--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 08:22
---
One point to remember is that C does not allow re-using of storage with a
different type (which is what PR29272 is about and why that testcase is
invalid).
The storage type is either the declared one or the one as
--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com 2006-10-09 08:28 ---
Subject: Re: Adding tasking support for arm-linux
> ... well, I can see differences, but is there any definite way of finding out,
> how the C structures actually look like? Do I have to hunt this up in the
> glibc sou
--- Comment #23 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12399)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12399&action=view)
patch for mutex init
Can you try this? thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29118
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:28 ---
Can you provide a testcase where something goes wrong?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #24 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:32 ---
Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I can
see what you are talking about WRT mutex initialization, and have high hopes
for the attached patch. If you can try it, and let me know t
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 10:50 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 9 10:49:50 2006
New Revision: 117571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117571
Log:
2006-10-09 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #7 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:14 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> please try the testcase in the orignal PR with idental string lengths. It will
> crash gfortran as well.
Works for me. Please provide a testcase.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/pr/29267> cat t.f90
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:34 ---
As I said, I ran into this when playing around with PR29267, and it was ugly
enough to warrant a PR of its own. Glad you share my opinion :-) Just to make
this clear: I would never do something this ugly outside bugzi
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:39
---
The same thing is true for all the array manipulation functions:
integer :: i(-1:1,-1:1) = 0
integer :: j(-1:2) = 0
! This is working correctly
write(*,*) lbound(i(-1:1,-1:1)), ubound(i(-1:1,-1:1))
wri
--- Comment #4 from tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 11:46 ---
Confirmed. gcc 3.4 and 4.2 work, 4.0 and 4.1 fail.
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
I found that bug while reducing PR29391, so it might be related (but I doubt
it).
$ cat a6.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
write(*,*) lbound(any(i==1,2)), ubound(any(i==1,2))
write(*,*) lbound(count(i==1,2)), ubound(count(i==1,2))
write(*,*) lbound(matmul(i,i))
end
$ gfortran a6.f90
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:24 ---
The minimal fix is to not verify_cgraph_node if errorcount || sorrycount.
Bailing out earlier has interesting side-effects it seems.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:36
---
The generated code for:
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
integer :: j(1)
j = lbound(any(i==1,2))
end
is weird:
MAIN__ ()
{
int4 j[1];
_gfortran_set_std (70, 127, 0);
{
int8 S.0;
S.0 = 1;
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 12:44
---
And while I'm there, a few possibly related bugs:
$ cat pr29400-2.f90
integer,parameter :: i(1,1) = 0
logical :: l(2)
l = any(i==1,2)
end
$ gfortran pr29400-2.f90 && ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: rank o
Hi.
There is a regression on i386 platforms.
int f(int a, int b)
{return (((long long) a) * b) >> 15;}
The gcc 4.0/4.1 generates with "-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer"
movl8(%esp), %eax
imull 4(%esp)
shrdl $15, %edx, %eax
sarl$15, %edx
ret
While gc
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-10-09 12:57 ---
looks similar to PR26674.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-10-09 12:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> looks similar to PR26674.
>
oops, please ignore this comment.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 13:04 ---
We have
bool
decide_is_variable_needed (struct cgraph_varpool_node *node, tree decl)
{
/* If the user told us it is used, then it must be so. */
if (node->externally_visible || node->force_output)
return tr
--- Comment #10 from v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz 2006-10-09 14:16
---
Shouldn't the "Known to fail" field get all the versions from its duplicates
copied? Maybe that is why this rejects-valid bug is still not fixed even though
most other rejects-valid bugs get a lot of attention
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 14:25 ---
The frontend marks foo () TREE_STATIC in start_preparsed_function () and later
TREE_NOTHROW in finish_function () because
/* If this function can't throw any exceptions, remember that. */
if (!processing_templa
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 14:58 ---
Confirmed. Ok for x86_64:
f:
.LFB2:
movslq %edi,%rdi
movslq %esi,%rsi
imulq %rdi, %rsi
sarq$15, %rsi
movl%esi, %eax
ret
We are expanding (int) ((long lon
--- Comment #13 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug 27880
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 15:55:38 2006
New Revision: 117576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117576
Log:
PR target/27880
* unwind-c.c (PERSONALITY_FUNCTION):
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:06 ---
Mine.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29323
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00458.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 29254
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 9 16:10:38 2006
New Revision: 117577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117577
Log:
2006-10-09 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 16:11
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and I try a parallel make -j4, I get
the following error inside the gcc directory:
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `gt-c-pragma.h', needed by `c-pragma.o'.
