public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
@ 2005-01-18 22:11 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:06 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 more replies)
0 siblings, 15 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-18 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2336 bytes --]
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
typedef unsigned long long upad64_t;
typedef struct _pthread_mutex {
struct {
uint16_t __pthread_mutex_flag1;
uint8_t __pthread_mutex_flag2;
uint8_t __pthread_mutex_ceiling;
uint16_t __pthread_mutex_type;
uint16_t __pthread_mutex_magic;
} __pthread_mutex_flags;
union {
struct {
uint8_t __pthread_mutex_pad[8];
} __pthread_mutex_lock64;
struct {
uint32_t __pthread_ownerpid;
uint32_t __pthread_lockword;
} __pthread_mutex_lock32;
upad64_t __pthread_mutex_owner64;
} __pthread_mutex_lock;
upad64_t __pthread_mutex_data;
} pthread_mutex_t;
void foo(void)
{
pthread_mutex_t tmp = {{0, 0, 0, 0, 0x4d58}, {{{0}}}, 0};
}
On SPARC64 at -O0:
sth %g0, [%fp+2007]
stb %g0, [%fp+2009]
stb %g0, [%fp+2010]
sth %g0, [%fp+2011]
sethi %hi(19456), %g1
or %g1, 344, %g1
sth %g1, [%fp+2013]
stb %g0, [%fp+2015]
stx %g0, [%fp+2023]
On AMD64 at -O0:
movw $0, -32(%rbp)
movb $0, -30(%rbp)
movb $0, -29(%rbp)
movw $0, -28(%rbp)
movw $19800, -26(%rbp)
movb $0, -24(%rbp)
movq $0, -16(%rbp)
Note the 'b' on the last but one line in both cases: __pthread_mutex_pad is not
initialized according to the ISO C99 rules. This is critical on Solaris 64-bit
as it affects POSIX thread support.
The C++ and Objective-C compilers are also affected.
--
Summary: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: *-*-*
GCC host triplet: *-*-*
GCC target triplet: *-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-18 23:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-18 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 23:06 -------
This is a midde-end problem .... (investing further)
but we end up with an empty CONSTRUTOR and the middle-end is not expanding it correctly for the
union.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |normal
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords| |wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:06 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-18 23:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-18 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 23:12 -------
> This is a midde-end problem .... (investing further)
> but we end up with an empty CONSTRUTOR and the middle-end is not expanding it
> correctly for the union.
Right, the 3.4.x back-end used to zero the whole aggregate if the constructor
was lacking elements.
And this is really critical according to the criterion.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:06 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-18 23:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-18 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 23:23 -------
Hmm, the gimplifier is messing up (again, there was another bug like this).
Here is the reduced testcase which shows the problem:
typedef union {
char a2[8];
}aun;
void abort (void);
int main(void)
{
aun a = {{0}};
if (a.a2[2] != 0)
abort ();
return 0;
}
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-18 23:23:00
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-18 23:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-18 23:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-19 0:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-18 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 23:37 -------
I looked at the constructor gimplification stuff recently. Lemme see if
there's an easy fix I can figure out.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-18 23:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-19 0:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-19 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 00:07 -------
This is basically PR 18191 but for unions this time, the struct/array part has been fixed.
Note I think the following patch caused it:
2004-01-28 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
PR opt/13798
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-19 0:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 9:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 09:04 -------
This is odd.
For a struct { char a[8]; } count_type_elements returns 8.
For a union { char a[8]; } count_type_elements returns 1.
This confuses the following code in gimplify_init_constructor:
/* ??? This bit ought not be needed. For any element not present
in the initializer, we should simply set them to zero. Except
we'd need to *find* the elements that are not present, and that
requires trickery to avoid quadratic compile-time behavior in
large cases or excessive memory use in small cases. */
else if (num_ctor_elements < num_type_elements)
cleared = true;
num_ctor_elements == 1 and num_type_elements == 1, so we don't clear.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 9:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 9:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:16 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 09:10 -------
>From expr.c:count_type_elements:
case UNION_TYPE:
case QUAL_UNION_TYPE:
{
/* Ho hum. How in the world do we guess here? Clearly it isn't
right to count the fields. Guess based on the number of words. */
HOST_WIDE_INT n = int_size_in_bytes (type);
if (n < 0)
return -1;
return n / UNITS_PER_WORD;
}
So we cannot use count_type_elements in gimplify_init_constructor.
