# of unresolved testcases 37
# of unsupported tests 266
gfortran version 4.6.0 20100522 (experimental) (GCC)
FreeBSD's libelf with Kia's patch
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes34204
# of unexpected failures19
# of expected failures
Status
==
The GCC 4.3.5 release has been created and uploaded, it will
be announced once the mirrors had a chance to pick it up.
The 4.3 branch is open again for regression and documentation fixes.
Previous Report
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00253.html
I will
34177
# of unexpected failures 40
# of expected failures 33
# of unresolved testcases 37
# of unsupported tests 266
gfortran version 4.6.0 20100522 (experimental) (GCC)
FreeBSD's libelf with Kia's patch
=== gfortran Summary
This C++0X feature seems to need a change in the cross-vendor C++ ABI.
Have the details already been spelled out?
There is some interaction with the VLA C++ extension. We should
probably prohibit allocation of objects of a VLA-based type with
operator new and operator new[].
On Sat, 22 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hm, so you didn't test FreeBSD's libelf without Kias patch but my GCC patch
applied. (at least my patch doesn't make the situation worse for any case
it seems)
I'll be submitting result for that around noon your time tomorrow-
Right now I am
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
Guys,
I only read the gcc@ archive, so sorry about breaking the thread.
Testing with gfortran finds
FreeBSD's libelf with no
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-22 08:07
---
Jason, can you have a look to the errors due to the ambiguous overloading
pointed out by Benjamin? Happen for this type of copy initialization:
std::complexvalue_type z4 = {1.1, 2.2};
where value_type is
Problem:
template class T
const T max(const T x, const T y){
return x y ? x : y;
}
template class T, class C
const T max(const T x, const T y, C comp){
return comp(x, y) ? y : x;
}
template class R, class A0, class A1
struct functor{
template class F
functor(F f) : f(f) {}
R
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-22 09:18
---
This works fine in 4_4-branch, 4_5-branch and mainline. I don't think it's a
regression, and in any case, 4_3-branch is close to its end of life.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-05-22 10:04 ---
I may end up doing that, but since part of my interest is in F2003
functionality, moving backwards in terms of versions is not a win-
win. Unfortunately, I probably will have to work with 2 versions for
--- Comment #10 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 10:11
---
I've gotten a bit further with this.
For x(la:ua:sa) = x(lb,ub,sb), there can be no collision
if abs(la-lb) mod gcd(sa, sb) == 0
where gcd is the greatest common divisor.
This will at least fix the test case
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 10:21 ---
Subject: Bug 44213
Author: janus
Date: Sat May 22 10:21:32 2010
New Revision: 159695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159695
Log:
2010-05-22 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 10:25 ---
Fixed with r159695. Closing.
Thanks to Hans for the report!
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-05-22 10:50 ---
For x(la:ua:sa) = x(lb,ub,sb), there can be no collision
if abs(la-lb) mod gcd(sa, sb) == 0
where gcd is the greatest common divisor.
You probably mean if abs(la-lb) mod gcd(sa, sb) != 0 (assuming
--- Comment #2 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-05-22 12:16
---
Thanks, good pointer. I found what you mean based on your recommendation. I
tried many things like it then. Nothing worked. I don't know why.
Notice that there is __builtin_foo and foo.
Darwin appears to only
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 12:59 ---
Just amend the existing dg-skip to also skip darwin.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44238
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-05-22 13:29 ---
Confirmed and it is not fixed by the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199#c6 .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44229
--- Comment #17 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-05-22 13:31 ---
is : http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44229
potentially a similar problem?
It does not look like: the patch in comment #6 does not fix pr44229.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
--- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-05-22 14:09 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
4.5.1, using '-O2 -funswitch-loops'
obviously '-O2 -funswitch-loops -fbounds-check'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43866
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, the change...
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed May 12 13:49:34 2010
New Revision: 159321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=159321
Log:
* cgraph.h (struct varpool_node): Add aux.
* varasm.c (find_decl_and_mark_needed): Force output of varpool
--- Comment #5 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 14:16 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Just amend the existing dg-skip to also skip darwin.
two different reasons.. is this better?
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/20090914-2_0.c
There is a list of symbols in gcc to rename for VMS.
In the files vms-crtl.h and vms-crtl-64.h.
Maybe there is a better solution?
Until it is found and implemented, these lists need a lot more entries.
I have enough to build gcc and binutils.
I had built cvs, but I lost that list.
--
vms-crt0-64.c
vms-crt0.c
vms-psxcrt0-64.c
vms-psxcrt0.c
currently are slightly DEC C specific and they are set to not compiler, or
maybe to compile with DEC C, it is unclear (the comments say one thing, the
code appears different).
It is easy to make this code compile with gcc (and still DEC
--- Comment #1 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-05-22 14:38
---
Created an attachment (id=20725)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20725action=view)
fix vms-crt0*.c to compile with gcc
(surely these four files can be merged down to one, with #if, and
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2010-05-22 15:32 ---
Subject: Re: [C++0x] std::complex vs. initialization lists
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org writes:
| Jason, can you have a look to the errors due to the ambiguous overloading
| pointed
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 16:08 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Just amend the existing dg-skip to also skip darwin.
two different reasons.. is this better?
If it works for you sure.
Index:
--- Comment #2 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-05-22 17:11 ---
Fails with -m32 too (as of r159696)
-fno-ipa-profile doesn't help (that flag is new in r158969 compared to r158095)
The problem is that temporary struct isn't created, and direct copy *q = *p is
done. (rp is called with
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:20 ---
As far as I can tell, this (the bug originally described here)
was fixed for all targets.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:29 ---
I believe I fixed this with:
r132815 | jsm28 | 2008-03-02 13:11:19 + (Sun, 02 Mar 2008) | 4 lines
* libgcc2.c (__addvSI3, __addvsi3, __addvDI3, __subvSI3,
__subvsi3, __subvDI3, __negvSI2,
Problem:
template class T
const T max(const T x, const T y){
return x y ? x : y;
}
template class T, class C
const T max(const T x, const T y, C comp){
return comp(x, y) ? y : x;
}
template class R, class A0, class A1
struct functor{
template class F
functor(F f) : f(f) {}
R
--- Comment #3 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-05-22 17:32 ---
-fno-ipa-pure-const prevents the problem (the code is the same as when compiled
by r158095)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43784
--- Comment #1 from cjoldfield at gmail dot com 2010-05-22 17:33 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 44239 ***
--
cjoldfield at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from cjoldfield at gmail dot com 2010-05-22 17:33 ---
*** Bug 44243 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44239
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:33 ---
As discussed, not a GCC bug.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:38 ---
Not a GCC bug; glibc is manipulating .s output from GCC in ways that
aren't expected to work with all possible options. FWIW, EGLIBC has a fix
to allow it to build for x86 when unwind tables are enabled by default:
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:40 ---
4.2 branch is closed. All GPL files whose home is GCC rather than being
shared with other projects were updated for 4.4 at the latest as far as I know.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:42 ---
As discussed, not a bug.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:43 ---
Was fixed for 4.2.3, 4.3.0.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:46 ---
Everything specific to GCC was converted for 4.4.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:53 ---
-b and -V were removed:
2010-04-08 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR 42485
* doc/invoke.texi (-b,-V): Delete.
* doc/tm.texi: Do not mention -b.
* gcc.c (display_help): Delete
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:54 ---
-b and -V were removed:
2010-04-08 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR 42485
* doc/invoke.texi (-b,-V): Delete.
* doc/tm.texi: Do not mention -b.
* gcc.c (display_help): Delete
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:55 ---
-b and -V were removed:
2010-04-08 Manuel López-Ibáñez m...@gcc.gnu.org
PR 42485
* doc/invoke.texi (-b,-V): Delete.
* doc/tm.texi: Do not mention -b.
* gcc.c (display_help): Delete
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 17:57 ---
Fixed by the indicated commit.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-05-22 18:00 ---
This, nor the original (unreduced) testcase, no longer fails in r159387,
r159511 and r159696.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43656
--- Comment #11 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:00 ---
-V and -b have been removed, if anything is left here it's a duplicate
of bug 346.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 346 ***
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:00 ---
*** Bug 38628 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:06 ---
No feedback, appears not to be a GCC bug.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-05-22 18:07 ---
Similiar to PR43656, this also stopped failing between r158969 and r159387 for
me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43650
--- Comment #7 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:08 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Just amend the existing dg-skip to also skip darwin.
two different reasons.. is this better?
If it works for you sure.
--- Comment #48 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:09
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #58 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:09
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #42 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:09
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #41 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #31 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #39 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #51 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #43 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #43 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #32 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #28 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
Closing as not for FSF GCC and probably a hardware problem.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #42 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10
---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 ---
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 279 matches
Mail list logo
