From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-36032-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11446 invoked by alias); 19 May 2003 22:06:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11114 invoked by uid 71); 19 May 2003 22:06:01 -0000
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:06:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030519220601.11113.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: law@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty
  function
Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02120.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/10862; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: law@redhat.com
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty
  function
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:05:02 -0500 (CDT)

 > This patch ought to fix this problem.
 
 Yes, it does. Thanks!
   W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/