* [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-23 13:15 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-23 13:18 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-23 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 13:15 -------
Well, looks like I'm going to continue this long monologue. I got my access to
a mips-irix6.5 back, and it's still failling:
$ ../gcc/configure --prefix=/tmp/debug/irun --enable-languages=c,fortran
--with-gmp=$HOME/gfortran/gfortran_libs/mips-irix
--with-mpfr=$HOME/gfortran/gfortran_libs/mips-irix
--with-as=$HOME/gfortran/gfortran_libs/mips-irix/bin/as
--with-ld=$HOME/gfortran/gfortran_libs/mips-irix/bin/ld --disable-libssp
--disable-libmudflap
[configure works fine]
$ gmake
[... works fine until ...]
gmake[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/debug/ibin/mips-sgi-irix6.5/libgfortran'
/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile (CC_FOR_TARGET) -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc/libgfortran -I. -iquote../../../gcc/libgfortran/io -std=gnu99
-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wextra
-Wwrite-strings (CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET) -c -o compile_options.lo `test -f
'runtime/compile_options.c' || echo
'../../../gcc/libgfortran/'`runtime/compile_options.c
/bin/sh: syntax error at line 1 : `(' unexpected
I have no idea what is going on here.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-10-23 13:15:20
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-23 13:15 ` [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5 fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-23 13:18 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-23 21:27 ` wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-23 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 13:18 -------
Hum... confirming this bug doesn't reopen it, so here it is.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
GCC build triplet| |mips-sgi-irix6.5
GCC target triplet| |mips-sgi-irix6.5
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-23 13:15 ` [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5 fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-23 13:18 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-23 21:27 ` wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-24 9:33 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-23 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 21:27 -------
I would guess a GNU make bug. What version of GNU make are you using? Try a
newer release.
Alternatively, this could be a shell bug. What shell and version are you
using? Try using a different shell and/or a more recent shell version.
Preferably a recent version of bash.
There should be a "gmake all-am" line right before the failure. The
libgfortran all rule does a recursive make, and it appears that the value of
CC, which is $(CC_FOR_TARGET) is getting clobbered somehow by this recursive
make invocation. It was OK before this recursive make, because there are some
rules invoked before the recursive make, and they didn't fail for you.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-23 21:27 ` wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-24 9:33 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-25 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-24 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-24 09:33 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I would guess a GNU make bug. What version of GNU make are you using? Try a
> newer release.
I had GNU Make version 3.78.1, which seems too old. 3.80 works fine. But...
later I have the following failures:
/tmp/debug/ibin/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/debug/ibin/./gcc/
-B/tmp/debug/irun/mips-sgi-irix6.5/bin/ -B/tmp/debug/irun/mips-sgi-irix6.5/lib/
-isystem /tmp/debug/irun/mips-sgi-irix6.5/include -isystem
/tmp/debug/irun/mips-sgi-irix6.5/sys-include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc/libgfortran -I. -iquote../../../gcc/libgfortran/io -std=gnu99
-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wextra
-Wwrite-strings -O2 -g -O2 -c
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c -DPIC -o
.libs/c99_functions.o
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:582: warning: no previous
prototype for 'clog10f'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c: In function 'clog10f':
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:585: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'cabsf'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:585: warning: incompatible
implicit declaration of built-in function 'cabsf'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:585: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'cargf'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:585: warning: incompatible
implicit declaration of built-in function 'cargf'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c: At top level:
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:594: warning: no previous
prototype for 'clog10'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c: In function 'clog10':
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:597: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'cabs'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:597: warning: incompatible
implicit declaration of built-in function 'cabs'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:597: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'carg'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:597: warning: incompatible
implicit declaration of built-in function 'carg'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c: At top level:
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:606: warning: no previous
prototype for 'clog10l'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c: In function 'clog10l':
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:609: error: incompatible
type for argument 1 of 'cabsl'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:609: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'cargl'
../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/c99_functions.c:609: warning: incompatible
implicit declaration of built-in function 'cargl'
I'm investigating. For now, all I can say is I *hate* C99.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-24 9:33 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-25 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-10 15:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-25 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2005-10-23 13:15:20 |2005-10-25 20:09:15
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug libfortran/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-25 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-10 15:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 12:14 ` [Bug target/22097] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-10 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 15:35 -------
On mips-irix6.5, the libgfortran config.h contains:
#define HAVE_CABSF 1
and
/* #undef HAVE_COMPLEX_H */
and in math.h it does have the following:
struct __cabsl_s { long double a,b; };
extern long double cabsl( struct __cabsl_s );
while the correct definition of cabsl is provided in complex.h. I don't know
why on earth all this is happening, but I guess the root of the problem is
that:
$ cat a.c
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void)
{
long double __complex__ z;
printf ("%Lg\n", cabsl(z));
return 0;
}
$ ./bin/gcc -std=c99 a.c
a.c: In function 'main':
a.c:8: error: incompatible type for argument 1 of 'cabsl'
while the cabsl man page clearly states that cabsl is to be found in <math.h>.