Stop.
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
If I do a "make -j4 -k" it still gets the e
--- Comment #25 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-10-09
16:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Timeouts in libstdc++, libjava and libgomp
testsuites
> Hey Dave. Thanks for your persistence on this one: I think it's paid off. I
> can
> see what you are talking about WR
>From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00274.html
gfortran shows:
print ('(z20.8)'), i
1
Error: Syntax error in PRINT statement at (1)
The (optional) parentheses are allow (see below) and it works in ifort, NAG f95
and g95.
>From Fortran 2003 standard Section 9.5 and 9.5.1.1:
R91
--- Comment #7 from ramana dot radhakrishnan at codito dot com 2006-10-09
16:33 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
flow.c is responsible for generating POST_INCs and POST_MODIFY's in 3.4 / 4.0 /
4.1 / 4.2 . I believe this is being replaced by the new data flow bits in the
data flow branch. T
When I run "make check" on a three-stage bootstrapped tree, I get errors from
libiberty's testsuite:
cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I..
-I../../../egcc-SVN20061008/libiberty/testsuite/../../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I.. -o test-pexecute
../../../egcc-SVN20061008/libiberty/testsuite/test-pexecute.c ../libi
--- Comment #1 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-10-09
17:00 ---
What platform are you compiling on?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29404
I'm using this to track issues related to including GMP/MPFR in the GCC source
tree and building these libraries as part of the bootstrap process.
Initial discussion started here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00136.html
--
Summary: GCC should include latest GMP/MPFR sources a
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:16 ---
I decided to explore including GMP/MPFR in the GCC tree. Dependency PR 29405
opened to track that enhancement.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:18 ---
Initial patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00416.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29405
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:22 ---
--disable-bootstrap is not really supported and really has not been tested any
more besides cross builds.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29404
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What platform are you compiling on?
sorry, it's on sparc-sun-solaris2.10, using vendor's cc for stage1. You
probably won't see this problem if stage1 cc is any version of gcc, whether
vendo
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:28 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> --disable-bootstrap is not really supported and really has not been tested any
> more besides cross builds.
Andrew please reread my initial report, I specifically talked about
"three-stage b
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
Reopening for a second to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 11407.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11407 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:57 ---
*** Bug 28793 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 28277
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:04:18 2006
New Revision: 117581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117581
Log:
2006-10-09 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #20 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:24 ---
Subject: Bug 28490
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:24:32 2006
New Revision: 117582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117582
Log:
PR target/28490
Backport from mainline
2006-
--- Comment #21 from sje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 18:26 ---
Subject: Bug 28490
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 9 18:26:35 2006
New Revision: 117583
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117583
Log:
PR target/28490
Backport from mainline
2006-
--- Comment #22 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 18:27 ---
Backported the change to 4.1 and 4.0 branches. Closing as fixed.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 18:31 ---
With the patch I just checked in, I believe that this defect is now fixed.
The uses of GetIPInfo in libstdc++ and libjava were fixed earlier, this latest
patch fixes the use in unwind-c.c and that should be it.
--
sj
I was writing a magic squares program for my sons homework and somewhat
surprised/annoyed that gcc-4.1.1 and 4.0.3 have a horrible code generation bug.
Compiled with -O or -O2 on gcc-4.0.3 the following code infinitely loops.
gcc-4.1.1 with no optimisation works, but -O2 fails. Local variable "n" i
--- Comment #2 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-10-09 19:46 ---
Making the major.minor number (4.1, 4.2,...) part of the name sounds quite
fine to me!
(Sorry for the delay in responding to your question, Tom. I've been out last
week.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #3 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-10-09 20:11 ---
Subject: Re: implicit type declaration and contained function
clash
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>(BTW I added you to the CC list, it is kinda hard to answer in the right place
>otherwise)
>
>
Oh s**t - ne
---
program main
implicit none
contains
subroutine my
end subroutine my
subroutine bar
integer :: my
namelist /ops/ my
end subroutine bar
end program main
---
gives in gfortran the error message:
namelist /ops/ my
1
Error: PROCEDURE att
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 29312
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 9 20:55:29 2006
New Revision: 117584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117584
Log:
2006-10-06 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* gfort
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 15441
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 9 20:55:29 2006
New Revision: 117584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117584
Log:
2006-10-06 Steven G. Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* gfor
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:57 ---
Fixed on trunk (until someone tells me ldexp doesn't exist).
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 20:58 ---
Fixed on trunk (until someone tells me ldexp doesn't exist)
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-10-09 20:58 ---
William, can you reproduce this problem with a newer GCC? I have tried several
versions of GCC and all I get is an error from shmget (Invalid argument).
