--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 05:59 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00229.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #24 from corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 05:58
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > (In reply to comment #20)
> > > Is this fixed now?
>
> > The hard-breakdown due is gone, but now I am observing another bug:
> [...]
> > Note the
> > -I..
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 05:42 ---
i386.c has
tmp_reg = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (VOIDmode, tmp_reg,
plus_constant (save_area,
ix86_varargs_gpr_s
--- Comment #23 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 05:38 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > Is this fixed now?
> The hard-breakdown due is gone, but now I am observing another bug:
[...]
> Note the
> -I../../gcc//users/rtems/src/toolchains/gcc-trunk/
Hi, I have found error from compile Qt library on WindowsXP. I download it from
http://qt.nokia.com/downloads/sdk-windows-cpp.
File name is qt-sdk-win-opensource-2010.02.1.exe.
I configure it:
configure -qt-sql-mysql
I make it:
mingw32-make
On compile I have this error:
UG -DQT_CORE_LIB -I"..\..
--- Comment #2 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-04-07 02:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=20326)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20326&action=view)
another testcase, probably better
copied from gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (gen-vect-2.c fails the
same
--- Comment #1 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-04-07 01:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=20325)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20325&action=view)
reduced executable testcase
$ gcc -O1 -fschedule-insns2 -fsched2-use-superblocks -m32 pr43671.c && ./a.out
Aborted
-
Command line:
gcc -O1 -fschedule-insns2 -fsched2-use-superblocks -m32 testcase.c && ./a.out
or
gcc -O2 -fsched2-use-superblocks -m32 testcase.c && ./a.out
Tested revisions:
r157965 - fail
r157877 - fail
r153685 - OK
4.4.3, 4.3.4, 4.2.4, 4.1.2, 3.4.6 - OK
Output:
$ /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-157965
--- Comment #1 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-04-07 00:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=20324)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20324&action=view)
reduced testcase
reduced from gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20030324-1.c
Command line:
gcc -O -ftree-vrp -m32 -fcompare-debug
Command line:
gcc -O -ftree-vrp -m32 -fcompare-debug 20030324-1.c
Tested revisions:
r157965 - fail
r153685 - fail
Compiler output:
$ /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-157965-lto/bin/gcc -O -ftree-vrp -m32
-fcompare-debug testcase.c
gcc: testcase.c: -fcompare-debug failure (length)
--
Summar
--- Comment #2 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 23:39 ---
according to PP50 of
http://developer.apple.com/Mac/library/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/LowLevelABI/100-32-bit_PowerPC_Function_Calling_Conventions/32bitPowerPC.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002438-SW20
it's
--- Comment #7 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 22:18 ---
I had some logs here and checked. It passes on sparc-rtems4.10
GNATMAKE 4.5.0 20100331 (experimental) [trunk revision 157866]
,.,. C34006G ACATS 2.5 88-01-01 00:00:00
C34006G CHECK THAT THE REQUIRED PREDEFINED
--- Comment #13 from ccoutant at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 22:00
---
gold patch committed
--
ccoutant at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
/gcc-4.5.0-RC-20100406/libgcc
-I/n/17/segher/src/gcc-4.5.0-RC-20100406/libgcc/.
-I/n/17/segher/src/gcc-4.5.0-RC-20100406/libgcc/../gcc
-I/n/17/segher/src/gcc-4.5.0-RC-20100406/libgcc/../include -DHAVE_CC_TLS -o
_mulvsi3.o -MT _mulvsi3.o -MD -MP -MF _mulvsi3.dep -DL_mulvsi3 -c
/n/17/segher/src/gcc
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 21:25
---
Please reconfirm for sparc-rtems, arm-linux has been clean for some time:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg00436.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 21:19
---
Reclassifying.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Compon
--- Comment #12 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 21:03 ---
Subject: Bug 43519
Author: spop
Date: Tue Apr 6 21:03:37 2010
New Revision: 158028
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158028
Log:
Fix 473.astar miscompile.
2010-04-05 Sebastian Pop
PR
--- Comment #11 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 21:03 ---
Subject: Bug 43519
Author: spop
Date: Tue Apr 6 21:02:25 2010
New Revision: 158027
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158027
Log:
Use POINTER_PLUS_EXPR for pointer types.
2010-04-04 Sebastian Po
--- Comment #10 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 21:02 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #9 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 21:01 ---
Subject: Bug 43519
Author: spop
Date: Tue Apr 6 21:01:16 2010
New Revision: 158026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158026
Log:
Compute min and max bounds for IVs and infer types.
