--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-09-30 07:49
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> No, the RA is supposed to move the divisions so that things don't spill.
>
> Can you also try the patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg01555.html
Yes, this patch f
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
08:14 ---
> This is really a RA issue rather than anything else.
No, this is an issue with the recip pass, that creates an absurd register
pressure -- it is quite expected that the RA cannot deal with that, especiall
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
08:22 ---
Uros, it seems from your comments that POVray is also 7.43% faster with the
rewritten recip pass, than without any recip pass:
time for no recip pass (comment #4): 1.43 * 100 / 10.05 = 14.22
time for new re
--- Additional Comments From kostikbel at ukr dot net 2005-09-30 08:25
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I checked in the fix to the 4.0 branch and the trunk.
>
Tom,
could you, please, commit the fix into 3.4 branc, so that
it will be included in 3.4.5 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
08:41 ---
Subject: Bug 23953
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-30 08:39:57
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/inclu
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23953
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
08:51 ---
Now committed to 4.0 branch as well.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
08:54 ---
Subject: Bug 21419
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-30 08:54:00
Modified files:
gcc: Change
We have code that works with g++ 3.2.3 (i386-redhat-linux) that no longer works
on 4.
#include
using namespace std;
template
class Hide {
public:
Hide() {
a=new Hidden();
}
class Hidden;
private:
Hidden *a;
};
template<>
class Hide::Hidden
{
public:
Hidden();
};
template
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/327301]
seen with 4.0.2, works with 3.4 and HEAD
$ gcc -c gcc-inline-ice.c
gcc-inline-ice.c: In function 'rt2x00_ioctl_set_wap':
gcc-inline-ice.c:31: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'is_valid_ether_addr' differ in signedness
gcc-inline-ice.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Known to fail||4.0.2
Known to work|
--- Additional Comments From doko at debian dot org 2005-09-30 09:06
---
Created an attachment (id=9842)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9842&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24140
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
||debian dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
09:20 ---
Please send the entire pre-processed file, not just a fragment of it. Use the
'create a new attachment' link on the bugzilla page (see URL below).
You are also going to have to explain what you think is w
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
09:21 ---
Confirmed. Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00484.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
While tracking down a VRP miscompilation in unzip inflate.c I came along this
one.
--
Summary: VRP ICE in compare_name_with_value, at tree-vrp.c:2965
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severi
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
09:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=9843)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9843&action=view)
testcase
Testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24141
: 1.85 * 100 / 12.04 = 15.36
The time above is without -ffast-math, with current recip pass enabled
I have done some more measusrement, with gcc version 4.1.0 20050930 and your
patch commited. First results are with recip pass disabled ("&& 0" was added to
gate_cse_reciprocals()). T
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||24141
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23968
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||23968
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24141
For the following testcase reduced from inflate.c
int bar(void);
int foobar(void);
static unsigned dbits = 6;
int foo(void)
{
int retval;
unsigned bd;
unsigned nl;
bd = dbits;
retval = bar();
if (retval == 1)
retval = 0;
if (bd == 0 && nl > 257)
retval = 1;
if (retval)
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||24142
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23968
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
10:13 ---
Confirmed by visual inspection of the assembly code.
What seems to be happening is this:
After if conversion we have (pseudo code)
a ? alpha.style = 1
a ? ...
!a ? alpha.style = 2
!a ? ...
inlined_memcp
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
10:15 ---
To calculate the numbers I gave you, I took the sum of the percentages in the
profiling snippets, and the cumulative time for the last line of the profiling
snippets. Then pct * 100 / time obviously gives
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
10:19 ---
Slightly reduced:
int bar(void);
int foobar(void);
extern unsigned bd;
int foo(void)
{
int retval = bar();
if (retval == 1)
retval = 0;
if (bd == 0)
retval = 1;
if (retval)
return retval
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-09-30 10:38 ---
Subject: Re: x86 machine builtins do not have any const/pure attributes set
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
> 04:12 ---
> Making this depend on the "need a new r
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-30 10:55 ---
// reduced testcase, compile with -O2. Also, with --disable-checking
// gcc produces wrong code.
void abort (void);
int i;
void g (void)
{
i = 1;
}
void f (int a, int b)
{
int c = 0;
if (
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
10:58 ---
testing a fix
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rearns
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
10:59 ---
This is a bug in the arm backend.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimizatio
We have code that works with g++ 3.2.3 (i386-redhat-linux) that no longer works
on 4.
