--- Comment #8 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 07:04 ---
This was fixed by TJ's patch applied on 2005-12-10.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-18 07:36 ---
I'm not able to reproduce this problem with the current mainline (2006-05-18).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27643
--- Comment #3 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-22 08:56 ---
OK, I was able to reproduce this. My problem was that I had a
"--disable-checking"
build. If the order of the class files is "PipeImpl.class VMPipe.class", I get
an error; if the order is the
--- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 09:47 ---
By the way, x-mingw32 contains:
# On MinGW, we use "%IA64d" to print 64-bit integers, and the format-checking
# code does not handle that, so we have to disable checking here.
WERROR_FLAGS += -
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-07 12:55 ---
Via this change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/configure.in?r1=114048&r2=114435
we now have Boehm-GC also added to the things that are unnecessarily
disabled for MinGW.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28263
piler for
MinGW
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
G
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-05 07:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11823)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11823&action=view)
The portion of the build log that shows the error reported in this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-11 01:20 ---
Perhaps the "%d" string was omitted in the relevant specs:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Spec-Files.html
Just guessing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28329
--- Comment #2 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-12 01:46 ---
Confirmed.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 09:33 ---
Confirmed on mainline. Also confirmed that GCJX does not have this bug.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-22
07:51 ---
This was fixed a couple of days ago:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2005-02/msg00085.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-22
08:02 ---
I *hate* to be doing this, but once again, this is fixed
on current mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23
11:10 ---
Does backing out this patch help?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00402.html
(See also: PR 20155)
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
07:54 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> What's the take on this bug? Can indirect-dispatch be made the default in the
> foreseable future? Can the old verifier be fixed?
>
> I'm now running ni
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
13:09 ---
> OK, I patched my tree, I'll report the results (fixes and regressions)
> after the next build.
Thanks.
> In your list message, you mention only one fix in the gcc testsuite,
> pr1310
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
09:56 ---
FWIW, with the new verifier enabled this seems to work just fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20351
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
10:05 ---
As of 2005-03-08, this testcase works quite fine for me with mainline CVS.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20362
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu
dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20391
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:04 ---
Now that the new verifier has been enabled, this bug has been fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:06 ---
This bug should have been fixed by enabling the new verifier.
Can you please check?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12734
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:11 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> The jar-files which caused the problem:
> http://www.scheinwelt.at/~norbertf/gcj/tests/gcjverifybug_test.tar.gz
I could not download this file - can you please put i
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
09:15 ---
Fixed on the mainline after the new verifier was enabled.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
10:26 ---
Thanks.
Now the verification errors are gone, but I'm still not
able to build the package (with or without -findirect-dispatch):
8< ---
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
10:55 ---
I do not see an ICE with the given testcase as of 2005-03-09 and mainline CVS.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
10:57 ---
Now that the new verifier has been enabled, this works quite fine.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 18212 depends on bug 20351, which changed state.
Bug 20351 Summary: compilation with a redundant jar fails, if output file
specified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20351
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
11:03 ---
I can still see a crash similar to what Tom is seeing, but the other two
bugs are fixed - the break-up was not correct.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
12:39 ---
The problem is that we leave out a call to _Jv_InitClass for a static
private method thinking that it is unreachable. This is not the case
for a private static inner class method. A simple pessimistic
fix
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
14:51 ---
A proposed patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00684.html
As noted there, there is still a problem with either
GCJ or gij for this testcase.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
11:00 ---
While the main problem reported by the filer has now been fixed on
mainline, I think we should not close this PR just yet - not until
we check in a testcase for our testsuite for this, which is not
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
12:00 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Why not check in the test case and XFAIL it?
I feel dumb for not having thought of it myself...
I am closing this bug and will submit the testcase as
a separate patch. Tha
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-10
13:30 ---
A patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00710.html
--
What|Removed |Added
gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC:
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-11
09:16 ---
Of course it's true - you think I'd lie? ;-)
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-01
09:36 ---
I think it is the same problem with Boehm-GC on ARM/Linux that
has been solved in upstream sources. See:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc/2005-July/000943.html
http://www.hpl.hp.com
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02
09:41 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I think it is the same problem with Boehm-GC on ARM/Linux that
> > has been solved in upstream sources.
