When I compile qt334 with the actual snapshot of gcc41 (20050813) I get an ICE
with -O3 -funsafe-math-optimizations. This ICE is new, the snapshot from last
week is working.
Michael Cieslinski
g++41k -c -O3 -funsafe-math-optimizations -o gllandscape.o gllandscape.ii
opengl/gllandscape.cpp: In
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-08-17 07:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=9510)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9510&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23433
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-08-17 07:24 ---
The new patch bootstraps on x86_64 but it does not fix the ICEs from pr23352
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
07:29 ---
Subject: Bug 21574
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-17 07:27:49
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-ccp.c
gcc
When I compile gsl1.5 with the actual snapshot of gcc41 (20050813) I get an ICE
with -O2. This ICE is new, the snapshot from last week is working.
Michael Cieslinski
gcc41k -O2 -c csyr2k.i -o csyr2k.o
csyr2k.c: In function 'cblas_csyr2k':
csyr2k.c:10: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-08-17 08:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=9511)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9511&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23434
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
08:03 ---
This small testcase is a typical case of the optimizations that CSE path
following catches on PowerPC:
unsigned outcnt;
extern void flush_outbuf(void);
void
bi_windup(unsigned char *outbuf,
I have the following error when compiling a file from linux kernel (attached).
Command line:
m68k-elf-gcc -w -O1 -c pr.c
Output:
pr.c: In function 'nfs_statfs':
pr.c:8757: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 42 40 43 3 (set (mem/s/j:DI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 26 virtual-stack-vars)
(cons
--- Additional Comments From loki at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17 08:12
---
Created an attachment (id=9512)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9512&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23435
I have the following internal compiler error at -O3.
Command line:
arm-elf-gcc -c -O3 -mthumb pr.c
Output:
pr.c: In function 'nrrdAxisInfoGet':
pr.c:1934: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn:HI 59 275 240 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 2 r2)
(reg/f:SI 13 sp)) [2 S
--- Additional Comments From loki at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17 08:27
---
Created an attachment (id=9513)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9513&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23436
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-08-17 08:50 ---
Use --with-comment instead.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RE
Compilers without errors using
gcc 3.3
MSVC 7.1
MSVC 8.0
Comeau 4.3.3
--
Summary: error: ... cannot appear in a constant-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
C
s=c,c++,f95 --enable-checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050817 (experimental)
/private/icg126/opt/src/gcc/g95/./gcc/cc1 -quiet -v -I.
-I/private/icg126/opt/src/gcc/gcc -I/private/icg126/opt/src/gcc/gcc/.
-I/private/icg126/opt/src/gcc/gcc/../include
-I/private/icg126/opt/src/gcc/
--- Additional Comments From jmihalicza at graphisoft dot com 2005-08-17
09:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=9514)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9514&action=view)
source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
--- Additional Comments From jmihalicza at graphisoft dot com 2005-08-17
09:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=9515)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9515&action=view)
command (error) output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
--- Additional Comments From jmihalicza at graphisoft dot com 2005-08-17
09:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=9516)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9516&action=view)
command that produces the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
--- Additional Comments From jmihalicza at graphisoft dot com 2005-08-17
09:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=9517)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9517&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
--- Additional Comments From jmihalicza at graphisoft dot com 2005-08-17
09:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=9518)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9518&action=view)
assembler source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
This invalid tescase causes segfault in strcmp() called from
annotate_with_file_line() in both new C and C++ parsers:
--
f(){for
--
--
Summary: [4.0/4.1 regression] "f(){for" crashes the compiler
Product: gcc
Versio
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-08-17 09:54
---
The code produced by crosscompiling from i686 for x86_86, I got functionally
equal asm for 32bit and 64bit mode:
gcc -O2 -m64:
.LFB128:
subq$24, %rsp
.LCFI0:
leaq20(%rsp), %rax
le
--- Additional Comments From jmihalicza at graphisoft dot com 2005-08-17
10:16 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Compilers without errors using
^ forget
Oops, I meant: Compiles...
>gcc 3.3
>MSVC 7.1
>MSVC 8.0
>Comeau 4.3.3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-08-17 10:16 ---
confirmed, reduced C tescase:
--
cblas_csyr2k (int N, void *A, int lda, float *B, int ldb, float *C, int k)
{
int i, j
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-08-17 10:21 ---
I could not reproduce this one, can you try current cvs HEAD ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23433
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-08-17 10:38 ---
Sorry I can't. I sit behind a firewall with only http/https enabled, ssh is
blocked.
