------- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 15:27 ------- >From subsequent discussion by email, it sounds like we think that this is a case where GLIBC has been making overly aggressive assumptions about GCC semantics, and that, therefore, GLIBC should be changed. Given that, can this PR be closed?
Thanks, -- Mark -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28598