>
> Has this fix been o
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20684
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-05
15:06 ---
Fix checked in to mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
Bug 13607 depends on bug 23431, which changed state.
Bug 23431 Summary: [4.0/4.1 regression] gcj allows overriding with more
restrictive access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23431
What|Old Value |New Value
-
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-09
10:13 ---
One proposal for a patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00313.html
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu
dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23856
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-21
09:55 ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00401.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
07:45 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > PR 19870. Although these patches are largeish, they have been tested in
> > HEAD for
> > some time and should be pretty safe
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
12:52 ---
The fix for PR20338 is also needed by the fix for PR19870.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24018
--- 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
--- Comment #3 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-03 17:31 ---
Fix checked in.
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:23 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Eclipse's JDT/Core team was doing experiments with turning Eclipse's batch
> compiler into ECJ using GCJ. The goal was to provide an executable form of
>
--- Comment #5 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 10:26 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> It would be nice if you could at least indicate what kind
> of non-compliance you are talking of here. Is it strictfp,
> accuracy of results, rounding of floating-point li
--- Comment #8 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-21 15:14 ---
The bug about incorrect parsing and rounding of floating-point
literals is PR java/23432 and that about no support for strictfp
is PR java/10632. If this bug report is about either of these,
it can be closed as a
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24
09:44 ---
This is most likely the same as PR22084 (see the testcase
$GCC_SRC_DIR/libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/Divide_1.java).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22166
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24
09:47 ---
Today (20050624, IST), it seems to have become worse. Till now
I used to see 2 FAILs, now I see 6 FAILs:
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Divide_1 output - gij test
FAIL
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-28
10:37 ---
Yes, GCJ doesn't support generics yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDepen
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21
11:00 ---
Regards,
Stickler Sosumi.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.1 Regression] '
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
07:45 ---
Sorry, but I still see the following failures on
i686-pc-linux-gnu:
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - bytecode->native test
Interestingly, the "-O3&quo
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08
09:43 ---
Another testcase:
--- 8< ---
class Snafu
{
public void whoami( )
{
System.out.println( this.getClass( ).getName( ));
}
}
public cl
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-11
11:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
>
> I cannot debug it further as I debugging with an optimized compiled.
cd $GCC_SRC_DIR/gcc/java
touch class.c parse.y
cd $GCC_BLD_DIR
make BOOT_CFLAGS
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-14
15:16 ---
These days, this bug manifests itself on mainline regularly as:
FAIL: 3.10.2-round-6
in the Jacks testsuite.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-14
15:50 ---
Updated patch for Part 2 posted in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00195.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
18:39 ---
Last part of the fix has now been checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
Bug 18131 depends on bug 19870, which changed state.
Bug 19870 Summary: gcj -C doesn't generate accessors for private members across
nested class boundaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19870
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
18:49 ---
Fix checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
y: Incorrect parsing and rounding off of large floating-
point literals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy:
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17
06:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=9509)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9509&action=view)
Testcase that demonstrates the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23432
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
09:50 ---
Changed synopsis and component. Added keyword.
Interestingly, the following is (wrongly) accepted:
- 8< -
interface MyRunnable
{
public void
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
18:26 ---
I have proposed a patch for this problem:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00266.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30
07:33 ---
Still exists on mainline. At optimisation levels 1,2 and 3, this bug disappears.
Also disappears if "-fuse-divide-subroutine" is used.
Seems to have been introduced between June 14th and 15t
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30
09:13 ---
Actually, this looks like a more generic problem, not limited to Java.
Witness:
--- 8< ---
~/src/tmp/PR22166 > cat x.c
#include
in
--- Comment #12 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 07:51
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> small testcase:
This particular testcase doesn't fail for me anymore on mainline
as of 2006-02-24. However, QEMU 0.8.0 still doesn't build with
this compiler (you'll
--- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 11:40 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Confirmed on gcc mailing-list.
