--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:25
---
Fixed in 4.0, not a bug in 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:23
---
Fixed in 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:22
---
Fixed in 4.1 and 4,2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:20
---
Fixed in 4.1 and 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:03
---
Commited to 4.2 Will commit to 4.1 in ~24 hours.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25463
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 07:02
---
Subject: Bug 25463
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Dec 19 07:02:05 2005
New Revision: 108785
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108785
Log:
2005-12-18 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 06:52
---
Subject: Bug 25463
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Dec 19 06:52:33 2005
New Revision: 108784
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108784
Log:
2005-12-18 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 06:52
---
Confirmed and added Bernard as Cc.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 06:30 ---
Could this be a dup of Bug 23585?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23954
--- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 04:45
---
I did a checkout as of Sep 12, 2005 00:00:00 UTC and get the same assembly
code as in the initial report using the following compilation options:
"-Os -w -S -mschedule=7100LC". The build was done on hppa2.0w-hp-hp
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 04:33 ---
This regression is caused by
"svn update -r 107850" on 4.1
"svn update -r 107745" on trunk.
This a patch I committed, but until my hard drive is replaced I
won't be able to revert without too much pain. If anyone els
--- Comment #6 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 02:30 ---
I just compiled the testcase on x86_64. I got
foo:
.LFB2:
movq%rdi, %rax
negq%rax
andq%rdi, %rax
ret
which is as good as the assembly generated by 3.4.3.
This is no longer
--- Comment #1 from geckosenator at gmail dot com 2005-12-19 02:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=10531)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10531&action=view)
bzip2 compressed file that produces gcc segfault
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25491
I was writing a program that evaluates an operator tree with variables
constants and operators. Rather than recursively iterate the tree many times
for different variable values to evaluate it.. I printed the tree into a source
file, compiled it as a shared library with gcc and dynamically linked
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|[4.1 and 4.2 Regression]|[4.1/4.2 R
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 01:00 ---
I just bootstrapped 4.1 and the regression is also in 4.1!
I believe it appeared after 27 Nov 05 in that my older 4.1
gfortran, which wokred correctly, had that timestamp.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 00:37 ---
We are basically talking about narrowing the memory being loaded for testing.
Now, can we really optimize this case? We've got
const volatile unsigned long *addr
I am not sure if "volatile" allows us to change the
--- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 00:01 ---
I've got a preliminary patch.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ass
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 23:52 ---
Kenny is working on a fix.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
As
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 23:44 ---
We get to iterative_dataflow from df_analyze_subcfg with this dataflow
argument:
(gdb) p *dataflow
$11 = {repr = SR_BITMAP, gen = 0xf43d90, kill = 0xf439d0, in = 0xf55ac0, out =
0xf57ca0,
dir = DF_FORWARD, conf_op
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 23:34 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01399.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 23:24 ---
Works in r108712.
Breaks in r108713.
That's the ENTRY/EXIT block renumbering patch. Somehow this seems to have
messed up df_analyze_subcfg.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25483
--- Comment #6 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2005-12-18
22:57 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Simplified testcase seems to work for me on 4.1 branch:
> restore_fpu:
> movl4(%esp), %edx
> movlboot_cpu_data+12, %eax
> testl $16777216, %eax
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:40 ---
*** Bug 25488 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25487
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:45 ---
*** Bug 25487 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:45 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25481 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25481 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #2 from dps at simpson dot demon dot co dot uk 2005-12-18
22:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=10530)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10530&action=view)
Example program that tickles the bug (with -O for n>=1).
The example is based on a real example withou
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:40 ---
*** Bug 25490 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25487
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:40 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25487 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:40 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25487 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
There is a pointer arithmetic related assersion failure, apparently in the
logic attempting to deduce what the pointer might be pointing at. If you
compile wiht -O0 or chaneg p+1 to p the bug is apparently bypassed. My
"screenshot" is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/duncan/src/foo/wlocal/build/phone/mq$ gcc -
This code:
typedef struct {
int protected_mode;
int x;
} TScreen;
extern void ClearRight (TScreen *screen, int n);
extern void ClearLeft(TScreen * screen);
extern void ClearLine(TScreen * screen);
void
do_erase_line(TScreen * screen, int param, int mode)
{
int saved_mode = screen->protec
The source here generates an asserion failure compiled with anything above -O0.
