http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-30
06:58:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 06:58:00 2012
New Revision: 188002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188002
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/53519
* combine.c (simp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-30
06:53:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 30 06:53:46 2012
New Revision: 188001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188001
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/53519
* combine.c (simp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-30
06:47:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27524
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27524
gcc48-pr53356.patch
Untested fix. As the TARGET_EXPR for which the gimplifier wants to add a
clobbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-30 06:25:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> "If the initializer-list begins with a left brace,"
>
> which it does
>
> "then the succeeding comma-separated list of initializer-clauses initializes
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #10 from jimis 2012-05-30 06:23:56 UTC ---
Here is how this last patch (macro4) compares to trunk (TME) and to completely
disabling track-macro-expansion (noTME):
time M instr
noTME 0.744s 2081
TME0.785s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #9 from jimis 2012-05-30 06:10:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27523
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27523
Move all location/expansion vectors to obstacks. Warning MEMLEAKS!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #8 from jimis 2012-05-30 06:06:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 27522
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27522
Introduce obstack_{mark,release} functions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #7 from jimis 2012-05-30 06:01:23 UTC ---
Now time for the most intrusive and problematic patches. I tried moving all
virt_locs, expanded, expanded_virt_locs to obstacks for allocation. After many
failures to work with obstacks as they
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #6 from jimis 2012-05-30 05:31:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27521
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27521
Add some new obstack macros in libiberty.h.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #5 from jimis 2012-05-30 05:28:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 27520
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27520
In macro.c:collect_args() use obstacks for virt_locs instead of malloc/realloc
vectors.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #4 from jimis 2012-05-30 05:23:54 UTC ---
Another hotspot higlighted by valgrind is the multitude of malloc/free() calls
in comparison to the past. I'm attaching a slightly more intrusive patch that
uses obstacks to allocate some of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #3 from jimis 2012-05-30 04:52:20 UTC ---
Another simple one that my eye caught but does not effect performance.
Generally I don't get many things in macro.c, but am I correct to assume that
the following stands?
=== modified file 'l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #2 from jimis 2012-05-30 04:44:54 UTC ---
According to valgrind major overhead is due to numerous calls of
line-map.c:linemap_line_start() that actually allocate new line_maps. This
happens because we are resetting the max_column_hint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Lawrence Crowl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crowl at google dot com
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
jimis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
Bug #: 53525
Summary: Performance regression due to enabling
track-macro-expansion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52911
--- Comment #4 from zuogang 2012-05-30 02:59:22 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The testcase needs reduction.
1: save the attached file into test-gcc47-c.c,then cd the folder contain the C
file;
2: gcc -Wall -W -Wshadow -Isrc/headers -O3 -fun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Jeffrey Yasskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-30
01:53:24 UTC ---
>Further, the warning doesn't get suppressed even under -Wno-enum-compare.
That is because it is not a compare; it is a conditional expression.
Also I think the warning is correct bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Bug #: 53524
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsupressable enum
comparison warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Matt Giuca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eatmyshortz at gmail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53453
--- Comment #15 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-29
23:44:13 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Tue May 29 23:44:09 2012
New Revision: 187994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187994
Log:
2012-05-29 Jack Howarth
PR debug/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
23:36:02 UTC ---
clang version 3.2 (trunk 155804) also rejects it:
t.cc:11:18: error: no viable conversion from 'const char [6]' to 'pair'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
23:34:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> struct pair
> {
> pair(const char*, int) { }
> };
>
> struct array_p
> {
> pair data[1];
> };
>
> array_p a = { { "smile", 1 } };
>
> Here we hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
23:21:23 UTC ---
I would keep the patches separate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53523
Bug #: 53523
Summary: i686 compiler with multilib ( x86_64 target ) included
fails on linker
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-29
23:00:34 UTC ---
Thanks Daniel. Let's see if Jon agrees with your analysis. To be honest, at
first, when I figured out the workaround, it seemed a brace-elision issue to me
too, but then I haven't bee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Summary] Bootstrap is |[4.8 Regression] Bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
Bug #: 53522
Summary: [4.8 Summary] Bootstrap is broken for
x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r187977
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-29 21:16:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Am I interpreting correctly that double braces are /required/ for std::array
> init lists but only when the subtype has has a multivariable initializer to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|52941 |
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-29 21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51340
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
--- Comment #7 from David Stone 2012-05-29
20:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > * Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
> > with dynamically allocated memory.
