--- Comment #2 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-10-24 06:53 ---
Some updated timings with gcc version 4.1.0 20051021 (experimental):
-O2 -march=pentium4 -fprefetch-loop-arrays:
user0m17.805s
user0m17.752s
user0m17.744s
-O2 -march=pentium4:
user0m17.750s
user0m17.
--- Comment #6 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-10-24 06:29 ---
Some discussion can be found in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg00574.html
A new version of patch is here (post-reload machine dependant pass):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01298.html
--
--- Comment #6 from marek dot rouchal at infineon dot com 2005-10-24 06:26
---
Subject: RE: --with-cpu=default32 for x86_64
> What you want is --with-cpu=default32 for x86_64 which does
> not exist yet. It does for powerpc64 though.
This is also correct. It would be sufficient for
--- Comment #72 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-10-24 05:22 ---
why is it pointless? just because it doesn't work on some target architectures
doesn't mean it doesn't work on most main archs.
I find it pointless that a patch isn't applied just because it doesn't work on
some archs (wh
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 05:07
---
Fixed in 4.1, bug does not occur in 4.0 because arrayio has not been committed
there.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 04:06 ---
This has failing since it was added. I don't think this is libgcj problem but
some EH issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Gcc checked out at Sun Oct 23 16:06:13 UTC 2005 has
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: C not found in
gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:./,file:/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/,file:/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-ia64-linux/ia64-u
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:51
---
Subject: Bug 24489
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-24 03:51:24
Modified files:
libgfortran: ChangeLog
libgfortran/io : transfer.c
--- Comment #2 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:50
---
Subject: Bug 24489
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-24 03:50:15
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gfo
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:19 ---
This is fixed in the simplify-dom-branch.
See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-10/msg00830.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:16 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:15 ---
reorg needs to be rewritten to be basic block friendly.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:12 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 03:08 ---
What is happening is that the register allocator is selecting the return
possition for the last add which is a x87 register so it is doing the add in
x87 instead of sse which causes the rest to go bonkers.
--
pin
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:55 ---
Reconfirmation for "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:53 ---
Reconfirmation for "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:42 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2 by the patch which fixed PR 20637.
We now get:
t.cc:3: error: 'foo::foo(int)' cannot be overloaded
t.cc:2: error: with 'foo::foo(int)'
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
The code:
struct foo {
foo(int) {}
foo(int) {}
};
gets you:
~/ootbc/members/src$ g++ foo.cc
foo.cc:3: error: `foo::foo(int)' and `foo::foo(int)' cannot be overloaded
The diagnostic should contain the line number of the colliding declaration. In
my real code the collider was inside a macro three
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:38 ---
This works for me so closing as such. I have not seen another report of this
either.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #25 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:37 ---
Well, I believe it still doesn't work, but I can agree to close it
as IDONTCARETHATMUCH...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19461
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:34 ---
Works for many other people so closing as works for me.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #24 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:32
---
Closing as works for me as Eric could not repoduce it, and it has been 3
months now since the last comment.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:30 ---
Does this happen still?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18288
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:21
---
The prerequistites for GCC listed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
says that GNU tar is required.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 02:06 ---
No you are wrong, it is invoked with
invoke v;
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:50 ---
Even though this is a regression, we still don't have a testcase after 3 months
so closing as invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:48 ---
What you want is --with-cpu=default32 for x86_64 which does not exist yet. It
does for powerpc64 though.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:42 ---
Seems fixed in "3.4.5 20050809". Can you try a newer 3.4.5?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21786
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:39
---
*** Bug 19593 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:39 ---
No feedback in 3 months so assuming this is a dup of bug 18932.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18932 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:35 ---
I should mention why I marked this as a regression. loop-unroll.c is new in
3.4.x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24497
--- Comment #1 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:33 ---
Original testcase above is reduced from
gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-6.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24497
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:31
---
*** Bug 24498 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 01:31 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2 and above. This is a dup of bug 21951.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21951 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
doesn't happen with gcc-3.4.2
--- begin testcase ---
#include
#include
using namespace std;
void p() {
vector().push_back("xxx");
}
end testcase ---
compiled with command:
/usr/local/gcc-4.0.1/bin/g++ -c v.C -O5 -Wall -fno-exceptions
--
Summary: 'control may reach end of
long long foo(void)
{
long long unsigned s=0;
long long unsigned b;
for (b = 0; b++, s == 0; )
{
s = b;
}
return s;
}
Compiled with -O2 -funroll-all-loops gives
internal compiler error: in apply_opt_in_copies, at loop-unroll.c:2122
The problematic line is:
gcc_assert (rtx_
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 00:34 ---
Please file this bug with the Linux Kernel people also.
