - but that's a bigger change).
Bootstrap /
Hi!
My PR52979 patch introduced following regression in store_split_bit_field.
If op0 is a REG or SUBREG, then the code was assuming that unit is still
BITS_PER_WORD, which isn't the case after PR52979. This patch changes
those spots to no longer assume that (second and third hunks).
The first
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
This is another case of ADDR_EXPRs not comparing equal from
operand_equal_p if they contain volatile field references.
The issue is that we should compare the FIELD_DECLs with
retaining OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF (or maybe
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
My PR52979 patch introduced following regression in store_split_bit_field.
If op0 is a REG or SUBREG, then the code was assuming that unit is still
BITS_PER_WORD, which isn't the case after PR52979. This patch changes
those spots to no longer
Hi Richard,
No, define_subst works across patterns, keyed by attributes. Exactly
like
cond_exec, really.
But what you ought to be able to do right now is
(define_subst ds_predicable
[(match_operand 0)]
[(cond_exec (blah) (match_dup 0))])
(define_subst_attr
earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level
BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later
looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle
non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs or REALPART_EXPRs. So in
order to test
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Eric Botcazou wrote:
earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level
BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later
looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle
non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs
On 23/05/13 09:17, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Hi,
With the aarch64_cmoptabdi patterns a bug was introduced. While the
unsplit versions of these patterns, which operate in the
SIMD register set, do not clobber CC_REGNUM, the split versions, which
operate in the general purpose register set, do
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
I have not intended aggregate jump functions to work with bit-fields
but apparently forgot to include the test to ignore them. PR 57347
testcase gives a good example why they need to be avoided. If we ever
decide to
Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de writes:
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com writes:
This alters the configure script to enable C++11 thread library
features based on targets that are known to support the features,
rather than based on link tests which are disabled by default.
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 07:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
gcc/tracer.c has various global variables, which are only used during
the lifetime of the execute
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
ganesh.gopalasubraman...@amd.com wrote:
The patch enables FP Reassociation pass AMD bdver1 and bdver2 architectures.
We note a performance uplift of around ~8% on calculix.
make -k check passes.
Is it OK for upstream?
OK.
Thanks,
On 23 May 2013 11:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:35:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
non-steady clock instead. Or, have you also considered just using
for this routine
#if _GLIBCXX_HAS_SYS_SYSCALL_H
#include sys/syscall.h
#endif
#if defined (SYS_clock_gettime)
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 21:57 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 04:04 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
There are three issues here:
1) Someone in the LTC toolchain team needs to benchmark this patch on
On 05/23/2013 01:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Is this sufficient though?
No, but it handles the most common case and is safer than the version on
the trunk, which already required me to fix a couple of holes in the
constexpr code. If no more holes turn up, we could move the trunk
version to
Hi,
r194664 in google/gcc-4_7 lost one line in
libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/Makefile.am and did not regenerate Makefile.in
(it seems to have been edited manually).
Now re-running automake in libstdc++ results in a non-trivial diff.
The attached patch updates Makefile.am. With this patch the
Checked into trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-05/msg00770.html
Thanks, K
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Alexander Ivchenko aivch...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/29 Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net:
On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Alexander Ivchenko aivch...@gmail.com wrote:
We have test
On 2013-05-23 08:43 , Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
Hi,
r194664 in google/gcc-4_7 lost one line in
libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/Makefile.am and did not regenerate Makefile.in
(it seems to have been edited manually).
Now re-running automake in libstdc++ results in a non-trivial diff.
The attached patch
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
looks funky again, let me know if you want the patch as an attachment
instead.
I addressed all of Steven's comments, except for the suggestion to
Hi Tobias,
Rainer Orth wrote:
As requested by Tobias, this patch supports -z ignore with Solaris ld
instead of GNU ld's --as-needed.
For reference, my request was motivated by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00425.html
(The patch has been approved, but it does not seem to be
On 22 May 2013 12:47, Vidya Praveen vidyaprav...@arm.com wrote:
Hello,
This patch adds support to AdvSIMD CLZ instruction and adds tests for the
same.