Michael
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23433
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
10:48 ---
Confirmed.
Since the C++ version is a little different, I'll open a separate PR
for the C++ version.
The C version only affects mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
Since GCC 4.0.0 the C++ frontend ICEs on code like
void foo() { for
But unlike PR23439 the C++ parser also ICEs on
void foo() { for (;;)
or
void foo() { if ()
or
void foo() { while ()
--
Summary: [4.0/4.1 regression] "void f(){for" crashes the C++
fronten
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||23440
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23439
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|23439 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23440
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
10:59 ---
Confirming this myself since it was already reported in PR23439
by Serge Belyshev.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
11:23 ---
*** Bug 23433 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
11:23 ---
This is most probably a duplicate of PR23391.
So I'm closing it now.
You might want to test the patch there to see if it fixes your problem.
If it is not fixed, please reopen the bug.
*** This bug has bee
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
11:30 ---
This is probably the same failure as in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-08/msg00436.html
This has been fixed in the meantime.
But to bootstrap a new compiler you should not use
mainline from 20050813 - 200
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot
||org, java-prs at gcc dot gnu
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|i486-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|i486-pc-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet|i486-pc-linux-gnu |
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
11:51 ---
Use "make bootstrap" unless you really know what are doing.
This has been been fixed already so closing.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
11:59 ---
It looks like it fails on all 32bit powerpcs:
ppc-linux testresults here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00957.html
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:11 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:19 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|Insn does not satisfy its |[4.1 Regression] Insn does
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|Unrecognizable insn (in |[4.1 Regression]
|extract_
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:23 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:23 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:23 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:24 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:24 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Interpreted byte code does |Interpreted byte code does
|not run properly on ppc |not run properly on ppc64
http://g
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:29 ---
Now, on mainline, I get:
test:
pushl %ebp
movl%esp, %ebp
fldl.LC0
fdivl 8(%ebp)
leave
ret
--
What|Removed |A
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:36 ---
A solution could be to count the number of global register vars, and decrease
the number of regparm'd parameters accordingly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22362
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:37 ---
This has been fixed on the mainline now.
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:43 ---
For the last one, we don't have an un-CSE just yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirme
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:45 ---
Subject: Bug 21254
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-17 12:45:04
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:56 ---
Committing to 4.0 branch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:57 ---
Subject: Bug 17845
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-17 12:57:08
Modified files:
libjava: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:57 ---
Subject: Bug 21436
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-17 12:57:08
Modified files:
libjava: Change
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
12:58 ---
Fix committed to 4.0 branch as part of fixing PR20155
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to w
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
13:06 ---
what about times on 4.1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
When turning on optimizations (-O), the following code produces a wrong
"control may reach end of
non-void function" warning
inline float f(float x)
{
if ((x > 3.1415927) || (x<0))
return f(-x);
else
return 0;
}
float g(void)
{
return f(0);
}
--
Summary: wrong "contro
Attempting to build a cross-compiler for m68k-unknown-elf on x86_64-linux-gnu
fails with an internal error:
/home/hamish/projects/rockbox/gcc-4/orig/build/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/hamish/projects/rockbox/gcc-4/orig/build/gcc/
-B/home/hamish/m68k-amd64/m68k-elf/bin/ -B/home/hamish/m68k-amd64/m68k-elf/lib/
Hi,
The generic interface below is not being resolved correctly. The code looks
similar to bug fortran/23371, but I think it's a different cause. Version is
Debian 4.0.1-2.
Thanks,
Daniel.
module SYSTEM_MODULE
implicit none
interface unit_conversion_factor_
module procedure unit
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
14:56 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
Bug 17574 depends on bug 20155, which changed state.
Bug 20155 Summary: [4.0 Regression] libgcj build fails with "execvp: /bin/sh:
Argument list too long"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20155
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21436
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23442
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:01 ---
Fixed already in 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:01 ---
This is still a bug on the mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23371
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:08 ---
Another report is in PR 22001 for m68k-rtems but I don't know what host it is
on.
This might be a bug in the target files not understanding HWI as 64bits.