Changing p+1 to p seems to avoid the bug. The infinite loops are not a feature
of the original code but the uderlying problem appears to be indentical.
"screenshot"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/duncan/src/foo/wlocal/build/phon
The source here generates an asserion failure compiled with anything above -O0.
Changing p+1 to p seems to avoid the bug. The infinite loops are not a feature
of the original code but the uderlying problem appears to be indentical.
"screenshot"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/duncan/src/foo/wlocal/build/phon
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:23 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 22:20 ---
Subject: Bug 25481
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Dec 18 22:20:31 2005
New Revision: 108763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108763
Log:
2005-12-18 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 20:53 ---
Simplified testcase seems to work for me on 4.1 branch:
restore_fpu:
movl4(%esp), %edx
movlboot_cpu_data+12, %eax
testl $16777216, %eax
je .L2
jmp foo
.L2:
There is a regression in 4.2 from 4.1 with fixed-form literal character
constants that are continued to a new line. Consider the following
fixed-form code:
program a
character(len=90) c
c A tab is between 9 and 0.
c = '1234567
&890'
print *, c
end
The
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 20:14 ---
This looks like a case where array decays to a pointer too early problem (PR
24666).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 19:19 ---
I should note that this only happens for targets whos BRANCH_COST is semi high.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25485
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 19:18 ---
Confirmed, the problem is that VRP folds a > 63 and then props that into temp
&& temp1 but does not prop after that.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
Consider:
int
foo (int a, int b)
{
if (a > 50)
return 19;
if (a > 63 && b < 50)
return 17;
return 31;
}
VRP does not optimize away the second "if" statement.
Here is the output from VRP.
foo (a, b)
{
_Bool D.1662;
_Bool D.1661;
_Bool D.1660;
int D.1659;
:
if (a_2 > 50)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Summary|Fix for PR25456 is wrong|[4.2
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 18:39 ---
Ugh, I guess that means going back to a checkout of the day of the report if we
want to reproduce this :-/
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from jbglaw at lug-owl dot de 2005-12-18 18:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10529)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10529&action=view)
Correct fix
This is the correct fix, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01258.html .
--
http://gcc
PR25456 was fixed wrongly. This'll make the compiler ICE later on
if eg. used to cross-compile uClibc.
--
Summary: Fix for PR25456 is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-12-18
18:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c
execution, -Os
> Unable to reproduce with GCC 4.1 without further feedback. Apparently already
> fixed or made latent on GCC 4.
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:43 ---
We're hitting the assert at
#1 0x0856ac47 in handle_ptr_arith (lhsc=0x8868880, expr=0x401942d0)
at tree-ssa-structalias.c:3188
gcc_assert (first_vi_for_offset (temp, rhsoffset) != NULL);
with temp
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:41 ---
This worked in "4.2.0 20051214" but not in "4.2.0 20051217".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25483
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-12-18
17:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c
execution, -Os
> First, it looks from the command lines in the report that the problematic
> compiler is GCC 3.3. But the repor
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:30 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
static int mdct_win[8][36];
int decode_init(double d)
{
int i = 0, j, k;
for(j=0; j<4; j++)
{
d*= 0.5;
mdct_win[j][i ] = ((int)(((d / (1<<5))) * (1LL<<32) + 0.5));
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:17 ---
This will *NOT* be fixed for GCC 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24408
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:15 ---
rth assigned this to himself:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2005-11/msg02843.html
A progress report would be nice ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16876
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:09 ---
Will look at it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 17:04 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #45 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 16:40 ---
Alexandre, what is up with this bug? It's a gcc 4.1 regression assigned to
you, could you please at least say whether you're working on this or not?
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20103
--- Comment #1 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2005-12-18
16:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=10528)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10528&action=view)
Triggers the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25483
Attached testcase when compiled by gcc version 4.2.0 20051217 (experimental) on
x86 using:
-
gcc -O2 -fmove-loop-invariants -c -o mpegaudiodec.o mpegaudiodec.c
-
results in the following
-
mpegaudiodec.c: In function ‘decode_init’:
mpegaudiodec.c:5
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 16:36 ---
Giovanni, you never assigned this bug to yourself as far as I can tell, but
could you give this bug a quick look anyway, or otherwise unassign yourself
from this bug? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 16:29 ---
Subject: Re: pure functions cause things to
be call clobbered still
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 15:48 +, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18
As per the comment at the beginning of streambuf_iterator.h.
--
Summary: Specialize (overload) std::copy/find for streambuf
iterators
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priorit
--- Comment #12 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 16:06
---
Subject: Bug 21041
Author: uweigand
Date: Sun Dec 18 16:06:55 2005
New Revision: 108760
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108760
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/21041
* reload.c (fin
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 16:04 ---
comment #6 says "invalid code". So is this an ICE on valid, or _invalid_ code?
Anyway,
Starting program: /abuild/stevenb/build/gcc/cc1plus t.C
A::A()
Breakpoint 4, expand_member_init (name=0x401c9958) at init.c:95
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 15:55 ---
Paolo, are you going to ask for approval for GCC 4.1 too?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 15:51 ---
Kazu assigned this to himself on December 17, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2005-12/msg01787.html
Folks, please add a comment when you assign a bug to yourself. That way, it's
easier to see which bugs have had
--- Comment #5 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 15:48 ---
Is this PR fixed? Or does it need some follow-up work?
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 15:45 ---
Unable to reproduce with GCC 4.1 without further feedback. Apparently already
fixed or made latent on GCC 4.2. The dumps in comment #1 could use some
comment so that people reading this bug report don't have to ana
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 15:45 ---
Unable to reproduce with GCC 4.1 without further feedback. Apparently already
fixed or made latent on GCC 4.2. The dumps in comment #1 could use some
comment so that people reading this bug report don't have to anal
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 15:42 ---
What is one supposed to do with this bug report?
First, it looks from the command lines in the report that the problematic
compiler is GCC 3.3. But the report is about gcc 4.1.0.
Second, I can't reproduce the probl
Compiling the following test case with "./cc1 -O2" ends up causing a segfault.
struct s {
int *blah;
};
static struct s array[] = {
{ 0 }
};
void
foo (struct s *p)
{
unsigned int n = 1;
struct s *q = &array[n];
while (p < q)
p++;
}
--
Summary: Segfault in tree-ssa-str
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 14:53 ---
fixeth yet
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 25224
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Dec 18 14:51:53 2005
New Revision: 108754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108754
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/25224
* tree-ssa-loop-uns
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 14:36 ---
For historic reference, once this is on the 4.1 branch too.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 14:32 ---
ping!
There are too many reports about SPEC performance drops that stay in WAITING
for too long. That is not helpful. Uttam, please investigate this bug, you
cannot just drop a bug report about SPEC performance reg
--- Comment #23 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 14:30 ---
This bug was for mgrid, but now we're stuck on a reported mesa performance drop
that may or may not be related to this PR. I suggest that if the mesa drop is
still there, a new bug report should be opened for it.
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 14:01 ---
Subject: Bug 25018
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 18 14:01:00 2005
New Revision: 108753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108753
Log:
2005-12-18 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
I found bug in GNU assembler.
OS is SUSE9.3
command line is:
gcc -v -save-temps -Wall -W -DASM_FILE=1 -nostdinc -fno-builtin -c -o
loader_img-loader.o loader.S
output is:
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/specs
Configured with: ./configure
Thread model: posix
gcc versio
--- Comment #12 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 11:20 ---
Subject: Bug 24378
Author: dorit
Date: Sun Dec 18 11:20:17 2005
New Revision: 108750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108750
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24378
* tree-vect-transform
--- Comment #11 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:46 ---
Subject: Bug 24378
Author: dorit
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:46:30 2005
New Revision: 108746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108746
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24378
* tree-vect-transform
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:32
---
Subject: Bug 25349
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:32:09 2005
New Revision: 108745
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108745
Log:
2005-12-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:32
---
Subject: Bug 25264
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:32:09 2005
New Revision: 108745
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108745
Log:
2005-12-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:24
---
Subject: Bug 25349
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:24:04 2005
New Revision: 108744
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108744
Log:
2005-12-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:24
---
Subject: Bug 25264
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:24:04 2005
New Revision: 108744
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108744
Log:
2005-12-17 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2005-12-18 08:15 ---
I failed to reproduce this ICE on ppc and i686.
Vectorizer's dump file can help.
--
irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 08:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25472
Author: bkoz
Date: Sun Dec 18 08:08:07 2005
New Revision: 108743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108743
Log:
2005-12-17 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* src/io-
86 matches
Mail list logo
