public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures
@ 2009-04-27 16:09 hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 17:23 ` [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (10 more replies)
0 siblings, 11 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-04-27 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
On Linux/x86-64, revision 146839 gave
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr32421.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr32421.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr32421.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr32421.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37101.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37101.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37101.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37101.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (test for excess errors)
ERROR: gcc.target/i386/pr37101.c: error executing dg-final: couldn't open
"pr37101.s": no such file or directory
ERROR: gcc.target/i386/pr37101.c: error executing dg-final: couldn't open
"pr37101.s": no such file or directory
Revision 146829 is OK.
--
Summary: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-04-27 17:23 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 21:33 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-04-27 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-27 17:22 -------
Revision 146831:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg01473.html
is the cause.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenther at suse dot de
Summary|[4.5 Regression] Many test |[4.5 Regression] Revision
|failures |146831 caused many test
| |failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 17:23 ` [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-04-27 21:33 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-28 21:10 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-04-27 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-27 21:33 -------
On Linux/ia64, revision 146841 gave
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -O1 (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -O2 (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
(internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -O3 -g (internal
compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c compilation, -Os (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr32912-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr32912-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr32912-3.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr32912-3.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr32912-3.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "~{": dump file does not
exist
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O1 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O2 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
(internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
(test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -g (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -Os (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c -Os (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (test for excess errors)
Revision 146825 is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 17:23 ` [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 21:33 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-04-28 21:10 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-04-28 21:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: sje at cup dot hp dot com @ 2009-04-28 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:10 -------
There error I get on cc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c and
gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c with optimization level 1 or greater is:
x.c:6: error: invalid expression for min lvalue
D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>;
pr21817.c is pretty small already but I did cut it down to:
typedef float v4sf __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v4sf value;
void foo(void)
{
value += (v4sf){1e9f,1e9f,1e9f,1e9f};
}
It is not clear if we have generated bad gimple or if the verifier is wrong.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-04-28 21:10:15
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:10 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
@ 2009-04-28 21:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 21:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-28 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:18 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> There error I get on cc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c and
> gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c with optimization level 1 or greater is:
>
> x.c:6: error: invalid expression for min lvalue
> D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>;
>
> pr21817.c is pretty small already but I did cut it down to:
>
> typedef float v4sf __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
> v4sf value;
> void foo(void)
> {
> value += (v4sf){1e9f,1e9f,1e9f,1e9f};
> }
>
> It is not clear if we have generated bad gimple or if the verifier is wrong.
Part of both, CONSTRUCTOR for VECTOR_TYPE with CONSTANT set is a valid
invariant but really BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>
should simplify to just 1.0e+9.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-28 21:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-04-28 21:26 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-04-28 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-28 21:21 -------
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused
many test failures
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > There error I get on cc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c and
> > gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c with optimization level 1 or greater is:
> >
> > x.c:6: error: invalid expression for min lvalue
> > D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>;
> >
> > pr21817.c is pretty small already but I did cut it down to:
> >
> > typedef float v4sf __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
> > v4sf value;
> > void foo(void)
> > {
> > value += (v4sf){1e9f,1e9f,1e9f,1e9f};
> > }
> >
> > It is not clear if we have generated bad gimple or if the verifier is wrong.
>
> Part of both, CONSTRUCTOR for VECTOR_TYPE with CONSTANT set is a valid
> invariant but really BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>
> should simplify to just 1.0e+9.
It indeed doesn't look invalid from a first glance. But shouldn't this
be VECTOR_CST instead of CONSTRUCTOR? The question is of course what
the type of D.2000 is. floats are certainly not 64bits at least.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-04-28 21:26 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-04-28 21:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: sje at cup dot hp dot com @ 2009-04-28 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:25 -------
;; Function foo (foo)
foo ()
{
vector float D.2002;
vector float D.2001;
vector float D.2000;
vector float D.1999;
vector float D.1998;
vector float D.1997;
v4sf value.1;
v4sf value.0;
<bb 2>:
value.0_2 = value;
D.1997_3 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 0>;
D.1998_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF <value.0_2, 64, 0>;
D.1999_5 = D.1997_3 + D.1998_4;
D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>;
D.2001_7 = BIT_FIELD_REF <value.0_2, 64, 64>;
D.2002_8 = D.2000_6 + D.2001_7;
value.1_9 = {D.1999_5, D.2002_8};
value = value.1_9;
return;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:26 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
@ 2009-04-28 21:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-04-28 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-28 21:35 -------
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused
many test failures
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
> ------- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:25 -------
> ;; Function foo (foo)
>
> foo ()
> {
> vector float D.2002;
> vector float D.2001;
> vector float D.2000;
> vector float D.1999;
> vector float D.1998;
> vector float D.1997;
> v4sf value.1;
> v4sf value.0;
> <bb 2>:
> value.0_2 = value;
> D.1997_3 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 0>;
> D.1998_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF <value.0_2, 64, 0>;
> D.1999_5 = D.1997_3 + D.1998_4;
> D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>;
> D.2001_7 = BIT_FIELD_REF <value.0_2, 64, 64>;
> D.2002_8 = D.2000_6 + D.2001_7;
> value.1_9 = {D.1999_5, D.2002_8};
> value = value.1_9;
> return;
That looks all odd. vector float is supposedly v2sf here. Especially
the definition of value.1_9 looks odd.
I suppose this is our generic vector support at work?
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-28 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 14:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 14:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-28 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:42 -------
Ok, so one issue with the verifier is that it doesn't distinguish between
lvalues and rvalues when verifying verify_types_in_gimple_reference. I will
fix this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-28 21:10:15 |2009-04-28 21:42:36
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-29 14:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 14:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-29 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 14:20 -------
The only expected fails left should now be
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr34989-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_double_malloc.c (test for excess errors)
all --combine ones, and
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c++/task-4.C -O (test for excess errors)
a bug wrt missing gimplification of VLA array type bounds.
This bug is now very confusing (as are all "revision blabla caused many
regression" bugs).
I will open two new bugs for the above and close this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-29 14:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-29 14:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-29 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 14:27 -------
Three actually.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39958
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39959
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39960
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |39958, 39959, 39960
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-29 14:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-04-27 16:09 [Bug middle-end/39932] New: [4.5 Regression] Many test failures hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 17:23 ` [Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-27 21:33 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-04-28 21:10 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-04-28 21:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 21:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-04-28 21:26 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-04-28 21:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 14:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 14:27 ` rguenth 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).