--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 08:31 ---
Another testcase which I ran into while reducing the bootstrap failure:
template class basic_istream;
template
struct basic_istream
{
~basic_istream(){}
};
class istrstream : public basic_istream
{
~istrstrea
I need to build on linux but I get a segmentation fault (core dump) so I try on
Sun and I get the same behavior but cc works fine.
GCC version:
Reading specs from ../lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.3/specs
Configured with: ./configure
--prefix=/free/GNU_BUILD/G1/devenv/distrib/i686/2.4.7-10/gcc
--- Comment #1 from mohamed_selim at mentor dot com 2006-07-16 09:34
---
Created an attachment (id=11895)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11895&action=view)
file that whn compiled gives the crash.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28393
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 09:38 ---
In a way that struct is big, I bet the compiler is really just running out of
stack space.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28393
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 09:40 ---
I also think most of the stack space issues have been fixed for 3.3, 3.4, 4.0,
and 4.1. You might should try a 4.1.1 compiler as 3.2.x (and 3.x) are no
longer being maintained.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 09:41 ---
Also this works for me with 4.0.2 and 3.3.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from mohamed_selim at mentor dot com 2006-07-16 09:42
---
Subject: RE: gcc gives a core dump when compiling a C program, cc works fine.
Is there any option to increase this stack size?
-Original Message-
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 09:45 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: RE: gcc gives a core dump when compiling a C program, cc works fine.
>
> Is there any option to increase this stack size?
That is an offtopic question really but using limit or
See attached code example.
When using dotted notation to call Setup() (as in first line in Test
procedure), the compiler doesn't say anything, the Setup() procedure actually
called is the one from the package Pkg.
When using traditional notation (as in second line in Test procedure), the
compiler
--- Comment #1 from kafka dot fr at laposte dot net 2006-07-16 09:55
---
Created an attachment (id=11896)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11896&action=view)
Source files to illustrate the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28394
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 10:12 ---
Subject: Bug 27980
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Jul 16 10:11:57 2006
New Revision: 115496
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115496
Log:
2006-07-16 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fo
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 10:12 ---
Fixed on mainline and 4.1. Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-16 13:21
---
I have a similer optimization problem with this tiny function.
void foo(int *a)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
a[0] += a[1];
}
All gcc 4.x I tried generate load and store i
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 13:52 ---
The test case in comment #11 looks like a classic store motion opportunity to
me. GCC 3.3 performs the store motion, GCC 4.2 r115467 does not.
Zdenek, I thought tree-ssa-lim should be able to do store motion in loo
--- Comment #8 from felix dot nawothnig at t-online dot de 2006-07-16
14:23 ---
Don't know much about GCC internals but shouldn't this be a very trivial
enhancement? I know that this is FOSS so not to annoy anyone, just wondering
why it's still open after >1 year.
(In case someone is w
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:02 ---
Subject: Bug 28201
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 15:01:59 2006
New Revision: 115499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115499
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:02 ---
Subject: Bug 20844
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 15:01:59 2006
New Revision: 115499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115499
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:02 ---
Subject: Bug 20893
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 15:01:59 2006
New Revision: 115499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115499
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:02 ---
Subject: Bug 28384
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 15:01:59 2006
New Revision: 115499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115499
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:39 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Jul 16 15:38:59 2006
New Revision: 115501
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115501
Log:
2006-07-16 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
32-bit unsigned division A/B by compile-time constant B can be optimized by
replacing it with multiplication and shift right. For example, division by 10
is done like this: (A*3435973837) >> 35, in i386 asm:
movl$-858993459, %ecx
movl8(%ebp), %eax
mull%ecx
--- Comment #1 from vda dot linux at googlemail dot com 2006-07-16 15:45
---
Created an attachment (id=11898)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11898&action=view)
find_fast_div.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28395
--- Comment #2 from vda dot linux at googlemail dot com 2006-07-16 15:46
---
Created an attachment (id=11899)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11899&action=view)
fast_div_bench.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28395
--- Comment #3 from vda dot linux at googlemail dot com 2006-07-16 15:46
---
Created an attachment (id=11900)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11900&action=view)
find_fast_div_random.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28395
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:50 ---
GCC already does something like this.
For /10, GCC produces:
f:
movl$-858993459, %eax
mull4(%esp)
shrl$3, %edx
movl%edx, %eax
ret
Maybe I don't understand what
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:52 ---
In fact we do it also for signed integers (PPC asm this time):
_f:
lis r0,0x
srawi r2,r3,31
ori r0,r0,26215
mulhw r3,r3,r0
srawi r3,r3,2
subf r3,r2,r3
blr
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 15:54 ---
This has been done in GCC since at least 1994 revision 7598 in the SVN.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28395
--- Comment #7 from vda dot linux at googlemail dot com 2006-07-16 16:22
---
Oh my.