#include
using namespace std;
template
class Hide {
public:
Hide() {
a=new Hidden();
}
class Hidden;
private:
Hidden *a;
};
template<>
class Hide::Hidden
{
public:
Hidden();
};
template
--- Additional Comments From mspencer at ndsuk dot com 2005-09-30 11:43
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24139 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Additional Comments From mspencer at ndsuk dot com 2005-09-30 11:43
---
*** Bug 24143 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24139
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
11:46 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22052 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
11:46 ---
*** Bug 24140 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-30 11:52 ---
introduced by this patch:
2005-06-01 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR 14341, PR 21332, PR 20701, PR 21029, PR 21086, PR 21090
PR 21289, PR 21348, PR 21367, PR 21368, PR 214
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-30 11:54 ---
This is really a dup of bug 24141.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24141 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-30 11:54 ---
*** Bug 24142 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24141
--
Bug 23968 depends on bug 24142, which changed state.
Bug 24142 Summary: [4.1 regression] VRP miscompiles unzip inflate.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24142
What|Old Value |New Value
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
11:54 ---
Comeau C++ also rejects this:
"ComeauTest.c", line 9: error: incomplete type is not allowed
a=new Hidden();
^
"ComeauTest.c", line 26: error: "Hide::Hidden::Hidden()" is not an e
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-09-30 11:55 ---
// testcase where we produce wrong code even with checking enabled
// (taken from bug 24142)
void abort (void);
int f (int a, int b)
{
if (a == 1)
a = 0;
if (b == 0)
a = 1;
if (a !
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
12:28 ---
Here is a list of all the differences between the two profiles. r is the time
with recip, nr is without, nr-r is the difference.
r nr nr-rfunc
1.281.500.22pov::sbisect(int,
0.84
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-09-30 12:44
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Here is a list of all the differences between the two profiles. r is the time
> with recip, nr is without, nr-r is the difference.
>
> r nr nr-rfunc
> 1.281.500.
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
12:46 ---
Hmmm... vrp_meet merges ~[1,1] and [1,1] to [0,0]:
3489 vrp_meet (&vr_result, &vr_arg);
(gdb) p vr_result
$21 = {type = VR_ANTI_RANGE, min = 0x2a958a8750, max = 0x2a958a8750, equiv =
0xe5d0
--- Additional Comments From paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
2005-09-30 12:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Massive performance
regression for -ffast-math due to the recip tree pass
>It looks to me that header is reversed! pov::sbisect is 1.50 _with_ recip.
>
ehm, right.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
12:56 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Does the code quality regression still hold even after libcalls was
> removed? These definitly was one of reason for ineffencities in
> pure/const function call code generation.
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
12:59 ---
range_includes_zero_p (~[1,1]) is false:
(gdb) step
range_includes_zero_p (vr=0x7fbfffedd0) at tree-vrp.c:606
606 gcc_assert (vr->type != VR_UNDEFINED
(gdb) p vr
$43 = (value_range_t *) 0x7fbfffe
When compiling the given peace of fortran code I will get a segmentation fault.
With g77 there have been no problems on it.
The problem is independent of the used optimization level.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/maint_gcc4/tools> /usr/local/bin/gfortran-4.0 -g -v
-save-temps -c test.f
Using built-in sp
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:06 ---
Confirmed backtrace:
#0 0x080b4e39 in set_string (block=0xbfe37bb8, postblock=0xbfe37bb0,
var=Variable "var" is not
available.
)
at /home/peshtigo/pinskia/src/gnu/gcc/src/gcc/fortran/trans-io.c:488
#1
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:10 ---
Testing fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:11 ---
Have a patch that may work. Steven, you still working on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24141
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:16 ---
hum, strange. i don't get absolutely any difference before and after recip on
sbisect (and the family of functions it invokes, i.e. polyeval, regula_falsa and
numchanges) in polysolv.cpp from povray 3.6.1.
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30 13:24
---
Jim's patch certainly worked for me. But the question is if we can do more.
If not anti-range and limit_vr->min == limit_vr->max, then we at least can
create anti-range from TYPE_MIN_VALUE to TYPE_MAX_VALUE.
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-30 13:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
On September 30, 2005 09:24, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 2005-09-30 13:24 --- Jim's patch certainly worked for me. But
> the question is if w
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:31 ---
Yes. I have a patch too, but it doesn't work yet ;-) So if you could
attach yours or mail it to me, that'd be nice.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24141
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|2004-05-20 23:41:11 |2005-09-30 13:33:55
date|
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2005-05-23 17:52:49 |2005-09-30 13:38:50
date|
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-09-30 13:38 ---
Subject: Re: x86 machine builtins do not have any const/pure attributes set
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
> 12:56 ---
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Does the c
For the following testcase, the call to mpfr_test_init is optimized away
at -O1 and up. Which is of course bogous(?).
void mpfr_test_init (void);
void mpfr_test_init ()
{
do { int __cw = (0x037f & (~0x300)) | 0x200; __asm__ ("fldcw %0" : : "m"
(__cw)); } while (0);
}
int
main (void)
{
mpfr_t
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:43 ---
Fixing value_inside_range to understand the difference between a VR_RANGE
and a VR_ANTI_RANGE exposes other problems (most likely related to PR23604)
which Diego is trying to fix. So I'm assigning this bug
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:46 ---
volatile is needed here.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:46 ---
I'm not so sure that this is a dup. Bug 24141 is a wrong-code problem,
and this is an ICE. Just the fact that the same test case triggers both
bugs doesn't mean they are the same problem.