Regression test done for aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
OK?
Regards
VP
---
gcc/ChangeLog
2013-05-22 Vidya Praveen
But I can see that there could be a problem with an earlier value
that used to be valid in a multi-hard-register sub register to be
considered to be still valid.
Setting the mode of every constituent register but the first one
(which has the new value recorded) to VOIDmode at the same time
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 06:56 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 07:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides of gcc.
gcc/tracer.c has various global variables,
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This is patch #3 of our power8 changes. It adds support for vectorizing
64-bit
integer types (V2DI) for plus, subtract, absolute value, minimum, maximum,
shift, rotate, and comparison. Like the other
On 05/23/2013 10:05 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The PR is about missed simplifications for __builtin_swap. IIUC Andrew has
patches for them at the Tree level, but I think having basic simplifications
at the RTL level for BSWAP is also worthwhile, hence the attached patch.
Tested on
Hi Michael,
Hi Kyrylo, Richard,
What would be the function of (set_attr ds_predicable yes) ?
Doesn't the use of ds_predicable_enabled already trigger the
substitution?
To use define subst one doesn't need to write (set_attr
ds_predicable yes) - it's triggered by mentioning any of
On 23/05/13 14:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
On 22 May 2013 12:47, Vidya Praveen vidyaprav...@arm.com wrote:
Hello,
This patch adds support to AdvSIMD CLZ instruction and adds tests for the
same.
Regression test done for aarch64-none-elf with no issues.
OK?
Regards
VP
---
gcc/ChangeLog
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering the other day whether we should put these checks on
trunk and enable them automatically when !defined(__OPTIMIZE__)
FWIW, we keep this under a separate macro so we can turn it on or off
independent of
On 05/23/2013 12:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
2013-05-23 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
* config/alpha/alpha.md (unspec): Add UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE.
* config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_emit_xfloating_compare): Construct
REG_EQUAL note as UNSPEC_XFLT_COMPARE unspec.
Patch was
So, memory spaces and references are interacting badly in C. The standard
allows conversions during assignment that can change qualifiers. The good
news, all that code is already written and appears to work just fine. The sad
part, we don't use it. The code that needs fixing is in
This addresses the case where UID alone is not sufficient to figure
out which statement appears earlier in a BB. Bootstraps and no test
regressions in x86_64 on linux. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-05-23 Easwaran Raman era...@google.com
PR tree-optimization/57337
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c
Hi,
this isn't really valid Ada semantics, but some people enable traps-on-fp-
exceptions in the FPU on Solaris and expect the Ada exception to be caught.
There is a glitch with the x87 and the SPARC FPUs: the SIGFPE is delivered
after the faulting instruction by Solaris, so the unwinder is
- What about define_insn_and_split? Currently, we can define predicable
for a define_insn_and_split,
Yes, you're right. Currently define_subst cannot be applied to
define_insn_and_split. That's not implemented yet because I didn't see
a real usages of define_substs with these (though I'm not
On May 23, 2013, at 9:17 AM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
I want to have a version of the patch committed. The only question now
is how much of the patch can be committed without exposing potential
incompatibilities between different object files.
The hard part is to know when for
Hello Richard et al.,
Attached, please find a fixed patch. I have done the following changes:
1. Used the c_finish_loop (...) function instead of building the loop myself
2. Got rid of ARRAY_NOTATION_TYPE and just used TREE_TYPE ().
It is passing all the regression tests and not
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2013-05-23 Balaji V. Iyer balaji.v.i...@intel.com
* gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: New test.
I have concerns about the test locations, to me this looks way too deep
tree,
On 05/23/2013 03:56 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
The idea is to use (and then not use) C++'s static syntax for class
methods and fields. By making that optional with a big configure-time
switch, it gives us a way of making state be either global vs on-stack,
with minimal syntax changes.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:06:01PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
struct foo_c_state
{
some_type bar;
};
# define bar ctxt-x_foo_c_bar;
/* there's acontext *ctxt; variable somewhere, possibly
using TLS */
I've an idea that this will perform very badly. With ctxt being
On 05/23/13 14:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:27:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2013-05-23 Balaji V. Iyer balaji.v.i...@intel.com
* gcc.dg/cilk-plus/array_notation/compile/array_test2.c: New test.