It looks that use of -Os played a joke on me. gcc 3.4.3 -Os uses a division
instruction, even though it results in slower and _also bigger_ code.
Maybe it makes sense to enable this optimization for -O
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 16:51 ---
No. At -Os, we care about smaller code. Unless that sequence of insns with
muls and shifts is smaller than a div, we should produce the div at -Os. And
as far as I can see, the div will always be smaller.
Not a bug
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 20844
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 28384
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 28353
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 28201
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 20903
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 25097
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:17 ---
Subject: Bug 20893
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jul 16 17:17:04 2006
New Revision: 115502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115502
Log:
2006-07-16 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:18 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:18 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:19 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:20 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:20 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:21 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:22 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 17:24 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.2
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from vda dot linux at googlemail dot com 2006-07-16 18:47
---
The test program below shows that in this case doing division with div insn
takes more instructions than with mul+shift.
Also mul+shift path has absolutely useless "movl %edx, %eax" insn, shaving that
will mak
--- Comment #10 from vda dot linux at googlemail dot com 2006-07-16 18:54
---
gcc-4.1.1 differs only by insterting one more useless insn:
movl$-858993459, %eax
mull8(%esp)
movl%edx, %eax
+ xorl%edx, %edx
shrl$3, %eax
mov
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 20:17 ---
Subject: Bug 28370
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Jul 16 20:17:20 2006
New Revision: 115503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115503
Log:
PR c++/28370
* decl2.c (note_vague_linkage_var):
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 20:19 ---
Subject: Bug 28390
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Jul 16 20:19:27 2006
New Revision: 115504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115504
Log:
PR fortran/28390
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_
--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-16 20:27 ---
it works for me with 4.1.2 revision 115366.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28210
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 20:36 ---
You could try it yourself. But - do you have a testcase that shows how macros
and inline functions come into play here?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
: Expected REAL for item 2 in formatted transfer, got
INTEGER
(F10.4)
^
$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../../gcc/trunk/configure --prefix=/home/ig25
--enable-languages=c,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.0 20060716 (experimental)
--
The following sort of garbaged error messaged with accented latin characters in
the place where some string was supposed to be substituted into place are
chronic with gcj 4.1.1.
gcj -fjni -o gcj_test ../java/src/com/basistech/ne/batch/Extractor.java
../java/src/com/basistech/ne/batch/jni.java Tes
There are some useful warnings that gfortran could issue.
Examples:
$ cat chk.f
program main
double precision a
real b
b = 2.3**(2/3)
a = 4.3*1d5
print *,a,b
b = 1.23456789012345
print *,4**(-3)
end
$ ftnchek chk.f
FTNCHEK Version 3.3 November
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 22:13 ---
รข
Actually I think it is because your environment variables said your terminal
supports UTF-8 but they really don't. Can you try setting LANG to C and try
again?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 22:24
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-16 22:24 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #2 from bim2006 at basistech dot com 2006-07-16 22:29 ---
Oh, of course. I should have thought of that.
--
bim2006 at basistech dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 01:43 ---
Double Complex on e500 with double GPRs fundamentally does not interact well
with GCC's current design. GCC does not want to have a double placed in the
same register that can contain an int if the width of the register
--- Comment #5 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 02:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=11902)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11902&action=view)
consistently calculate nregs for FLOAT_MODES
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24036
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28010
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28025
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28031
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28048
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28049
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28050
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28053
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28056
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28058
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28063
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28071
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28102
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 02:49
---
Janis --
IIUC, you checked in a fix for this issue. Or, do you want to keep the issue
open even though the patch has gone in? If so, would you please retitle the
issue and indicate what the current purpose of th
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28136
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 02:52
---
This code is not valid ISO C++; there is no conversion from function pointers
(including pointers to member functions) from one type to another.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 02:53
---
m68k is not a primary or secondary platform.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-07-17 02:56
---
known to work: 4.0.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28025
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28182
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28189
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28190
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28216
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 03:00
---
I don't think this code is invalid. To instantiate operator(), size_traits
would have to be complete, but that should not prevent the template
declaration.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28235
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28238
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28239
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28247
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28248
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28250
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28253
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28255
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28256
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28257
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28258
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28259
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28261
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28266
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28267
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28270
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28274
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28280
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28284
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
