Bootstrapping GCC fails with MinGW with the following error:
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `driver-i386.o', needed by `xgcc.exe'. Stop
.
This is the same bug as in pr27596, but apparently it needs to be reported and
fixed on target by target basis.
--
Summary: [4.2
--- Comment #1 from rridge at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca 2006-05-14 06:45
---
Created an attachment (id=11458)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11458action=view)
Suggested patch for fixing the bug on all targets
This patch also hardens config.host against similar
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 09:00
---
Any progress on this one? It's blocking a few widely-used Fortran codes from
compiling (and being used and benchmarked) with mainline gfortran.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
Bootstrap failed for me with a recent cygwin.
The error message is
gcc -g -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute
-fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../../gcc/trunk/gcc
-I../../../gcc/trunk/gcc/.
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 09:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11459)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11459action=view)
output of configure; build; gcc -v
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27600
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 09:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11460)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11460action=view)
config.log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27600
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 09:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=11461)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11461action=view)
config.status in main directory
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27600
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 09:44 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27596 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27596 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27596 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 09:44 ---
*** Bug 27600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 10:42 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #4 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 10:49 ---
Subject: Bug 27501
Author: aldot
Date: Sun May 14 10:48:49 2006
New Revision: 113758
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113758
Log:
2006-05-14 Bernhard Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR 27501
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 10:51 ---
works for me on i686-pc-linux-gnu
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from bo dot berggren at glocalnet dot net 2006-05-14 11:13
---
Subject: Re: Transfer of character to integer array and
vice versa still doesn't work
paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr skrev:
--- Comment #15 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-05-13 20:00
The C++ file:
struct bar {
static int foo;
};
int a = __builtin_offsetof(bar, foo);
The error:
g++ -c foo.cc
foo.cc:5: internal compiler error: in fold_offsetof_1, at c-common.c:5998
GCC snapshot version:
g++ (GCC) 4.1.1 20060512 (prerelease)
--
Summary: ICE (in
--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 12:08 ---
Thanks - I will now turn to PR27449.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27155
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 12:12 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I am sure that this is the same as PR27155, which I undertook to fix.
I don't quite know what made me so sure but would be grateful if you would try
out the patch for pr27155. I don't
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 12:36 ---
At the risk of gettin my head bitten off again, I think that this ICE really
is unwarranted. I can write fortran that produces every other expression type,
therby triggering the ICE. It might be that internal
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 12:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=11462)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11462action=view)
Patch for this bug, mentioned in comment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27584
--- Comment #5 from berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2006-05-14 12:39 ---
- r19 is modified, but not saved
Can you please give the exact command line you used to compile bug.i into
bug.o?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27593
--- Comment #18 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-05-14 13:43 ---
Subject: Re: Transfer of character to integer array and
vice versa still doesn't work
bo,
Ah, thank goodness for that. I thought that I was going out of my mind!
For you purposes, rather than svn, have you
The mozilla source is there,
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/releases/2.0a2.html
My gcc-4.2.0 snapshot works fine with linux-kernel-2.6.17-rc4 and
Nvidia-installer.
...
nsCSSPropList.h:318: warning: (perhaps the âoffsetofâ macro was used
incorrectly)
nsCSSPropList.h:319: warning:
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 14:23 ---
Please take bugs if you post patches for them, it makes it easier to search for
bugs that nobody is looking at.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 14:25 ---
Seb, wrong code regression in your code. Are you working on this??
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26719
--- Comment #18 from apl at alum dot mit dot edu 2006-05-14 14:40 ---
I don't understand why this was changed by sayle to known to work on 4.1.0,
when at least ONE of the test cases (b.cxx) demonstrates the failure on 4.1.0
(for some reason bugzilla won't let me commit the above
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 14:49 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=11146)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11146action=view) [edit]
first step
with this patch scev returns (int) (char) {0,+,1} but then
--- Comment #14 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 15:48 ---
Subject: Bug 22563
Author: sayle
Date: Sun May 14 15:48:11 2006
New Revision: 113762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113762
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/22563
* expmed.c
--- Comment #7 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 16:07 ---
Subject: Bug 27538
Author: kazu
Date: Sun May 14 16:07:12 2006
New Revision: 113763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113763
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/27538
* combine.c
Compile the attached program with:
gcc -O0 wrong-code-tree-vrp.cc
gcc -O2 wrong-code-tree-vrp.cc
gcc -O2 -fno-tree-vrp wrong-code-tree-vrp.cc
with gcc 4.1.0, native i686-pc-linux-gnu.
The -O0 and -O2 -fno-tree-vrp versions produce the correct output: g1[3] ==
100, g1[4] == 100. The -O2
--- Comment #1 from mec at google dot com 2006-05-14 16:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=11463)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11463action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27603
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #5 from s_j_newbury at yahoo dot co dot uk 2006-05-14 17:15
---
(In reply to comment #4)
I tried the gcc 4.1.1 snapshot 20060421. The bug still there. The assembly
code
producted with -Os option is the same as gcc 4.1.0.
Have you got anywhere with this? I wonder if
--- Comment #19 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 17:20 ---
Subject: Bug 26729
Author: sayle
Date: Sun May 14 17:20:01 2006
New Revision: 113764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113764
Log:
PR middle-end/26729
* gcc.dg/pr26729-1.c: New
--- Comment #20 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-05-14 17:39 ---
Hi APL,
Re: comment #18. It was actually stevenb that changed the known to work
line,
and assigned this PR to me, after I'd committed a fix to the gcc-4_1-branch.