> >
> > -Wcopy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51340
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-29 20:56:02
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue May 29 20:55:58 2012
New Revision: 187988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187988
Log:
PR target/51340
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_option_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52700
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-29
20:26:46 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue May 29 20:26:41 2012
New Revision: 187987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187987
Log:
PR target/52941
* config/sh/predicates.md (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
Bug #: 53521
Summary: Memory leak with zero sized array constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53520
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-29
17:25:36 UTC ---
This happens as of "4.8.0 20120518" [trunk revision 187657].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53520
Bug #: 53520
Summary: ICE in timevar_start with -ftime-report and constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Bug #: 53519
Summary: ice in do_SUBST, at combine.c:707
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26155
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #56 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-29
14:44:13 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 29 14:44:08 2012
New Revision: 187964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187964
Log:
2012-05-29 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-29
14:40:23 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 29 14:40:16 2012
New Revision: 187961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187961
Log:
2012-05-29 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53204
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53484
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53517
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53500
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53471
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52911
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-29
14:14:54 UTC ---
The testcase needs reduction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
14:02:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Between 20120518 and 20120525, many libstdc++ testcases started to fail.
>From the libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog for that period I'd say it's unlikely to be
cau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
14:02:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Between 20120518 and 20120525, many libstdc++ testcases started to fail.
>From the libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog for that period I'd say it's unlikely to be
cau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51912
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
Bug #: 53518
Summary: [4.8 regression] testsuite_abi_check.cc doesn't
compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53517
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53517
Bug #: 53517
Summary: gnat.dg/lto14.adb FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53476
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.6.0 |4.8.0
--- Comment #27 from Rainer Orth 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Bug #: 53516
Summary: Vectorization and memset recognition miscompile
bitfield stores
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #55 from Michael Matz 2012-05-29 13:08:52
UTC ---
FWIW the node->callees list in yukawa_gn_full has 25076 entries.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #54 from Michael Matz 2012-05-29 12:47:29
UTC ---
Yes, only the expand vars problem is attacked by my patch. The alias walking
seems to come from an IPA analysis via ipa_compute_jump_functions.
detect_type_change uses the walker fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
12:14:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> #pragma GCC canonical_header [header-name] [identifier]
I don't think we even need to do it per-identifier.
If each standard header started with:
#pragm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
12:08:24 UTC ---
For PR 52974 Manu made a huge improvement, so that we only get
/some/ugly/path/the/user/didn't/include instead of
/some/ugly/path/the/user/can't/even/parse/../../../didn't/include, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53475
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53476
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-29
12:02:58 UTC ---
Jon, is this a duplicate? A couple of weeks ago I saw a patch related to this
issue but I don't see it mentioned here?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
11:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> N.B. 4.5 says
>
> t.cc: In function ‘void f()’:
> t.cc:7:19: warning: lambda expressions only available with -std=c++0x or
> -std=gnu++0x
>
> But that wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47398
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45606
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@red-bean.com
--- Comment #5 from Pao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45492
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53510
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-29
11:34:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 29 11:34:38 2012
New Revision: 187952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187952
Log:
PR middle-end/53510
* input.c (read_line):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Möller 2012-05-29
11:31:04 UTC ---
$ nvcc --version
nvcc: NVIDIA (R) Cuda compiler driver
Copyright (c) 2005-2012 NVIDIA Corporation
Built on Thu_Apr__5_00:24:31_PDT_2012
Cuda compilation tools, release 4.2, V0.2.1221
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-29 10:56:57 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 29 10:56:53 2012
New Revision: 187950
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187950
Log:
/cp
2012-05-29 Paolo Carlini
PR
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
