public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
@ 2009-10-03 15:46 regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-03 16:33 ` [Bug c/41555] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 more replies)
0 siblings, 12 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: regehr at cs dot utah dot edu @ 2009-10-03 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The test input below is really gross but I couldn't easily reduce it more.
The behavior leading to the apparent bad execution is actually pretty simple:
the "if" test in func_19() is true and so the store to g_133 must execute.
regehr@john-home:~/volatile/tmp201$ current-gcc -O3 small.c -o small
regehr@john-home:~/volatile/tmp201$ ./small
checksum = 1
regehr@john-home:~/volatile/tmp201$ current-gcc -O3 -fwhole-program small.c -o
small
regehr@john-home:~/volatile/tmp201$ ./small
checksum = 0
regehr@john-home:~/volatile/tmp201$ current-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/regehr/z/tmp/gcc-r152425-install
--program-prefix=r152425- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.0 20091002 (experimental) (GCC)
regehr@john-home:~/volatile/tmp201$ cat small.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <limits.h>
static uint64_t safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u (uint64_t _ui1, uint64_t _ui2)
{
if (_ui2==0) return _ui1;
return _ui1 / _ui2;
}
static int64_t safe_div_func_int64_t_s_s (int64_t _si1, int64_t _si2)
{
if (_si2==0 || (_si1==INT64_MIN && _si2==-1)) return _si1;
return _si1 / _si2;
}
#define safe_add_macro_int8_t_s_s(si1,si2) \
((((((int8_t)(si1))>((int8_t)0)) &&
(((int8_t)(si2))>((int8_t)0)) && (((int8_t)(si1)) >
((INT8_MAX)-((int8_t)(si2))))) \
|| ((((int8_t)(si1))<((int8_t)0)) &&
(((int8_t)(si2))<((int8_t)0)) && (((int8_t)(si1)) <
((INT8_MIN)-((int8_t)(si2)))))) \
? ((int8_t)(si1)) \
: (((int8_t)(si1)) + ((int8_t)(si2))) \
)
static int8_t
safe_add_func_int8_t_s_s(int8_t _si1, int8_t _si2)
{
return safe_add_macro_int8_t_s_s(_si1,_si2);
}
#define safe_rshift_macro_uint64_t_u_s(left,right) \
(((((int)(right)) < ((uint64_t)0)) \
|| (((int)(right)) >= sizeof(uint64_t)*CHAR_BIT)) \
? ((uint64_t)(left)) \
: (((uint64_t)(left)) >> ((int)(right))))
static uint64_t
safe_rshift_func_uint64_t_u_s(uint64_t _left, int _right)
{
return safe_rshift_macro_uint64_t_u_s(_left,_right);
}
#define safe_mul_macro_int32_t_s_s(si1,si2) \
((((((int32_t)(si1)) > ((int32_t)0)) && (((int32_t)(si2)) > ((int32_t)0)) &&
(((int32_t)(si1)) > ((INT32_MAX) / ((int32_t)(si2))))) || \
((((int32_t)(si1)) > ((int32_t)0)) && (((int32_t)(si2)) <= ((int32_t)0)) &&
(((int32_t)(si2)) < ((INT32_MIN) / ((int32_t)(si1))))) || \
((((int32_t)(si1)) <= ((int32_t)0)) && (((int32_t)(si2)) > ((int32_t)0)) &&
(((int32_t)(si1)) < ((INT32_MIN) / ((int32_t)(si2))))) || \
((((int32_t)(si1)) <= ((int32_t)0)) && (((int32_t)(si2)) <= ((int32_t)0)) &&
(((int32_t)(si1)) != ((int32_t)0)) && (((int32_t)(si2)) < ((INT32_MAX) /
((int32_t)(si1)))))) \
? ((int32_t)(si1)) \
: ((int32_t)(si1)) * ((int32_t)(si2)))
static int32_t
safe_mul_func_int32_t_s_s (int32_t _si1, int32_t _si2)
{
return safe_mul_macro_int32_t_s_s(_si1,_si2);
}
int8_t g_39;
volatile uint8_t g_46;
uint8_t g_47;
uint8_t *g_62;
uint8_t g_79;
int8_t g_101 = -1L;
uint8_t *g_114;
uint8_t *g_126;
uint8_t g_133;
uint16_t func_35 (int32_t * p_36, uint64_t p_37, uint32_t p_38);
uint16_t func_35 (int32_t * p_36, uint64_t p_37, uint32_t p_38)
{
assert (g_62 == 0);
for (g_39 = 1; g_39 < 0; g_39 = 1)
{
}
return 1;
}
int32_t func_19 (int32_t p_20);
int32_t func_19 (int32_t p_20)
{
if (1 !=
safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u ((safe_div_func_int64_t_s_s (p_20, 1)),
g_101))
{
func_35 (0, 1 <= (safe_add_func_int8_t_s_s (g_47, g_46)) > p_20 < 1, 1);
g_133 = 1;
assert (g_114 == 0);
assert (g_126 == 0);
}
return 1;
}
uint8_t func_2 (int32_t p_6);
uint8_t func_2 (int32_t p_6)
{
for (1; p_6 > 1; 1)
return 0;
func_19 (g_79);
if (safe_mul_func_int32_t_s_s
((0, 1 < (safe_rshift_func_uint64_t_u_s (1 ^ p_6, 1))),
(func_35 (&p_6, 1, 1) < 1)))
{
}
return 1;
}
int main (void)
{
func_2 (1);
printf ("checksum = %d\n", g_133);
return 0;
}
--
Summary: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/41555] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
@ 2009-10-03 16:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-03 16:42 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-03 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-03 16:33 -------
Where do you get all this testcases from ... ;)
Btw, making more functions static probably results in the same failure
without -fwhole-program (well, reproducing the same inline decision, that is).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Keywords| |wrong-code
Version|unknown |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/41555] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-03 16:33 ` [Bug c/41555] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-03 16:42 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-03 16:44 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: regehr at cs dot utah dot edu @ 2009-10-03 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2009-10-03 16:42 -------
Created an attachment (id=18696)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18696&action=view)
failure-inducing input
There is no problem here at -O3. However if you make g_101 static then the
wrong answer is returned at -O3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/41555] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-03 16:33 ` [Bug c/41555] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-03 16:42 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
@ 2009-10-03 16:44 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-05 2:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: regehr at cs dot utah dot edu @ 2009-10-03 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2009-10-03 16:44 -------
Making the variables static in addition to the functions causes the problem to
happen at -O3.