I'd like to have the opinion of mips-irix experts here: should the above code
compile fine? what is the right way of doing things here?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |r dot emrich at de dot
| |tecosim dot com, ro at gcc
| |dot gnu dot org
Last reconfirmed|2005-10-25 20:09:15 |2005-11-10 15:35:05
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-10 15:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-04 12:14 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-12 13:08 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-04 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 12:14 -------
Moving to "target" component. This bug is still present and it prevents
building gfortran on mips-sgi-irix6.5.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |major
Component|libfortran |target
Known to fail| |4.1.0 4.2.0
Last reconfirmed|2005-11-10 15:35:05 |2006-01-04 12:14:08
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 12:14 ` [Bug target/22097] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-12 13:08 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-02 18:01 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-12 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 13:08 -------
This could be fixed by something similar to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01578.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-12 13:08 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-02 18:01 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
2006-02-02 19:18 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com @ 2006-02-02 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2006-02-02 18:01 -------
Subject: Re: libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org schrieb:
> ------- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-12 13:08 -------
> This could be fixed by something similar to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01578.html
>
>
Is somebody working on this?
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-02 18:01 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
@ 2006-02-02 19:18 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-06 17:58 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-02 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-02 19:18 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Is somebody working on this?
I am not (though it shouldn't take too much time, I'm positively squashed under
real life work). And, IIRC, the mips maintainers don't have access to IRIX any
more. So, if you want to submit something for this, please do!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-02 19:18 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-06 17:58 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
2006-02-07 9:55 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com @ 2006-02-06 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2006-02-06 17:58 -------
Subject: Re: libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
Okay, I will try!
Is there a preprocessor macro defined, which identifies IRIX?
As I see, there are two macros which are candidates IMHO:
_SGI_SOURCE
sgi, __sgi, __sgi__
any hints?
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-06 17:58 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
@ 2006-02-07 9:55 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
2006-02-07 10:00 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com @ 2006-02-07 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2006-02-07 09:55 -------
Created an attachment (id=10794)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10794&action=view)
fixes bootstrap failure in ligfortran/instrisics/c99_functions.c for
mips-sgi-irix6.5
It's similiar as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01578.html
There is one open question. Is the "#ifdef __sgi__" the right way to
distinguish between IRIX and other mips systems?
This patch applies cleanly to 4.1 and mainline.
I ask for comments.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-07 9:55 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
@ 2006-02-07 10:00 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
2006-02-07 10:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com @ 2006-02-07 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2006-02-07 10:00 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> Created an attachment (id=10794)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10794&action=view) [edit]
> fixes bootstrap failure in ligfortran/instrisics/c99_functions.c for
> mips-sgi-irix6.5
>
> It's similiar as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01578.html
> There is one open question. Is the "#ifdef __sgi__" the right way to
> distinguish between IRIX and other mips systems?
> This patch applies cleanly to 4.1 and mainline.
> I ask for comments.
>
additional information:
This patch applied, bootstrap finished successfully for 4.1 svn revision
110639.
Testsuite in progress.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-07 10:00 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
@ 2006-02-07 10:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-07 16:35 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
2006-03-08 9:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-07 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 10:12 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> There is one open question. Is the "#ifdef __sgi__" the right way to
> distinguish between IRIX and other mips systems?
> This patch applies cleanly to 4.1 and mainline.
> I ask for comments.
Looking at config.guess and other occurences of __sgi__ in the gcc source, I
think it's the right way.
Submit the patch on the gcc, gcc-patches and fortran along with the question,
and if there is no objection from the mips maintainers in the next few days,
I'll approve it.
Thanks for the patch!
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-07 10:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-07 16:35 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
2006-03-08 9:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com @ 2006-02-07 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2006-02-07 16:35 -------
Created an attachment (id=10796)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10796&action=view)
fixes bootstrap failure in libgfortran/instrisics/c99_functions.c for
mips-sgi-irix6.5 second version
Okay, second try.
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22097] libgfortran build failure on mips-sgi-irix6.5
[not found] <bug-22097-10259@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-07 16:35 ` r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com
@ 2006-03-08 9:51 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-08 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 09:51 -------
This was fixed on rev. 110700 for trunk, and later backported to 4.1.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to fail|4.1.0 4.2.0 |
Known to work| |4.2.0 4.1.0
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22097
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread