--- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 12:27 ---
The real problem (IIRC) was that iconv_t was being used even though there was
no libiconv (I think the inclusion of the header file was properly guarded, but
the usage of the type wasn't).
MinGW uses the Windows C
--- Comment #7 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 12:28 ---
(See the comment above.)
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 04:52 ---
Thanks for looking into this Ben. Unfortunately, I no longer build GCC for
MinGW (or for Linux, for that matter) regularly so I'm unable to test your
patch. :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #2 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-12 01:46 ---
Confirmed.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-11 01:20 ---
Perhaps the %d string was omitted in the relevant specs:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Spec-Files.html
Just guessing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28329
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 07:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11823)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11823action=view)
The portion of the build log that shows the error reported in this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28263
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 12:55 ---
Via this change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/configure.in?r1=114048r2=114435
we now have Boehm-GC also added to the things that are unnecessarily
disabled for MinGW.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:47 ---
By the way, x-mingw32 contains:
# On MinGW, we use %IA64d to print 64-bit integers, and the format-checking
# code does not handle that, so we have to disable checking here.
WERROR_FLAGS += -Wno-format
--- Comment #3 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-22 08:56 ---
OK, I was able to reproduce this. My problem was that I had a
--disable-checking
build. If the order of the class files is PipeImpl.class VMPipe.class, I get
an error; if the order is the other way around, I don't
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-18 07:36 ---
I'm not able to reproduce this problem with the current mainline (2006-05-18).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27643
--- Comment #8 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 07:04 ---
This was fixed by TJ's patch applied on 2005-12-10.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-05 07:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The difference between Sun's and Classpath's implementation appears to be that
Classpath will check for Concurrent Modification on both hasNext() and next()
calls, while Sun's
--- Comment #13 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-01 07:57
---
As you can see from the backtrace, the problem is in gcc/java/jcf-io.c at
line number 394 where we make a call to scandir(). I'm not an alpha-linux
hacker, but I see that there's scandir64 and dirent64
--- Comment #7 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-30 13:07 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Now run debugx jc1 rest-of-command-line, where rest-of-command-line
was the entire command noted earlier that causes the failure.
Before i reproduce the error, after i make the command
--- Comment #3 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 03:43 ---
FWIW, I am getting the same error with GCC 3.4.6 and I *do have* GNU Texinfo
4.8.
I have FSF GCC 3.4.5 sources and I downloaded GCC 3.4.6 diffs for core and
g++ - the patches applied successfully, but make
--- Comment #11 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 04:29
---
Created an attachment (id=11172)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11172action=view)
Shell script to help narrow the problem in PR26879.
Save this file in a folder. Save debugx and debug from
--- Comment #5 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 05:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I was not intending to modify GCC (as the requirements for modifying it do
list
Texinfo). I was intending to compile it. Out of the box compile on my system
failed, and Ranjit's
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-29 10:06 ---
It would be difficult for those of us without alpha-linux boxes to track
this problem down. If you're willing, you can try to track the failure
to a certain bit yourself.
Let's stick with the GCC 4.2 snapshot
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 09:24 ---
This looks like a duplicate of 26878 except for the listed patches and the
actual error message. Both have been filed by the same person.
Claudio: Can you try with a recent snapshot from the mainline SVN repository
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26617
--- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 11:40 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Confirmed on gcc mailing-list.
Reconfirmed with the GCC 4.1.0 release tarballs for C (core)
and C++ (g++). In addition to using --with-ld, one has to
also use a relative path
--- Comment #12 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 07:51
---
(In reply to comment #5)
small testcase:
This particular testcase doesn't fail for me anymore on mainline
as of 2006-02-24. However, QEMU 0.8.0 still doesn't build with
this compiler (you'll have to configure
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #2 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 09:33 ---
Confirmed on mainline. Also confirmed that GCJX does not have this bug.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:23 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Eclipse's JDT/Core team was doing experiments with turning Eclipse's batch
compiler into ECJ using GCJ. The goal was to provide an executable form of
Eclipse's compiler. Unfortunately
--- Comment #5 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:26 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It would be nice if you could at least indicate what kind
of non-compliance you are talking of here. Is it strictfp,
accuracy of results, rounding of floating-point literals
--- Comment #8 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 15:14 ---
The bug about incorrect parsing and rounding of floating-point
literals is PR java/23432 and that about no support for strictfp
is PR java/10632. If this bug report is about either of these,
it can be closed
--- Comment #3 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-03 17:31 ---
Fix checked in.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
09:21 ---
Confirmed. Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00484.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
07:45 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #5)
PR 19870. Although these patches are largeish, they have been tested in
HEAD for
some time and should be pretty safe. They are needed for OO.org
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
12:52 ---
The fix for PR20338 is also needed by the fix for PR19870.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24018
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-21
09:55 ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00401.html
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu
dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23856
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-09
10:13 ---
One proposal for a patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00313.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20684
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-05
15:06 ---
Fix checked in to mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
Bug 13607 depends on bug 23431, which changed state.
Bug 23431 Summary: [4.0/4.1 regression] gcj allows overriding with more
restrictive access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23431
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02
09:41 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
I think it is the same problem with Boehm-GC on ARM/Linux that
has been solved in upstream sources.
Has this fix been officially submited to gcc
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-01
09:36 ---
I think it is the same problem with Boehm-GC on ARM/Linux that
has been solved in upstream sources. See:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc/2005-July/000943.html
http://www.hpl.hp.com
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30
07:33 ---
Still exists on mainline. At optimisation levels 1,2 and 3, this bug disappears.
Also disappears if -fuse-divide-subroutine is used.
Seems to have been introduced between June 14th and 15th:
http
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30
09:13 ---
Actually, this looks like a more generic problem, not limited to Java.
Witness:
--- 8 ---
~/src/tmp/PR22166 cat x.c
#include stdio.h
int
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
09:50 ---
Changed synopsis and component. Added keyword.
Interestingly, the following is (wrongly) accepted:
- 8 -
interface MyRunnable
{
public void run
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
18:26 ---
I have proposed a patch for this problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00266.html
--
What|Removed |Added
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
06:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=9509)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9509action=view)
Testcase that demonstrates the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23432
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
18:39 ---
Last part of the fix has now been checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
Bug 18131 depends on bug 19870, which changed state.
Bug 19870 Summary: gcj -C doesn't generate accessors for private members across
nested class boundaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19870
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
18:49 ---
Fix checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-14
15:16 ---
These days, this bug manifests itself on mainline regularly as:
FAIL: 3.10.2-round-6
in the Jacks testsuite.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-14
15:50 ---
Updated patch for Part 2 posted in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00195.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-11
11:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I cannot debug it further as I debugging with an optimized compiled.
cd $GCC_SRC_DIR/gcc/java
touch class.c parse.y
cd $GCC_BLD_DIR
make BOOT_CFLAGS='-g3 -O0
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08
09:43 ---
Another testcase:
--- 8 ---
class Snafu
{
public void whoami( )
{
System.out.println( this.getClass( ).getName( ));
}
}
public class
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
07:45 ---
Sorry, but I still see the following failures on
i686-pc-linux-gnu:
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - bytecode-native test
Interestingly, the -O3 executions
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
11:00 ---
Regards,
Stickler Sosumi.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1 Regression] 'make
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-28
10:37 ---
Yes, GCJ doesn't support generics yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24
09:44 ---
This is most likely the same as PR22084 (see the testcase
$GCC_SRC_DIR/libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/Divide_1.java).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22166
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24
09:47 ---
Today (20050624, IST), it seems to have become worse. Till now
I used to see 2 FAILs, now I see 6 FAILs:
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Divide_1 output - gij test
FAIL
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
12:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=9107)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9107action=view)
Jacks testcase 3.10.2-round-6 that demonstrates this problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19
01:07 ---
I think you're trying to configure and compile GCC in
the source folder. Unfortunately, this is not yet supported.