I have concerns about the test
Hello,
This patch mentions Address Sanitizer on ARM in the gcc-4.9/changes.html pages.
(and re-enables the General Optimizer Improvements section)
Is it OK to commit?
Thanks,
Christophe.
Index: gcc-4.9/changes.html
===
RCS file:
On 05/23/2013 12:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:06:01PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
struct foo_c_state
{
some_type bar;
};
# define bar ctxt-x_foo_c_bar;
/* there's acontext *ctxt; variable somewhere, possibly
using TLS */
I've an idea that this
On 05/23/2013 11:27 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Richard et al.,
Attached, please find a fixed patch. I have done the following changes:
1. Used the c_finish_loop (...) function instead of building the loop myself
2. Got rid of ARRAY_NOTATION_TYPE and just used TREE_TYPE ().
It
Thanks to Kai for tracking down the root cause (detailed in the block comment),
and double-checking the testing.
Tested on x86_64-w64-mingw32 and a sanity build for werror on x86_64-linux.
Committed to mainline; I'll wait til 4.8.1 is out for application to that
branch.
r~
PR
Hello,
this is a simple patch to reduce a bit the noise in PR57324 (undefined
behavior flagged by clang). I only handled some of the most obvious ones.
Passes bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-05-24 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR other/57324
* expmed.c
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 11:59 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 06:56 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 07:14 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:45:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
I'm attempting to eliminate global state from the insides
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Thanks
On 05/15/2013 09:49 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a patch to consider the hint that users can give to
enhancement insertion performances. As you can see I only use it for
unordered_multi* containers to potentially avoid research
Hi Rainer,
Rainer Orth wrote:
how should we proceed with this patch now, given the questions above?
Install as is, although it doesn't seem really beneficial, or drop it?
I would install it. Actually, did you get a libquadmath dependence on
Solaris or not?
On Linux - or to be more precise:
/* The Ith entry is the number of objects on a page or order I. */
-static unsigned objects_per_page_table[NUM_ORDERS];
+DEFINE_STATIC_STATE_ARRAY(unsigned, objects_per_page_table, NUM_ORDERS)
/* The Ith entry is the size of an object on a page of order I. */
-static size_t
Quoting Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com:
The patch is OK on principle, but can you factor out the common code? The
endings of move2add_use_add2_insn and move2add_use_add3_insn are identical so
it would be nice to have e.g. a record_reg_value helper function and call it
from there.
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:04 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches'
Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
On Thu, May 23,
On 05/23/2013 02:31 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I think we need more weigh in from other maintainers on this, rather than
iterating a 5th time today...
This seems like an awful lot of pain.
I don't think we should be looking to generate different code for
library vs executable GCC.
I
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
@@GLIBCXX_3.4.19 stuff gets ugly, I admit, but don't have other solution.
Tested just that it compiles/links, abi list looks
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:45:32PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
@@GLIBCXX_3.4.19 stuff gets ugly, I admit, but don't have
This is a simple oversight in the ref-qualifier code.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. Jakub, is this OK for 4.8.1?
commit 0914d39b7335966f5d828c1b4225beb2e5448755
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Thu May 23 14:01:27 2013 -0400
PR c++/57388
* tree.c
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 13:31 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
/* The Ith entry is the number of objects on a page or order I. */
-static unsigned objects_per_page_table[NUM_ORDERS];
+DEFINE_STATIC_STATE_ARRAY(unsigned, objects_per_page_table, NUM_ORDERS)
/* The Ith entry is the
On 05/23/2013 02:38 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jakub Aldy, There are a couple reasons why I picked this
hierarchy. I looked at gcc-c-torture directory and it has compile,
execute etc. This is why I had execute, compile and errors directory.