Reconfirmed with the GCC 4.1.0 release tarballs for C (core)
and C++ (g++). In addition to using "--with-ld", one has to
also use a relativ
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26617
--
rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 09:24 ---
This looks like a duplicate of 26878 except for the listed patches and the
actual error message. Both have been filed by the same person.
Claudio: Can you try with a recent snapshot from the mainline SVN repository
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-29 10:06 ---
It would be difficult for those of us without alpha-linux boxes to track
this problem down. If you're willing, you can try to track the failure
to a certain bit yourself.
Let's stick with the GCC 4.2 s
--- Comment #7 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-30 13:07 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > Now run "debugx jc1 ", where ""
> > was the entire command noted earlier that causes the failure.
> Before i reproduce the error, after i make th
--- Comment #3 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 03:43 ---
FWIW, I am getting the same error with GCC 3.4.6 and I *do have* GNU Texinfo
4.8.
I have FSF GCC 3.4.5 sources and I downloaded GCC 3.4.6 diffs for "core" and
"g++" - the patches applied suc
--- Comment #11 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 04:29
---
Created an attachment (id=11172)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11172&action=view)
Shell script to help narrow the problem in PR26879.
Save this file in a folder. Save "debugx
--- Comment #5 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 05:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> I was not intending to modify GCC (as the requirements for modifying it do
> list
> Texinfo). I was intending to compile it. Out of the box compile on my system
> faile
--- Comment #13 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-01 07:57
---
As you can see from the backtrace, the problem is in "gcc/java/jcf-io.c" at
line number 394 where we make a call to scandir(). I'm not an alpha-linux
hacker, but I see that there's scandir64
--- Comment #4 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-05 07:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The difference between Sun's and Classpath's implementation appears to be that
> Classpath will check for Concurrent Modification on both hasNext() and next()
>
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21065
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-26
09:07 ---
On mainline, it has been fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00121.html
Ranjit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21233
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-19
22:57 ---
I note that GCJ already seems to have the infrastructure in place to do this and
possibly used to work properly for this case. For example, see the
build_outer_field_access(), outer_field_access_p(), etc
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-23
07:45 ---
outer_field_access_p(), build_outer_field_access(), etc. are only for non-static
fields (instance variables). Even for some simple testcases, I could not get GCJ
to emit correct bytecode for non-static
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
06:08 ---
Some useful tips can be found here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00558.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9861
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
07:31 ---
I have now submitted a patch for fixing this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00570.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-27
05:39 ---
Note that this PR should not be closed as the checked-in patch was
only for generating accessors for static fields. Methods are still
a problem as is demonstrated by this simple testcase:
public class A
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-14
11:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=9086)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9086&action=view)
Simplified testcase.
A simplified testcase for the problem. Note that the problem only seems to
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-17
13:13 ---
Confirmed, though I see a FAIL instead of a hang. It has only started
appearing this week. It fails like:
-1459606597
-2147483648
335645025
FAIL: Divide_1 execution - source compiled test
instead
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
05:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Subject: Re: Divide_1 test case hangs
>
> > -2147483648
> > -2147483648
> > 0
> > 0
> > [...]
> >
> > Note that the va
Summary: Buffer overflow in the lexical analyser while reading FP
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc d
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
12:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=9107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9107&action=view)
Jacks testcase 3.10.2-round-6 that demonstrates this problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19
01:07 ---
I think you're trying to configure and compile GCC in
the source folder. Unfortunately, this is not yet supported.
Try creating a new folder totally outside of the GCC source
tree and then run conf
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19
03:23 ---
A patch for the remaining bit is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q2/msg00742.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10
11:02 ---
Proposed patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q1/msg00050.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10
11:26 ---
Now that the BC-ABI work has been merged, the testcase no longer
gives an error when compiled with "-findirect-dispatch".
However, it ICEs when compiled without!
Relevant info:
Program recei
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10
11:59 ---
In that case, we should either make -findirect-dispatch the default
or try to fix this bug. Users will otherwise unnecessarily be bitten
by such old verifier bugs. I'm willing to try hunting this parti
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