Try creating a new folder totally outside of the GCC source
tree and then run configure
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19
03:23 ---
A patch for the remaining bit is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00742.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-17
13:13 ---
Confirmed, though I see a FAIL instead of a hang. It has only started
appearing this week. It fails like:
-1459606597
-2147483648
335645025
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - source compiled test
instead
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
05:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Subject: Re: Divide_1 test case hangs
-2147483648
-2147483648
0
0
[...]
Note that the values are totally off.
This looks somewhat familiar. Could
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-14
11:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=9086)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9086action=view)
Simplified testcase.
A simplified testcase for the problem. Note that the problem only seems to
happen
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
06:08 ---
Some useful tips can be found here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00558.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9861
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
07:31 ---
I have now submitted a patch for fixing this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00570.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-27
05:39 ---
Note that this PR should not be closed as the checked-in patch was
only for generating accessors for static fields. Methods are still
a problem as is demonstrated by this simple testcase:
public class
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-23
07:45 ---
outer_field_access_p(), build_outer_field_access(), etc. are only for non-static
fields (instance variables). Even for some simple testcases, I could not get GCJ
to emit correct bytecode for non-static
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19
22:57 ---
I note that GCJ already seems to have the infrastructure in place to do this and
possibly used to work properly for this case. For example, see the
build_outer_field_access(), outer_field_access_p(), etc
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-26
09:07 ---
On mainline, it has been fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00121.html
Ranjit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21233
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21065
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-11
09:16 ---
Of course it's true - you think I'd lie? ;-)
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
11:00 ---
While the main problem reported by the filer has now been fixed on
mainline, I think we should not close this PR just yet - not until
we check in a testcase for our testsuite for this, which
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
12:00 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Why not check in the test case and XFAIL it?
I feel dumb for not having thought of it myself...
I am closing this bug and will submit the testcase as
a separate patch. Thanks
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
13:30 ---
A patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00710.html
--
What|Removed |Added
: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:04 ---
Now that the new verifier has been enabled, this bug has been fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:06 ---
This bug should have been fixed by enabling the new verifier.
Can you please check?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12734
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:11 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The jar-files which caused the problem:
http://www.scheinwelt.at/~norbertf/gcj/tests/gcjverifybug_test.tar.gz
I could not download this file - can you please put it back
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:15 ---
Fixed on the mainline after the new verifier was enabled.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
10:26 ---
Thanks.
Now the verification errors are gone, but I'm still not
able to build the package (with or without -findirect-dispatch):
8
~/src
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
10:55 ---
I do not see an ICE with the given testcase as of 2005-03-09 and mainline CVS.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
10:57 ---
Now that the new verifier has been enabled, this works quite fine.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 18212 depends on bug 20351, which changed state.
Bug 20351 Summary: compilation with a redundant jar fails, if output file
specified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20351
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
11:03 ---
I can still see a crash similar to what Tom is seeing, but the other two
bugs are fixed - the break-up was not correct.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
12:39 ---
The problem is that we leave out a call to _Jv_InitClass for a static
private method thinking that it is unreachable. This is not the case
for a private static inner class method. A simple pessimistic
fix
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
14:51 ---
A proposed patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00684.html
As noted there, there is still a problem with either
GCJ or gij for this testcase.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
09:56 ---
FWIW, with the new verifier enabled this seems to work just fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20351
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
10:05 ---
As of 2005-03-08, this testcase works quite fine for me with mainline CVS.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20362
and DSO
are switched on the command line
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
13:09 ---
OK, I patched my tree, I'll report the results (fixes and regressions)
after the next build.
Thanks.
In your list message, you mention only one fix in the gcc testsuite,
pr13107. Does this mean
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
07:54 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the
foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed?
I'm now running nightly builds of gcj
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23
11:10 ---
Does backing out this patch help?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00402.html
(See also: PR 20155)
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-22
08:02 ---
I *hate* to be doing this, but once again, this is fixed
on current mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-22
07:51 ---
This was fixed a couple of days ago:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2005-02/msg00085.html
--
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