I think we should somehow compute the size of the CONSTRUCTOR and compare
it with int_size_in_bytes (TREE_TYPE (object))...?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 9:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 9:16 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:26 ` stevenb at suse dot de
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 09:15 -------
> From expr.c:count_type_elements:
>
> case UNION_TYPE:
> case QUAL_UNION_TYPE:
> {
> /* Ho hum. How in the world do we guess here? Clearly it isn't
> right to count the fields. Guess based on the number of words. */
> HOST_WIDE_INT n = int_size_in_bytes (type);
> if (n < 0)
> return -1;
> return n / UNITS_PER_WORD;
> }
>
> So we cannot use count_type_elements in gimplify_init_constructor.
Can't we compute the result for unions based on the type of the first member?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 9:16 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 9:26 ` stevenb at suse dot de
2005-01-20 9:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: stevenb at suse dot de @ 2005-01-20 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-20 09:26 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 =?utf-8?q?=A721_for?= unions
> Can't we compute the result for unions based on the type of the first
> member?
Ehm?? "union { int i; char c[256]; }"
However, we can use int_size_in_bytes on object and on the
first field of the constructor in the gimplifier.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 9:26 ` stevenb at suse dot de
@ 2005-01-20 9:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 11:28 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 09:31 -------
> Ehm?? "union { int i; char c[256]; }"
Doesn't look much buggier than what we currently have... maybe take the max on
all the fields then? That said, I don't know what count_type_elements is for,
it is clearly brain-damaged for unions at the moment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 9:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 11:28 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 11:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 11:28 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> So we cannot use count_type_elements in gimplify_init_constructor.
Well, not for unions anyway.
> I think we should somehow compute the size of the CONSTRUCTOR and compare
> it with int_size_in_bytes (TREE_TYPE (object))...?
For unions, that may be what we have to do. With any luck, the element
being initialized will be the largest element of the union, which would
mean we wouldn't have to emit the clear.
For structures, this would mean that any structure with holes would get
cleared. Which would clearly pessimize a very common case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 11:28 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 11:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 18:03 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 11:49 -------
> For structures, this would mean that any structure with holes would get
> cleared. Which would clearly pessimize a very common case.
I considered that too. But, what about structures that
contain a union?
typedef struct {
int i;
union {
int j[2];
float f;
} u;
} S;
void abort (void) __attribute__((noreturn));
int main(void)
{
S s = { .i = 1, {.f = 1.0 } };
if (s.u.j[1] != 0)
abort ();
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 11:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-20 18:03 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-26 15:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-26 15:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-20 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 18:03 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> But, what about structures that contain a union?
We'll need to consider the question "do we need to clear" one nesting
level at a time, and propagate it up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-20 18:03 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-26 15:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-26 15:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-26 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-26 15:21 -------
Subject: Bug 19515
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: rth@gcc.gnu.org 2005-01-26 15:20:53
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog expr.c gimplify.c tree.h
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute: pr19515.c
Log message:
PR middle-end/19515
* expr.c (categorize_ctor_elements): New argument p_must_clear.
(categorize_ctor_elements_1): Likewise. Detect a union that isn't
fully initialized.
(mostly_zeros_p): Update for new categorize_ctor_elements argument.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_init_constructor): Likewise. Only shove
objects into static storage if they have more than one non-zero value.
* tree.h (categorize_ctor_elements): Update decl.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.7285&r2=2.7286
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/expr.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.772&r2=1.773
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/gimplify.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.106&r2=2.107
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree.h.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.680&r2=1.681
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr19515.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-26 15:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-26 15:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-26 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-26 15:24 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19515
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-01-26 15:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-01-18 22:11 [Bug c/19515] New: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:06 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18 23:37 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-19 0:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:16 ` [Bug middle-end/19515] [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 §21 for unions ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 9:26 ` stevenb at suse dot de
2005-01-20 9:31 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 11:28 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 11:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20 18:03 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-26 15:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-26 15:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).