https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Apr 2 06:45:24 2015
New Revision: 221820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2015-04.02 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r218855.
2014-12-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Pouzzner ---
Alas still there in 4.9.1 as bundled with Ubuntu 14.10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65647
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #52 from Jan Hubicka ---
$ time /aux/hubicka/trunk-install/bin/g++ -Ofast -fpermissive --param
large-function-insns=1 tramp3d-v4.ii -w ; ./a.out -n 3
real0m34.232s
user0m33.729s
sys 0m0.532s
i = 1t = 0.00209225 dt =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65658
Bug ID: 65658
Summary: Jump threading too pessimistic when optimizing for
size
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
The patch does appear to fix the problem for non-power7, but introduces an ICE
on power7 for pr33855.c.
gcc.c-torture/compile/pr33855.c:27:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
}
^
(insn 124 123 31 5 (set (mem:DF (p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Not error-recovery -> P1.
I would think P2, since the testcase is ill-formed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65625
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65617
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65613
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65628
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65629
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Apr 1 21:27:55 2015
New Revision: 221814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-04-01 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/56100
* pt.c (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Creekmore
---
Apparently, PR target/52484 covered one of the cases in avr.md, but not the
general case of a call to __xload_{1,2,3}. I think adding (clobber (reg:MOVMODE
22)) there as well might fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65628
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
OK, thanks. I also cannot reproduce them with today's gcc.
I will build an --enable-checking=valgrind compiler and double check.
If this turns up nothing I will close all these bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65628
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Can you take a look Vladimir?
> There are also PR65629, PR65617 and PR65613, which might be dups.
Hi, Markus. I've looked at these bugs. I can not get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
Bug ID: 65657
Summary: [avr] read from __memx address space tramples argument
to following function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
Bug ID: 65656
Summary: __builtin_constant_p should be constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65655
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r221707 or r221706.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Seems to be a regression with -flto only? I also see EON regressing without
> -flto.
Yes, the inlining is cross file.
>
> http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-megrez-head-64/index.html
Saw that one too. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65655
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Component|san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65655
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65655
Bug ID: 65655
Summary: [5 Regression][UBSAN] ICE in speculative_call_info, at
cgraph.c:1151
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-inval
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog missing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 1 16:36:50 2015
New Revision: 221810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65646
* decl.c (grokvardecl): Don't call check_explicit_spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65541
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
For the record, my results with trunk:
$ gfc pr65541.f90
$ ./a.out
$ cat some.dat
&SOME
A%T2%T1%I= 0,
A%T2%J= 0,
A%K= 0,
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65541
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to John from comment #8)
> Hi,
>
> It seems that some testing was required after all. With the latest gcc
> snapshot from Debian (20150329-1) I still get the same output from the test
> code:
>
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65653
--- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org ---
runs well with Intel C++ Windows/linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65654
Bug ID: 65654
Summary: [5 Regression] 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65653
--- Comment #1 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 35205
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35205&action=edit
pre-processed C source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65653
Bug ID: 65653
Summary: cilkplus reducer ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
namespace std
{
struct B { enum { __value }; };
template struct C
{
static _Iterator _S_base (_Iterator p1) { return p1; }
};
template using _RequireInputIter = int;
template _Iterator __n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Please see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg4.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg5.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00013.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #6)
> As far as I understand this issue does LTO now handle stuff used from object
> file different to prior versions. I add Jan. He might be able to give us
> some more p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65541
--- Comment #8 from John ---
Hi,
It seems that some testing was required after all. With the latest gcc
snapshot from Debian (20150329-1) I still get the same output from the test
code:
$ ll `which gfortran-5.0 `
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root staff 35 Feb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
--- Comment #9 from David Rivshin ---
I think the extra newline is the result of maybe_print_line() being invoked
when trying to peek past a newline in the input.
#0 maybe_print_line_1 (src_loc=134, stream=0x361e3b8800 <_IO_2_1_stdout_>) at
c-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #34 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created a codereview: https://codereview.appspot.com/217620043
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65647
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65651
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Jakub,
Thanks for your comments.