--
What|Removed
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||23442
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22001
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:10 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 already by doing the warnings for all functions with flow
control instead of just trying
adhack doing it.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.2
Version|4.0.0 |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17845
For a code:
//
void board_init_f (ulong bootflag)
{
register volatile gd_t *gd asm ("r29");
bd_t *bd;
ulong len, addr, addr_sp;
gd_t *id;
init_fnc_t **init_fnc_ptr;
gd=0xff55ff55;
__asm__ __volatile__("or 29, 29, 29");
memset ((void *) gd, 0, sizeof (gd_t));
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|powerpc-eabi-gcc|powerpc-eabi-unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|powerpc-eabi-unknown|powerpc-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:47 ---
Of course we need the preprocessed source for this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23444
--- Additional Comments From oakad at yahoo dot com 2005-08-17 15:50
---
Preprocessed source:
//--
void board_init_f (ulong bootflag)
{
register volatile gd_t *gd asm ("r29");
bd_t *bd;
ulong len, addr, addr_sp;
gd_t *id;
init_fnc_
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:55 ---
Reduced new testcase:
struct fpos {
fpos(int __pos) {}
};
struct g {
g();
~g();
};
fpos seekoff(int b, int c)
{
g __buf;
if (b != -1 && c >= 0)
return fpos(-1);
else
return fpos(-1);
}
T
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:55 ---
This is a dup of bug 20624, see comment #13. I wonder why useless did not
remove the goto.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20624 ***
--
What|Removed |A
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:55 ---
*** Bug 20681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20624
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
15:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Preprocessed source:
Of course that does not compile:
t.c:1: error: parse error before "bootflag"
t.c: In function `board_init_f':
t.c:3: error: syntax error before '*' token
t.c:5
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-08-17 15:59 ---
I reopen the bug because there is an other source file with the same ICE which
is not fixed by http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23391#c5
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:06 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23433
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-08-17 16:10 ---
3.4.5 4.0.2 4.1.0 3.4->4.0 (%)4.0->4.1 (%)
hashes100.c:
O0 1.561.591.572.2-1.4
O1 2.544.234.49 66.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:25 ---
Confirmed reduced testcase:
double transport_sumexp(int numexp)
{
int k,j;
double xk1 = 1.0;
for(k=1; k<=numexp;k++)
for(j=1;j<=3;j++)
xk1 += 1.0;
return xk1;
}
--
What|Rem
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From oakad at yahoo dot com 2005-08-17 16:31
---
Sorry, I misunderstood you. The function is a part of a large project (namely,
u-boot-1.1.3).
What about this:
//--
char str1[]="123456789";
char str2[10];
int
main()
{
I'm getting the ICE below when trying to compile the file fs/asfs/extents.c
Linux kernel 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 with a current CVS HEAD gcc.
As soon as I remove _one_ of the three options "-O1 -ftree-vrp
-fdelete-null-pointer-checks" the problem disappears.
<-- snip -->
...
$ /TMP/test/gcc/install/bin
--- Additional Comments From bunk at stusta dot de 2005-08-17 16:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=9520)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9520&action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23445
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work||4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:38 ---
No, the type of the local register variable is a pointer to a volatile "char"
(or struct) and not a volative
register.
You want:
register char*volatile cptr asm ("r29");
With that it works correctly.
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:42 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23445
--- Additional Comments From oakad at yahoo dot com 2005-08-17 16:47
---
Thanks, I will check it tomorrow. However, this behavior is different from the
gcc 3, documented nowhere and broke (in a very bad way) a large program with
good reliability record (so far). Can this be mentioned s
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
16:49 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks, I will check it tomorrow. However, this behavior is different from
> the
> gcc 3, documented nowhere and broke (in a very bad way) a large program with
> good reliabilit
I'm trying to declare an internal subprogram array argument size using a local
variable inherited from the encompassing scope.
I think the declaration looks legal, but I'm not 100% sure. I just know that
many other compilers accepts it without warnings but gfortran says it's an
error.
--
Compiling the following program with g++ 3.4.4 produces the following warning
#include
main()
{
std::cout << "??(" << 1234 << ")";
}
c.cc:4:15: warning: trigraph ??( ignored, use -trigraphs to enable.
--
Summary: False trigraph warning about literal string.
Product: gcc
--
What|Removed |Added
Version|3.3.4 |3.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23447
--- Additional Comments From enok at lysator dot liu dot se 2005-08-17
17:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=9521)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9521&action=view)
Testcase that is accepted by other compilers, but rejected by gfortran.
The output from gfortran follows
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
17:08 ---
No ??( for [ is a trigraph. trigraphs are standard C++. We don't enable by
default because they get in
the way.
Use -Wno-trigraphs to remove the warning.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
17:58 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
struct buffer_head {
char *b_data;
};
void asfs_deletebnode( struct buffer_head *bhsec) {
if (bhsec == 0) {
void *bnc2 = (void *) bhsec->b_data;
if (bnc
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