Given that the shmget fails, the memcpy is obviously going to be
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-09 21:22 ---
Undefined behavior, i.e., anything can happen: array sq has got positions 0..8
whereas d = n % 10 spans 0..9, thus the code writes beyond the end of sq.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 21:45 ---
Note this issue is not c++ or libstdc++ specific. I see timeouts on old
hardware all over the testsuite on gcc-testresults.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28870
--- Comment #2 from fox at crisp dot demon dot co dot uk 2006-10-09 22:02
---
Sorry guys - yes a hopelessly stupid bug on my behalf. Feel free to remove this
report!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29406
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 23:53 ---
Subject: Bug 29095
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Oct 9 23:53:35 2006
New Revision: 117589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117589
Log:
2006-10-09 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #2 from rpx at wp dot pl 2006-10-10 00:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=12400)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12400&action=view)
the output of preprocessor
the bug appears with -mips16 compilation option; the compiler seams to be
sensitive on the number
works with 4.0.4, 4.1.1, 4.2.0, fails with 4.1 branch 20061008
$ g++ -c -Wall -fPIC -fexceptions -frtti -I/usr/include/python2.3
-I/usr/share/python2.3/CXX -I/usr/include/subversion-1 -I/usr/include/apr-1.0
-I. -DNDEBUG -o pysvn.o pysvn.cpp
/usr/include/python2.3/CXX/Objects.hxx:1932: error: parse
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-10-10
01:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=12401)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12401&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29408
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:26 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > 3.4.4 (or 3.4.6) are the system compilers on FreeBSD-5.x and FreeBSD-6.x
> So what, we are talking about the FSF GCC and not freebsd and 3.4.x is no
> longer mainta
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:36 ---
This is in fact a duplicate of PR 20039.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20039 ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:36 ---
*** Bug 28990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:44 ---
Confirmed. Not a useful extension because confusing:
-
struct A;
struct B {
B (const A&);
};
struct A {
operator B() const;
};
A a;
B b1 = a;// xpass
---
g/x> /home/ban
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:51 ---
Confirmed:
--
struct S { void operator () (); };
void foo ()
{
( S()() );
}
--
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc: In function ‘void foo()’:
x.cc:5: error: ‘type
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:54 ---
Confirmed. The code makes sense and we shouldn't unconditionally warn.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 03:56 ---
Indeed can't reproduce on x86.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29297
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:00 ---
The standard does not provide to explicitly specify the template
arguments of a constructor invocation. The syntax
name
refers to a template class 'name' with template argument 'type', not
to a template constructor 'n
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:11 ---
Confirmed:
--
template struct A {};
template class P>
struct B {
template class Q>
friend bool foo (const B& a);
};
template class Q>
bool foo (const B& a);
void bar () {
B a;
foo (a);
}
--
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:13 ---
btw, this only happens if Q is really a template template argument. As noted
by the original reporter, the problem goes away if Q is simply a template
argument.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=292
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:24 ---
Your expectations are wrong. You probably believe that here
-
void f3()
{
D d3;
printf("3) getValue() -> %d,", d3.getValue());
{
D d3 = d3;
printf("getValue() -> %d\n", d3.getV
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:27 ---
Here's the right combination of flags that warns (for f3() only):
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -Winit-self -Wuninitialized -O2 -c
x.cc
x.cc: In function ‘void f3()’:
x.cc:42: warning: ‘d3$c$v’ is used uni
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:31 ---
foo should not have been injected by the friend.
Note the Priority should be only changed by the release manager.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:38 ---
Subject: Bug 28349
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Oct 10 04:38:25 2006
New Revision: 117595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117595
Log:
2006-10-09 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR C+
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:38 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:51 ---
ALL_GTFILES_H should have included gt-c-pragma.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29402
--- Comment #37 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-10-10 04:54 ---
Additionally, you can petition ISO/C++ to provide a more elegant solution for
you.
VxWorks also does 16-byte alignment on ppc (for altivec) as I recall.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15795
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:57 ---
Works in 4.0.x and above so closing as fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 05:00 ---
I don't think this is valid code, reduced testcase:
template class a
{
~a();
};
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29408
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 06:48 ---
I'll look into this.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
I tried to build avr-gcc 4.1.1 but i got an error message:
../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/. -I../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/../libcpp/include -DL_fixunssfsi -c
../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/libgcc2.c -o libgcc/./_fixunssfsi.o
../../gcc-4.1.1/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__fixunssfsi':
../../gcc-4.1.
84 matches
Mail list logo