We will try to fix this issue ourselves.
Best regards.
Yuri.
P.S. Note that icc does not produce such redundant cmp with zero.
2015-04-01 16:10 GMT+03:00 jakub at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (%edi) etc. in 64-bit mode should be assembled as addr32 (0x67) prefix on the
> instruction. If Solaris assembler doesn't handle it, guess firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reducing...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65651
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65652
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Could anyone please reduce the original testcase again (but please make sure
that cc1plus has the r221808 fix)? If not, I'll try to get to that tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 1 13:08:05 2015
New Revision: 221808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65554
* class.c (finish_struct): Require that the second
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com ---
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:44 PM, terry.guo at arm dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
>
> Bug ID: 65648
>Summary: [5 Regression] Bad code due
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:44 PM, terry.guo at arm dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
>
> Bug ID: 65648
>Summary: [5 Regression] Bad code due to IRA fails to recognize
> the clobber in parallel
>Product: gcc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65652
Bug ID: 65652
Summary: defaulted default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65651
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35203&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65651
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35202
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35202&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to compile with -O2 flag only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65651
Bug ID: 65651
Summary: Redundant cmp with zero instruction in loop for x86
target.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Lambda functions aren't really nested functions in the tree-nested.c sense, but
still are so closely related to the functions they are nested in that IMHO it
would be desirable not to split them off into sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65650
Bug ID: 65650
Summary: CCP does not propgate copies
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #34 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Pierre Ossman from comment #32)
> I can understand that. But in that case why keep the gcc unwinder on OS X?
Mainly inertia. The more important issue is weaning darwin off of the
compatibility u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44669
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
--- Comment #2 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
gcc was based on the gcc-5.0.0-20150319 tarball generated from the gcc branch
redhat/gcc-5-branch plus the patches for the Fedora rawhide gcc and cross-gcc.
Configuration was:
CC=gcc \
CXX=g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Created attachment 35201
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35201&action=edit
Assembler output from larger reduced case
Here is the assembler output from the larger reduced cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
Bug ID: 65649
Summary: gcc generates overlarge constants for
microblaze-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65624
--- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Apr 1 11:18:03 2015
New Revision: 221807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-01 Max Ostapenko
PR target/65624
gcc/
* confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Bug ID: 65648
Summary: [5 Regression] Bad code due to IRA fails to recognize
the clobber in parallel
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61978
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65647
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
REGS, orig=17825, freq=328, tfirst=17825,
tfreq=328)...
The gcc version is "gcc version 5.0.0 20150401 (experimental) (GCC)".
The issue happens after this commit:
commit e0d2c8640c504ecd83291c4e008cb91d17df3e0d
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri May 30 07:35:47 2014 +
gcc/
ira.c (ira_ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65557
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #51 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #48)
>
> Maybe we regressed optimizing GCC itself? (does not bootstrapping
> but compiling gcc 5 with gcc 4.9 improve things?)
No, gcc configured with "--d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #49 from Jan Hubicka ---
I did some experiments about the increase of early inlining insns:
- Early optimizers of both 4.9 and mainline process 9819 functions.
- At release_ssa time, the statement count is 8%
- at ipa-cp, we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #48 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
>
> --- Comment #46 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r213641.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #47 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
>
> --- Comment #42 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Sorry, accidental message.
>
> It is 69->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r213641. Reducing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> impossible, and the addr32 pieces in e.g. ix86_decompose_address would need
> to be disabled based on some configure macro.
In this case, a better place for the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #33)
> On 03/31/2015 05:25 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
> >
> > --- Comment #30 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #33 from Pierre Ossman ---
Created attachment 35198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35198&action=edit
Remove unwinder on OS X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #32 from Pierre Ossman ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #31)
>
> You might check out the original posting on this issue...
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-September/025900.html
>
I believe that was on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Daniel Richard G. from comment #0)
> No such error occurs when I compile this source on a Linux system, so this
> may have to do with the Solaris assembler.
This is perfectly valid addr32 prefixe
96 matches
Mail list logo
