--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bje at gcc dot gnu dot org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11931
--- You are rece
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-18 01:14 ---
For a long time glibc has used __builtin_huge_val in this definition which
avoids this problem. fixincludes has fixed the definitions from old
glibc to avoid this problem since:
2005-09-15 Joseph S. Myers
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-09-24 17:13:11 |2005-12-28 06:30:50
date||
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-12
05:56 ---
*** Bug 22428 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-11
14:39 ---
*** Bug 16977 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11931
dhazeghi at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Mile
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11931
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2003-08-15
18:51 ---
Subject: Re: unjustified warning for C89 code using
HUGE_VAL
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, pins
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11931
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
8 matches
Mail list logo