2010-04-04 Se
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 20:58 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Internal Error at (1):
> gfc_is_constant_expr(): Unknown expression type
Try the following patch; however, as written in comment 8 the PURE attribute is
lost somewhere thus the patch is n
--- Comment #2 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 20:53 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Basically I think breaking up functions inside sections/segments in object
> files is a broken way of doing dead stripping.
hmm I think this is related to hot/cold partitioning rather than d
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 20:53 ---
With GCC 4.5, it is:
pr43666.c: In function âmainâ:
pr43666.c:8:3: warning: âfooâ is deprecated (declared at pr43666.c:3): Use
bar() instead
So this is new in GCC 4.5 but not documented in changes.html. I will
--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 19:59 ---
Current status:
* Single image only (num_images() == 1) with -fcoarray=
* Image control statements, CRITICAL block, num_images()
* Coarray declarations
* Most new parameters from ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
But not yet:
* Coarr
Greetings gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
I wanna tell you about a very stable investment I participate in
since five month. I am in 460% profit by now. they are
reliable Hong Kong traders group, working on stock, derivatives, and Forex
markets. Their results are
very stable, their trading profit i
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 19:21 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 19:20 ---
Subject: Bug 43667
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 6 19:19:58 2010
New Revision: 158019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158019
Log:
PR target/43667
* config/i386/i386.c (bdesc_multi
--- Comment #9 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 19:20 ---
Subject: Bug 32824
Author: spop
Date: Tue Apr 6 19:19:41 2010
New Revision: 158018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158018
Log:
Fix PR32824.
2010-04-06 Changpeng Fang
PR middle-end/3
--- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 18918
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 19:03:10 2010
New Revision: 158016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158016
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/18918
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 18:42 ---
Interpretation request for the June J3 meeting:
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/192/10-146.txt
Proposed edit is to allow ALLOCATABLEs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 18:42 ---
Subject: Bug 43667
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 6 18:41:25 2010
New Revision: 158015
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158015
Log:
PR target/43667
* config/i386/i386.c (bdesc_multi
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 18:24 ---
Subject: Bug 18918
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 18:23:56 2010
New Revision: 158014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158014
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/18918
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 18:16 ---
Subject: Bug 18918
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 18:16:13 2010
New Revision: 158012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158012
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/18918
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 17:59 ---
Subject: Bug 18918
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 17:58:50 2010
New Revision: 158011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158011
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/18918
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 17:10
---
Thanks for the analysis.
This is reproducible on trunk with -O2 -fsel-sched-pipelining
-fselective-scheduling2 (with -O3, pressure-aware loop invariant motion
slightly changes the code, and it's not possible to dis
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 16:38 ---
First committal (which went to the wrong PR: PR 39997):
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158008
Added: single-image support for CRITICAL block, SYNC MEMORY/IMAGES/ALL, and
num_images() (which is
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 16:37 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> New Revision: 158008
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158008
Wrong PR. That's for coarrays which is PR 18918 ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 16:26 ---
Subject: Bug 39997
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 16:26:02 2010
New Revision: 158008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158008
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/39997
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 16:12 ---
Subject: Bug 43648
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 6 16:12:15 2010
New Revision: 158007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158007
Log:
PR c++/43648
* name-lookup.c (constructor_name_p)
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 16:11 ---
Subject: Bug 43621
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 6 16:10:47 2010
New Revision: 158006
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158006
Log:
PR c++/43621
* pt.c (maybe_update_decl_type): Che
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:53 ---
Confirmed. We end up using the callee saved reg %rbx and thus need to push it
but we do not preserve alignment correctly.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:50 ---
If Quentin could do that, it would be appreciated.
i386/xop-vpermil2* are dg-do run tests, so they are all UNSUPPORTED in my
testing anyway, all I can do is just eyeball the assembly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #2 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:45 ---
The fix looks good.
Are you testing this patch, or should I ask Quentin to extra test it on our
end?
Thanks,
Sebastian
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43667
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:38
---
Adjusting target milestone and known-to-work then.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Command line:
gcc -fschedule-insns vararg-1.c && ./a.out
Testcase can be further reduced to:
--- testcase.c ---
int foo(int i, ...) {
return i;
}
int main() {
return foo(0, 0.0);
}
--
I am not sure the testcase is valid, but I can't find any proo
--- Comment #17 from law at redhat dot com 2010-04-06 15:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] IRA apparently systematically
making reload too busy on 2 address instructions with 3 operands
On 04/06/10 05:38, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #29 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:18
---
Subject: Bug 42906
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Apr 6 15:18:18 2010
New Revision: 158004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158004
Log:
PR tree-optimization/42906
* tree-ssa-dce.
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=20323)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20323&action=view)
gcc45-pr43667.patch
Untested fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43667
typedef double __v2df __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
typedef long long __v2di __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
__v2df
foo (__v2df X, __v2df Y, __v2di C)
{
return __builtin_ia32_vpermil2pd (X, Y, C, 1);
}
-O2 -mavx results in:
/usr/src/gcc/obj/gcc/a.c: In function 'foo':
/usr/src/
--- Comment #10 from siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com 2010-04-06
14:44 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> It would be really helpful if someone can explain how to reproduce this with a
> cross-compiler. I will analyze/fix this problem when this is reproducible with
> a cross.
I'm afr
--- Comment #2 from ebassi at gmail dot com 2010-04-06 14:36 ---
sweet, thanks.
just FYI, I tested it using:
$ cat test-deprecated.c
#include
int foo (void) __attribute__((deprecated("Use bar() instead")));
int bar (void);
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf (
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 14:25 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It is generally presumed that if a new feature is deliberately added in a
> new language version, as with duplicate qualifiers in C99, then it is
> useful for it to be allowed with previous
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 14:16 ---
This is already implemented in GCC 4.5 (which will be out soon) and perhaps in
earlier versions (I cannot find this in any changes.html page up to 4.2).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|R
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-06 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: add warning for duplicate qualifier
It is generally presumed that if a new feature is deliberately added in a
new language version, as with duplicate qualifiers in C99, then it is
useful for it to be
it would improve the error reporting output for deprecated types, variables and
functions if it could be possible to define the deprecated attribute with an
optional message, e.g.:
int f1 (void) __attribute__ ((deprecated ("Use f2() instead")));
int f2 (void);
which would print:
warning:
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:50 ---
Some more quotes:
> You can mark parameters 1) unused, 2) pointed-to read-only,
> 3) not escaping, 4) only once dereferenced (thus, access only
> *p, not **p)
>
> You can mark return values as being a direct copy of
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:33 ---
What is the rationale for being conditional on pedantic? Is this forbidden by
!c99 and we accept it as an extension?
I understand that it should not be an error in c99 but what to warn is our
decision even if the stand
After the support goes into the middle end, cf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-04/msg00012.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01257.html , one should use the
the new function call argument/return value attributes.
Note: One needs to be careful about this in terms of multi-im
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:29
---
For 4.5.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:22
---
I don't see this failure in any of the recent retest results of hppa
(I've looked at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg00422.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg00417.html and
http:
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-06 13:07 ---
Subject: Re: New: add warning for duplicate qualifier
Since C99 allows duplicate qualifiers, this warning is deliberately
conditional on pedantic && !flag_isoc99.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:48 ---
FIXED on the trunk (GCC 4.6).
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 43178
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 6 12:46:19 2010
New Revision: 157993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157993
Log:
2010-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/43178
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:33
---
Fixed on trunk sofar. Queued for 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:32
---
Subject: Bug 43627
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 6 12:32:25 2010
New Revision: 157992
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157992
Log:
2010-04-06 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
--- Comment #7 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 12:01 ---
This bug should have been fixed. Close.
--
jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:54 ---
this is fixed in 4.5.0 but left open as a 4.3/4.4 regression - shouldn't the
target milestone stay as 4.5.0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35112
Hi,
I just had a case where proto_ops.setsockopt seems to have the same signature
as the function driver_setsockopt, but gcc barfs.
struct proto_ops p = {
.setsockopt = driver_setsockopt,
};
227600/vsock-only/linux/af_vsock.c:361: warning: initialization from
incompatible pointer type
it wou
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-06 11:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] IRA apparently
systematically making reload too busy on 2 address instructions
with 3 operands
I believe Vladimir fixed this bug (comment #13)
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #28 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-06 11:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Empty loop not
removed
I will apply the CD-DCE fix to pretty IPA tomorrow (after testing the inliner
problems) so we get some extra testing for that patch too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:38 ---
Noone's taking the address of a bitfield, the stnadard specifically says "The
address-of operator & shall not be applied to a bit-field, so there are no
pointers to bit-fields."
What happens is the same as:
double d =
--- Comment #6 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:36 ---
Reconfirmed.
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.5.0 20100402 (experimental) [trunk revision 157942] (arm-unknown-rtems4.10)
GCC error:|
| in find_valid_class, at reload.c:7
--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:32 ---
If your discussions are only slightly related to this bug and don't affect -Os,
then why are you having that discussion here?
Anyway. If this is WONTFIX for GCC 4.5, then it should be marked as such
(remove "4.5 reg
--- Comment #26 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-06 11:22
---
Let's just close it as fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:21
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #27 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20 ---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
