* [Bug bootstrap/52878] sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-05 16:11 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-06 6:38 ` [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-05 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-05 16:10:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27102
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27102
A patch
This patch works for Linux/sparc. But it may not work
for all sparc targets which don't include long-double-switch.opt.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-05 16:11 ` [Bug bootstrap/52878] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-06 6:38 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-06 12:24 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-06 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-04-06
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|sparc64 bootstrap failure: |[4.8 regression] bootstrap
|"MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" |failure:
|redefined |"MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128"
| |redefined
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-06 06:37:07 UTC ---
> This patch works for Linux/sparc. But it may not work
> for all sparc targets which don't include long-double-switch.opt.
You can easily find this out, just build a cross to sparc-elf.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-05 16:11 ` [Bug bootstrap/52878] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-06 6:38 ` [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-06 12:24 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-16 7:14 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-06 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-06 12:23:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created attachment 27102 [details]
> A patch
>
> This patch works for Linux/sparc. But it may not work
> for all sparc targets which don't include long-double-switch.opt.
This addition:
diff --git a/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h b/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h
index a1919b4..a04f8ef 100644
--- a/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h
+++ b/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h
@@ -53,6 +53,14 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#endif /* IN_LIBGCC2 */
#define TARGET_ARCH64 (! TARGET_ARCH32)
+#ifndef TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
+#define TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 0
+#endif
+
+#ifndef MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128
+#define MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128 0
+#endif
+
/* Code model selection in 64-bit environment.
The machine mode used for addresses is 32-bit wide:
is also needed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-06 12:24 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-16 7:14 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
2012-04-18 16:42 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-04-16 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2012-04-16 07:13:09 UTC ---
Can someone please fix this bootstrap failure? It's now been three weeks that
trunk hasn't bootstrapped on sparc64-linux.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-16 7:14 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
@ 2012-04-18 16:42 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
2012-04-18 17:24 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-04-18 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2012-04-18 16:38:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27183
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27183
combined patch
I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it restores bootstrap
on sparc64-linux.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 16:42 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
@ 2012-04-18 17:24 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-18 17:35 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-18 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-18 17:23:24 UTC ---
> I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it restores bootstrap
> on sparc64-linux.
But it probably breaks SPARC/Solaris, as TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 must be
non-zero for this target. MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128 and TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 must
always be defined to meaningful values, irrespective of whether
long-double-switch.opt is included; that's why sparc.opt also contains the
entry.
If the original patch breaks this mechanism, it should IMO provide a general
replacement, as other architectures might be affected.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 17:24 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-18 17:35 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-18 21:01 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-18 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-18 17:32:38 UTC ---
If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 17:35 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-18 21:01 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-18 21:06 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-18 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-18 20:59:16 UTC ---
> If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
> should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
It should be:
options.h:#define MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128 (1 << 16)
options.h:#define TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 ((target_flags & MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128)
!= 0)
on SPARC/Solaris, but of course the (1 << 16) is dependent on other options, so
a patch that hardcodes it isn't acceptable, IOW this must be fixed in
opth-gen.awk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 21:01 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-18 21:06 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-18 21:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-18 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-18 21:04:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
> > should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
>
> It should be:
>
> options.h:#define MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128 (1 << 16)
> options.h:#define TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 ((target_flags & MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128)
> != 0)
>
> on SPARC/Solaris, but of course the (1 << 16) is dependent on other options, so
> a patch that hardcodes it isn't acceptable, IOW this must be fixed in
> opth-gen.awk.
For a target which doesn't use long-double-switch.opt, will
TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 be a fixed value? If no, how is its
value determined? If yes, what is the fixed value?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 21:06 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-18 21:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-18 21:43 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-18 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-18 21:17:47 UTC ---
> For a target which doesn't use long-double-switch.opt, will
> TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 be a fixed value? If no, how is its
> value determined? If yes, what is the fixed value?
Yes, and it is determined by setting the mask flag MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128 in
TARGET_DEFAULT, see e.g. sol2.h. Harcoding any value isn't acceptable.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 21:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-18 21:43 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-19 0:14 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-18 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-18 21:42:39 UTC ---
One approach is to provide masks.opt to provide those masks without
switch. masks.opt should be used when long-double-switch.opt isn't
used.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-18 21:43 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-19 0:14 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-19 8:42 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-19 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #27102|0 |1
is obsolete| |
Attachment #27183|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-19 00:12:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27184
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27184
A new patch
This patch adds config/sparc/sparc.opt and uses it when
config/sparc/long-double-switch.opt isn't used.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-19 0:14 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-19 8:42 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-19 17:18 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-19 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-19 08:40:53 UTC ---
> One approach is to provide masks.opt to provide those masks without
> switch. masks.opt should be used when long-double-switch.opt isn't
> used.
How ugly. Please do something in opth-gen.awk instead, or revert the patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-19 8:42 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-19 17:18 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-04-20 20:16 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2012-04-19 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #27184|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2012-04-19 17:17:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 27192
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27192
A patch
Please try this patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-19 17:18 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-04-20 20:16 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
2012-04-23 23:21 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: mikpe at it dot uu.se @ 2012-04-20 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> 2012-04-20 20:15:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created attachment 27192 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this patch.
With this patch I'm able to bootstrap gcc-4.8-20120415 on sparc64-linux.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-20 20:16 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
@ 2012-04-23 23:21 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-23 23:33 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-26 13:49 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-23 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-23 23:20:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
The patch looks hackish, as if there's an artificial distinction
between "normal" masks and extra masks. Why is that?
That said, please commit the tested patch as-is, so that we repair
the bootstrap breakage. Cleanups to "extra" can come later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-23 23:21 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-23 23:33 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-26 13:49 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: hjl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-23 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #17 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org <hjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-23 23:32:58 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 23 23:32:54 2012
New Revision: 186729
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186729
Log:
Check if MASK_/TARGET_ macros defined for extra_masks
2012-04-23 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
PR bootstrap/52878
* opth-gen.awk: Check if MASK_ and TARGET_ macros are defined for
extra_masks.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/opth-gen.awk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
2012-04-05 15:44 [Bug bootstrap/52878] New: sparc64 bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-23 23:33 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-26 13:49 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-26 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-26 13:38:35 UTC ---
.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread