2013/6/22 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Chung-Ju Wu jasonw...@gmail.com wrote:
Like this?
===
--- libgcc/Makefile.in (revision 200306)
+++ libgcc/Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -121,8
if (TREE_CODE (inner) == RSHIFT_EXPR
TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (inner, 1)) == INTEGER_CST
TREE_INT_CST_HIGH (TREE_OPERAND (inner, 1)) == 0
bitnum TYPE_PRECISION (type)
0 compare_tree_int (TREE_OPERAND (inner, 1),
bitnum - TYPE_PRECISION (type)))
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:47:09 +0100
Alex Leach albl...@york.ac.uk wrote:
Are there any further releases planned for the 4.6 branch? Would a patch
be accepted for this? I've got the 4.6 branch checked out in git, but
don't know exactly where an edit would be needed.. Are there any reasons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
This change fixed the failures for me:
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c
@@ -6,11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57702
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another example:
unsigned int foo (unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
{
x += y;
x += y;
x += y;
x += y;
x += y;
return x;
}
Seems for the x += 7 * y; x += 12 * y; case it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57702
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57705
Bug ID: 57705
Summary: Non-constant step induction vars not vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56977
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Allan McRae from comment #15)
I tried with -include foo.h and a breakpoint in push_command_line_include...
I just stepped through from that breakpoint and saw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57699
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Paolo already patched libstdc++ and there's nothing to fix in eCos.
The point is that if I write
extern C {
void f();
}
in a libstdc++ header it should mean what the C++ standard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57682
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01352.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57645
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Created attachment 30357
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30357action=edit
An extended set of tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45579
Bug 45579 depends on bug 43665, which changed state.
Bug 43665 Summary: INTENT(IN) etc. optimization of calls: function annotations
for noclobber/noescape arguments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43665
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44589
Bug 44589 depends on bug 43665, which changed state.
Bug 43665 Summary: INTENT(IN) etc. optimization of calls: function annotations
for noclobber/noescape arguments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43665
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43665
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23169
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29697
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Per
TYPE_QUAL_RESTRICT is now supported, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-08/msg00208.html
TYPE_QUAL_CONST is to my knowledge a no op, for QUAL_VOLATILE,
I have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29697
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
Bug 24546 depends on bug 29697, which changed state.
Bug 29697 Summary: gfortran should use TYPE_QUAL_CONST etc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29697
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Still no warning at revision 200371.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50331
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
Bug 24546 depends on bug 23280, which changed state.
Bug 23280 Summary: gfortran does not emit DW_AT_entry_point (dwarf-2) debugging
info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23280
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23280
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40040
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de ---
Here's a reduced example:
% cat test.ii
typedef bool (*IsAcceptableThis) (const int );
inline int
fn1 (IsAcceptableThis p1)
{
p1 (0);
return 0;
}
__attribute__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40920
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32630
Bug 32630 depends on bug 40920, which changed state.
Bug 40920 Summary: Derived type with BIND(C) - rejected as argument.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40920
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42651
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57706
Bug ID: 57706
Summary: LRA is bottleneck while compiling LTO firefox
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57705
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30358
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30358action=edit
gcc49-pr57705.patch
Patch I'm bootstrapping/regtesting right now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hmm,
the problem here is that we output errors after early inlining always now,
while previously we did
only when some other inlining happened in the function (adding extra early
inlinable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #28)
Patch solved the problem for chromium ;) I will test libreoffice tomorrow.
Great, I have submitted the patch to the mailing list then:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #17 from Allan McRae allan at archlinux dot org ---
Created attachment 30359
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30359action=edit
gdb log when using -include
When using -include instead of -imacros, the trail is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
incredibly...
gcc 4.3.7 was the last version that did only write 5 bytes in foo().
starting with gcc 4.4 all variants read/write 8 bytes in foo().
that applies only to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
Bug ID: 57707
Summary: gcc misinterprets hex escapes in constant strings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57708
Bug ID: 57708
Summary: function clobbers callee saved register on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
--- Comment #2 from duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au duncan_roe at acslink dot
net.au ---
I can see it is doing that. Where does the standard say that is correct
behavior?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57708
mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikulas at artax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29892
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57708
--- Comment #2 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
Created attachment 30362
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30362action=edit
another reproduction code
The code in the first attachment actually did some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
class C {
int both_var;
void var_and_method() {}
void m() { int both_var, var_and_method; }
};
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.8.2 20130625 (prerelease)
FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
clang does no warn on var_and_method as variable vs. method are safe, if one
tries to use them inappropriately one gets an error.
Not always. Think of function pointers or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
It may not be exactly correct but from a practical standpoint clang has caught
my bug while not annoying me with tons of needless changes like gcc did, FYI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57710
Bug ID: 57710
Summary: [OOP] _vptr not set for allocatable CLASS components
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57710
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
From http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962#c20
Transformational intrinsics, done are:
* all, any, count
* product, sum
* dot_product, matmul, transpose
* pack,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
Bug 25104 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31392
Bug 31392 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31393
Bug 31393 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32890
Bug 32890 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37212
Bug 37212 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38205
Bug 38205 depends on bug 29962, which changed state.
Bug 29962 Summary: Initialization expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29962
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31392
Bug 31392 depends on bug 25104, which changed state.
Bug 25104 Summary: [F2003] Non-initialization expr. as case-selector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 25104, which changed state.
Bug 25104 Summary: [F2003] Non-initialization expr. as case-selector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34547
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
However, one should go through the lengthy, convoluted thread at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/f014195ccf7b93e6/
to check whether it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
Bug ID: 57711
Summary: Fortran 4.7.2/4.8.1 error: constraints for functions
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39695
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
As for 4.8.1 and trunk (r200371), only the second test in comment #0 gives the
'ppr@' name:
real g ! cannot have a type
1
Error: Symbol 'ppr@' at (1) cannot have a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57712
Bug ID: 57712
Summary: GCC fails to to match out-of-line template member
function definition with declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
That would be fine. But it seems less important for member functions, since
there's much less chance of a local variable name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
());
}
Derived gets the ability to call bar() only inside of the template function
foo.
Happens on (4.9.0 20130625 (experimental)) and (4.8.1).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51535
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
I can reproduce it with gfortran 4.7.3 and '-O2
-ffpe-trap=zero,overflow,invalid -finit-real=snan -mfpmath=387', but not
with 4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
Dâniel Fraga fragabr at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fragabr at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34547
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
It looks like it was fixed in 4.7.0 with the following error message
Error: NULL intrinsic at (1) in data transfer statement requires MOLD=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51535
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
As the status accidentally fixed in 4.8 but do not know when and why
does not exist, you may well do that.
I get the SIGFPE with revision 192891 (2012-10-28) and 'In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51535
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57713
Shane w.shane.grant at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
Bug ID: 57714
Summary: Newline rendered incorrectly in output
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
--- Comment #2 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
Andrew, are you sure? The zero should remain on the same line as the return
token.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
--- Comment #3 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
See section 9 of the manual:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.1/cpp/Preprocessor-Output.html#Preprocessor-Output
The output from the C preprocessor looks much like the input, except
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch in comment #3 worked for me as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57715
Bug ID: 57715
Summary: lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in
add_symbol_to_partition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55587
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch is broken for testing the already installed GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57716
Bug ID: 57716
Summary: std::thread does not compile with vectorint as
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57716
felix-gcc at fefe dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
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=57707
duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au duncan_roe at acslink dot net.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57707
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
---
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