The bad behavior happens at -O3 only if g_101 is static.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-03 16:44 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
@ 2009-10-05 2:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-11 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-05 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c |tree-optimization
Summary|possible miscompilation in |[4.5 regression] possible
|whole-program mode |miscompilation in whole-
| |program mode
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-05 2:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-11 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-11 11:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-11 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-11 11:22 -------
I can't reproduce this failure anymore (with rev. 152638). I'll add a
testcase.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-11 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-11 11:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-13 16:05 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-11 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-11 11:24 -------
Subject: Bug 41555
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Oct 11 11:24:10 2009
New Revision: 152639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152639
Log:
2009-10-11 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/41555
* gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-11 11:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-13 16:05 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-10-15 8:41 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: sje at cup dot hp dot com @ 2009-10-13 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-10-13 16:05 -------
The new test case (gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c) is failing on ia64-hp-hpux11.23.
It looks like the *_MAX and *_MIN macros are only defined when in c99 mode so
the test requires -std=c99 on this platform (and others?)
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sje at cup dot hp dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-13 16:05 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
@ 2009-10-15 8:41 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-10-15 21:18 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-10-15 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-10-15 08:41 -------
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] possible
miscompilation in whole-program mode
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
> ------- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-10-13 16:05 -------
> The new test case (gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c) is failing on ia64-hp-hpux11.23.
> It looks like the *_MAX and *_MIN macros are only defined when in c99 mode so
> the test requires -std=c99 on this platform (and others?)
I wondered about this before but the testcase worked without -std=c99
for me. A patch to add it is pre-approved.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-15 8:41 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-10-15 21:18 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 1:31 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-15 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 21:18 -------
Subject: Bug 41555
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Oct 15 21:17:36 2009
New Revision: 152870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152870
Log:
2009-10-15 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
Backport from mainline:
2009-10-13 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41661.c: New test.
2009-10-12 Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>
PR libgfortran/41683
* gfortran.dg/fmt_error_9.f: Add check for repeat count after P.
2009-10-12 Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com>
PR c++/41570
* g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/template-params-7.C: New test.
2009-10-11 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/41555
* gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c: New testcase.
2009-10-09 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/41634
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41634.c: New testcase.
2009-10-08 Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
PR middle-end/41573
* gcc.dg/pr41573.c: New test.
2009-10-07 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
PR c/41182
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41182-1.c: New.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/template-params-7.C
- copied unchanged from r152869,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/template-params-7.C
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41182-1.c
- copied unchanged from r152869,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41182-1.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41634.c
- copied unchanged from r152869,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41634.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41661.c
- copied unchanged from r152868,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr41661.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr41573.c
- copied unchanged from r152869, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr41573.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c
- copied unchanged from r152869,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_error_9.f
- copied unchanged from r152869,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_error_9.f
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-15 21:18 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-19 1:31 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 1:32 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 2:09 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-19 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-19 01:31 -------
Testcase also fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11:
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c:4:20: error: stdint.h:
N
o such file or directory
/mnt/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr41555.c:9: error: expected '=',
',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u'
...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-19 1:31 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-19 1:32 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 2:09 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-19 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-19 01:32 -------
Sorry, I should have added this on 4.4 branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] possible miscompilation in whole-program mode
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-19 1:32 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-19 2:09 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-19 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-19 02:09 -------
> Where do you get all this testcases from ... ;)
Maybe from here: http://pics.regehr.org/panos_brooks_range_09/
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-10-19 02:09:18
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41555
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-19 2:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-10-03 15:46 [Bug c/41555] New: possible miscompilation in whole-program mode regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-03 16:33 ` [Bug c/41555] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-03 16:42 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-03 16:44 ` regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
2009-10-05 2:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/41555] [4.5 regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-11 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-11 11:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-13 16:05 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-10-15 8:41 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-10-15 21:18 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 1:31 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 1:32 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-19 2:09 ` danglin 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).