See
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 17:44 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase:
void abort(void);
int g1[6] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
int g4 = 0;
void Foo(void)
{
int j;
for (j = 0; j 6; j++) {
if (j == 3 || j == 4)
g1[j] = 100;
g4 += 1000 * (6
Executing on host: /home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdi
r/gcc/ /home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf-die2.c
-
O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA -fno-show-column -S -o dwarf-die2.s(timeout = 300)
PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf-die2.c (test for excess errors)
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 17:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=11465)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11465action=view)
Assembler file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27607
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-05-14
17:54 ---
Subject: Re: New: FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf-die2.c scan-assembler-not
CIE Version
r/gcc/ /home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf-die2.c
-
O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 17:56 ---
We fold (j == 3 || j == 4) to (unsigned)j - 3 = 1, which VRP considers to be
always false.
void exit (int);
void abort (void);
int a;
int main()
{
int j;
for (j = 0; j 6; j++)
{
if ((unsigned)j - 3 = 1)
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 18:00 ---
(set_scalar_evolution
(scalar = j_3)
(scalar_evolution = {0, +, 1}_1))
)
(instantiate_parameters
(loop_nb = 1)
(chrec = {0, +, 1}_1)
(res = {0, +, 1}_1))
Found new range for j_3: [0, 0]
huh!? (this is
Executing on host: /home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdi
r/gcc/ /home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/nested-fn-1.c -O0
-g0 -fno-show-column -S -o nested-fn-1.s(timeout = 300)
PASS: gcc.dg/torture/nested-fn-1.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 18:38 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27273 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 18:38 ---
*** Bug 27602 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 18:49 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00531.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|2.95.3 |2.95.3 4.2.0
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 19:05 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 19:10 ---
We aren't marking smt usage for updating in forwprop, but we need to, because
forwprop is propagating and address and destroying the smt info.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27373
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 19:56 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 20:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=11467)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11467action=view)
Assembler file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27611
Executing on host: /home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/home
/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsui
te/g++.dg/other/unused1.C -nostdinc++
-I/home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/hppa-linux/li
bstdc++-v3/include/hppa-linux
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 20:18 ---
This appears to have been introduced between 113549M and 113593M.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27611
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 20:24 ---
This is just a testsuite issue:
.stringzclass2
.stringzprinter
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Executing on host: /home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdi
r/gcc/ /home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/critical-1.c
-B/home/
dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/hppa-linux/./libgomp/
-I/home/dave/gcc-4.2/objdir/hppa-linux
/./libgomp
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:12 ---
I can't duplicate the shatest failure using gcc 4.1.0 and openssl-0.9.8b.
The test results are clean and identical to those for 3.4.5 on both
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Given that the report
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:26
---
Where is the patch referenced in Comment #3?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:28
---
I'm sorry to hear things have gotten worse for Ada, but I'm none-the-less
downgrading this to P5, as there is no longer any evidence this affects our
primary languages. (I've not fully understood the discussion
--- Comment #3 from ingo dot josopait at gmx dot de 2006-05-14 22:29
---
It fails on i686-pc-linux-gnu if I replace
string arg = something;
by
string arg = s;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:29
---
P5: Ada is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27270
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27309
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27315
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27329
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27339
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:32
---
P5: Objective-C is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27385
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27447
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27489
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:34
---
P5: F95 is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:35
---
Is there a URL for the patch posted for this bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27489
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27491
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27490
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27492
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27549
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:33
---
P5: Objective-C is not release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27565
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27566
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27574
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27603
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:42 ---
Is there a reason why this is not a P1? This is wrong code.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:43
---
My mistake; I had thought it was only generating wrong-code with non-default
options. I have adjusted this to P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:52 ---
Subject: Bug 27406
Author: kkojima
Date: Sun May 14 22:51:12 2006
New Revision: 113766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113766
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/27406
* bt-load.c
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 23:46
---
Confirmed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 00:31 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following code fails to compile with the error message:
In file test.f90:14
stuff = stuff+stuff(n+1)
1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
The program test.f90:
program test
integer :: stuff
write(*, *) called stuff , stuff(1), times
end program test
recursive function
--- Comment #1 from nicolasbock at gmail dot com 2006-05-15 01:14 ---
I would like to add the output of
$ gfortran -v -save-temps test.f90
Driving: gfortran -v -save-temps test.f90 -lgfortranbegin -lgfortran
-shared-libgcc
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8.6.0
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 04:36 ---
Investigating a fix.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 04:43 ---
Subject: Bug 22563
Author: sayle
Date: Mon May 15 04:43:05 2006
New Revision: 113775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113775
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/22563
Backports from
--- Comment #6 from philipp at marek dot priv dot at 2006-05-15 05:17
---
CFLAGS:=-g -mmcu=$(MCU) -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -mcall-prologues
-I/usr/avr/include -I/home/flip/cprogs/AVR/include -funroll-loops -save-temps
%.s: %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -Os -S $
The .i results from
--- Comment #25 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 05:36
---
(I've not fully understood the discussion here, but if everything in Ada is
addressable, then it seems to me that everything should have TREE_ADDRESSABLE
set.)
Grumpf... you read a little too quickly, that
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2006-05-15 05:41 ---
Steven: what's your patch? It seems to me that this fixes the problem in
mainline:
Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (revision
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 05:44 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
integer_nonzerop should be used instead of !integer_zerop.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00587.html.
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27603
94 matches
Mail list logo