--
http
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:48 ---
the ICE:
t.cc:7: internal compiler error: in process_init_constructor_array, at
cp/typeck2.c:786
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> f
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:49 ---
I think this was caused by:
2005-07-20 Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make CONSTRUCTOR use VEC to store initializers.
* call.c (convert_default_arg): Update call to digest_init.
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
13:58 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> volatile is needed here.
No, the manual says:
An @code{asm} instruction without any output operands will be treated
identically to a volatile @code{asm} instruction.
So this ins
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-09-30 13:58
---
Looking at the differences, the result of recip looks _really_ good!
Currently, there seems to be some problems, i.e.:
double pov::f_polytubes(double*, unsigned int) (ptr, D.22748)
- D.22787_46 = -6.28318530717
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Optimizes away FPU control |[4.0 Regression] Optimizes
|word store |away FPU control word store
http:/
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19341 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:04 ---
*** Bug 24146 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 13:58 +, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
> 13:58 ---
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > volatile is needed here.
>
> No, the manual says:
> An @code{asm} instruction without any output
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:07 ---
I still say this is invalid.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:07 ---
Subject: Re: Optimizes away FPU control word
store
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 13:58 +, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:10 ---
Richard Earnshaw is right; this is not a dup of PR19341.
volatile-ness is about optimizing away the asm statement itself; PR19341 is
about optimizing away code needed by the asm.
Reopening.
rth, should th
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
2005-09-30 14:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Massive performance
regression for -ffast-math due to the recip tree pass
>Currently, there seems to be some problems, i.e.:
>
>double pov::f_polytubes(double*, un
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:17 ---
Hmm, the comment in c-typeck.c:
/* Build an asm-expr, whose components are a STRING, some OUTPUTS,
some INPUTS, and some CLOBBERS. The latter three may be NULL.
SIMPLE indicates whether there was anyt
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 14:07 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
> 14:07 ---
> I still say this is invalid.
>
well, that just makes you wrong.
the docs clearly say it's supposed to be treated as volatile.
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Optimizes away
FPU control word store
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 14:07 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gn
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30 14:24
---
.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:34 ---
Subject: Bug 21430
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-30 14:33:57
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-operands.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
14:35 ---
4.0 has also the latent bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-09-30 14:37
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> >Currently, there seems to be some problems, i.e.:
> >Function double pov::POVFPU_RunDefault(pov::FUNCTION)
> >
> > :;
> >- r0_1660 = r0_89 / r0_89;
> >+ reciptmp.492_84 = 1.0e+0 / r
--- Additional Comments From paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
2005-09-30 14:40 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Massive performance
regression for -ffast-math due to the recip tree pass
>>>Function double pov::POVFPU_RunDefault(pov::FUNCTION)
>>>
>>>:;
>>>- r0_1660 = r0_89
--
Bug 19097 depends on bug 21430, which changed state.
Bug 21430 Summary: [4.1 Regression] Quadratic behavior with constant
initializers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21430
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-09-30 14:41
---
patch checked in
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
A patch was already created and applied for classpath/gcc 4.1. It needs to be
backported to the 4.0 branch.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2005-09/msg00053.html
--
Summary: [gcc 4.0 only] Deadlock in java.net.URLClassLoader
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
A patch was already created and applied for gcc 4.1. It needs to be
backported to the 4.0 branch.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg01605.html
--
Summary: Linux PPC64 libffi -vs- long double return
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UN
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Linux PPC64 libffi -vs- long|[gcc 4.0 only] Linux PPC64
|double return |libffi -vs- long double
--- Additional Comments From mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30 14:49
---
Two bugs added to be backported:
- Linux PPC64 libffi -vs- long double return
- Deadlock in java.net.URLClassLoader
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||24018
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24148
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||24018
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24147
--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-09-30 14:53
---
I'm fine with the releasessaname.diff.txt
you aren't doing anything different than we normally do now. I prefer this over
adding a flag to bsi_remove for sure.
I looked into an alternative which follows up on
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-09-
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-09-
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Summary|[4.1 Regres
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
15:51 ---
Maybe an Ada maintainer could at least confirm the bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21717
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
15:53 ---
Subject: Bug 23182
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-30 15:52:56
Modified files:
gcc/java : Change
--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-09-30 15:54
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] Endless stream of exceptions ( c95085a, c95085b
and c95086a)
> Maybe an Ada maintainer could at least confirm the bug?
AFAIK, this is ia64 specific, so requires an ia64 set up.
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