Also, we are planning to have some hybrid tests
On 05/23/2013 12:06 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
Another thing I should mention while you're doing all of these static function
to class member conversions is that as written we're losing target-specific
optimizations that can be done on purely local functions. This is trivially
fixed by
Ping**2
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
Ping
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
While working on a sched-deps based delay slot scheduler, I've come to
the conclusion that the dependencies themselves must indicate
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:45:32PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So, here is an untested 4.8 branch patch. The @GLIBCXX_3.4.17 +
@@GLIBCXX_3.4.19
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:44:48PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/23/2013 02:31 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I think we need more weigh in from other maintainers on this, rather than
iterating a 5th time today...
This seems like an awful lot of pain.
I don't think we should be looking to
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/22/2013 03:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Regarding commonality between OpenMP and Cilk, note also the new C
Parallel Language Extensions WG14 study group chaired by Clark Nelson and
aiming to propose a standard set of C extensions for parallel
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:56:25PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
I think std::chrono::steady_clock::now() needs to be protected with
!(__sun__ __svr4__) in GLIBCXX_3.4.17 since it only became available
by default with Jonathan's patch.
Ah, I see, gnu.ver has some
#ifdef
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:52 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
'gcc-
patches'
Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch
On
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:56:25PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
I think std::chrono::steady_clock::now() needs to be protected with
!(__sun__ __svr4__) in GLIBCXX_3.4.17 since it only became available
by default with Jonathan's patch.
Ah, I see,
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
This is a smaller patch than maybe it should be. Arguably not recursing
is a better approach, but then we need to split into two functions, so
that I can add the REFERENCE_TYPE back to the top. Let me know if you
prefer it split.
A user actually
Ping, for review of ipa-inline.c change.
Sri
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:00:21PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
--- ipa-inline.c (revision
On 05/23/2013 02:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:44:48PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/23/2013 02:31 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I think we need more weigh in from other maintainers on this, rather than
iterating a 5th time today...
This seems like an awful lot of pain.
Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de writes:
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:56:25PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
I think std::chrono::steady_clock::now() needs to be protected with
!(__sun__ __svr4__) in GLIBCXX_3.4.17 since it only became available
Hi,
The following patch fixes PR57385
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385)
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 51e7b9e..cca61e7 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2013-05-24 Alexander Ivchenko alexander.ivche...@intel.com
+
+ PR
On May 23, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Iyer, Balaji V balaji.v.i...@intel.com wrote:
If I put things in c-c++-common, how do I test the code with different flags
(I didn't see any .exp file there)? For example, how can I test if it works
with -O2 and then have another test for -O2 -g etc.? Do I just
On 05/23/2013 10:01 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Two quick ones: what if the hint is wrong? I suppose the insertion
succeeds anyway, it's only a little waste of time, right? Is it possible
that for instance something throws in that case and would not now
This is another orphan PowerPC patch from our backlog.
On native PowerPC, GCC supports -mcpu=native, to generate code for the
same processor flavor that GCC itself is running on. This patch makes
it also possible to configure GCC to default to that option.
Tested by building GCC with this
[I included Jeff Law also in this conversation]
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:23 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Richard Henderson; 'Joseph S. Myers';
Quoting Joern Rennecke joern.renne...@embecosm.com:
Looking into sharing the code with sites that perform essentially the same
function but look somewhat different, I see there's a problem with using
only reg_set_luid to indicate the consistency of a multi-hard-reg-value
in these other
This is another orphan PowerPC patch from our backlog.
On native PowerPC, GCC supports -mcpu=native, to generate code for the
same processor flavor that GCC itself is running on. This patch makes
it also possible to configure GCC to default to that option. Tested by
building GCC with this
Hi,
For this simple case, compiled with option -march=iwmmxt -O,
#define N 64
signed int b[N];
signed long long j[N], d[N];
void foo (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i N; i++)
j[i] = d[i] b[i];
}
An internal compiler error occurs,
error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 112 74
This patch breaks bootstrap on AIX when building libstdc++. I now
receive the following error message:
/tmp/20130524/gcc/include-fixed/math.h: In function 'long double
fmal(long double, long double, long double)':
/tmp/20130524/gcc/include-fixed/math.h:879:135: internal compiler
error:
81 matches
Mail list logo