And glibc for O_RSYNC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16358
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 00:20 ---
This is the normal, we need offset/varaible aliasing.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 00:10 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Removing wrong-code keyword. Maybe have a wrong-test keyword? ;-)
Just move it to the testsuite component :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 00:09 ---
Reconfirmation with "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 00:07 ---
Reconfirmation with "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 00:04 ---
Reconfirmation with LAST_UPDATED "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:59 ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01414.html>.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:58 ---
Removing wrong-code keyword. Maybe have a wrong-test keyword? ;-)
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jeff dot myers at eclipse dot org 2005-10-23 23:50
---
This function must be implemented to support the Swing/AWT development using
Eclipse Visual Editor project (http://www.eclipse.org/vep/)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16729
--- Comment #15 from ppluzhnikov at charter dot net 2005-10-23 23:47
---
On "stock" FC2, using the latest gcc-4.1 snapshot (20051022), I get 7 mudflap
violations from the original test, 1 from the reduced test.
This doesn't appear to be a heisenbug at all -- it reproduces with all
gcc-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:44 ---
I will do this for 4.2.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
A
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:42 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:42 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:41 ---
Confirmed by other people on IRC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from arno at heho dot snv dot jussieu dot fr 2005-10-23
23:37 ---
Subject: Re: JNI/CNI AttachCurrentThread does not register thread with garbage
collector
Hello,
> Arno - you're missing the point. One of the test cases for this is
> rssowl (or more specifically, the
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24384
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24383
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24311
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24219
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24207
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24204
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24127
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
Version|4.1.0 |4.0.3
http://
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23957
--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:00 ---
These tests assume a certain structure layout, so they have to be gated.
Reconfirmed with LAST_UPDATED "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
Patch coming up.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remove
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23861
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23809
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23644
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23240
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22202
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22148
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21439
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19308
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18911
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18351
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18022
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24432
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:52 ---
Confirmed, fortran front-end needs to do something similar to the C front-end
in c-common.c/c_common_get_alias_set:
/* Permit type-punning when accessing a union, provided the access
is directly through the u
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:49 ---
As I asked, what happens if you build using "make bootstrap" instead of just
doing "make all-gcc". I am thinking the GCC version you already have install,
2.95 is creating wrong code which is what make bootstrap is
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:37 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:37
---
Subject: Bug 24435
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-23 22:37:30
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-common.c
Log message:
200
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:30 ---
Fixed in 4.0.3 also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #7 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:29
---
Subject: Bug 23635
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-23 22:29:30
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog check.
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:21 ---
Fixed on the mainline, I am checking out 4.0 right now to apply to the 4.0
branch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:17 ---
Covered by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01380.html>.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:16
---
Subject: Bug 23635
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-23 22:16:38
Modified files:
gcc/fortran: ChangeLog check.c
gcc/testsuite : Cha
--- Comment #3 from kev dot gilbert at cdu dot edu dot au 2005-10-23 22:13
---
Just for the record, I've pasted the incorrect gdb output for the second
backtrace. It is as follows:
#0 0x00240402 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x00726118 in raise () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x00727888 in a
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:10 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00558.html for a
preliminary patch. hppa64 builds have been broken since Richard
applied his cft "fix". The patch works ok under linux but there's
still stuff that n
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:09 ---
Reconfirmation with "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:07 ---
Reconfirmation with "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 22:06 ---
Reconfirmation with "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:51 ---
Fixed with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg01383.html>.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:47 ---
Reconfirm with LAST_UPDATED "Mon Oct 17 15:28:21 UTC 2005".
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:44 ---
Non-empty comment to appease bugzilla as I close this PR.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:38
---
Subject: Bug 18911
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-23 21:37:57
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init: arra
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:37 ---
Alright, accepts-invalid it is for GCC 4.1.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from schnetter at aei dot mpg dot de 2005-10-23 21:35
---
I don't see the point of allowing a variable to be initialised twice. This
should be an error, or at least a warning by default. That would make it an
"accepts-invalid".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #7 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:27 ---
I would guess a GNU make bug. What version of GNU make are you using? Try a
newer release.
Alternatively, this could be a shell bug. What shell and version are you
using? Try using a different shell and/or a more
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16465
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2005-10-23
21:22 ---
confirmed with 20051023
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24348
--- Comment #54 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:19 ---
Following comments #52 and #53, I'm removing the wrong-code keyword.
I'm all for closing this long-open bug. But maybe we should keep it open until
some automatic testing process is in place.
--
steven at gcc d
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:16 ---
This doesn't ICE for me.
So this should be "accepts-invalid" now, or we could call it a GNU extension
and only disallow it in stricter standard enforcement modes. Or we could just
close it.
Erik, your bug, so your
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
