gcc archive
author index for February, 2001

This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Indexes:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Site Nav:	[Browse other archives for this mailing list] [Browse other mailing lists at this site]
Search: Limit to: This time period only This mailing list only All mailing lists Entire site (no limit)

=?gb2312?B?xaPOxMe/?=

• 2001-02-16 01:20 build gcc on unixware7 and sco505

Frédéric L. W. Meunier

• 2001-02-11 19:19 Re: troubles compiling ncurses5.2
• 2001-02-25 00:28 Re: Internal compiler error.

"Bänninger, Dominik"

• 2001-02-16 04:34 makefile:8: *** missing separator. Stop.

Etienne Lorrain

• 2001-02-01 01:36 Re: What is exactly in O2?
• 2001-02-26 08:57 More on SUBREG

Günter Knauf

• 2001-02-10 11:34 how to get rid of __main

Jesús Barba Romero

• 2001-02-12 02:37 where can I find for distributed compilation?
• 2001-02-12 11:54 wich can be de problem?
• 2001-02-14 04:58 instruction constraints

Aimin Pan

• 2001-02-01 01:14 gcc
• 2001-02-01 18:33 Re: gcc
• 2001-02-01 21:56 Re: gcc

Alain Lichnewsky

• 2001-02-16 10:16 GCC: support of daVinci graph format

Alan Lehotsky

• 2001-02-15 09:37 Code base to start a port

Albert Chin-A-Young

• 2001-02-13 10:20 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-22 20:22 Re: The fourth test release of gcc-2.95.3 is available

Alexandre Oliva

• 2001-02-01 12:50 Re: gcc
• 2001-02-01 18:50 Re: Documentation: Is One-Large-HTML page Manual Available?
• 2001-02-01 18:53 Re: gcc
• 2001-02-01 22:11 Re: gcc
• 2001-02-01 23:10 Re: DOS compatibility problem
• 2001-02-03 09:43 Re: MAX OS X gcc compiler
• 2001-02-03 17:45 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-03 18:48 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-05 08:21 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-05 11:31 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 18:11 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-06 16:32 Re: Question involving const-value qualifiers in c++...
• 2001-02-06 17:35 Re: -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-06 23:11 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-06 23:12 Re: How to avoid build fastjar?
• 2001-02-11 08:50 Re: Are there any useful/basic classes provided by gcc ?
• 2001-02-11 08:55 Re: no matching function
• 2001-02-11 09:46 Re: Copyright forms
• 2001-02-11 20:41 Re: -fvtable-gc
• 2001-02-12 11:14 Re: Problem compiling apache1.3.12
• 2001-02-12 21:07 Re: AIX and broken collect2
• 2001-02-12 21:28 Re: build/install failure with -jN, N > 1, and nonexistent $(prefix)
• 2001-02-14 17:09 Re: Clarification
• 2001-02-14 17:19 Re: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-14 18:23 Re: tips on working with 2.95.2 sources (parallel make, SGI)?
• 2001-02-14 19:12 Re: instruction constraints
• 2001-02-14 19:12 Re: Non-template-friend warning.
• 2001-02-14 19:13 Re: C++ with gcc 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-14 19:20 Re: g++ on solaris
• 2001-02-14 19:23 Re: probs re-building lib makefiles (2.95.2) - how to?
• 2001-02-14 19:24 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-14 22:23 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-14 23:34 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-15 00:45 Re: C++ with gcc 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-15 09:16 Re: linking g++ to libstdc++-v3
• 2001-02-15 09:16 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 10:34 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-16 10:12 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 10:16 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-16 10:20 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-16 11:11 Re: g++ on solaris
• 2001-02-16 11:15 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-16 11:31 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-16 11:34 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-16 13:16 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 13:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 17:26 Re: Unnamed unions
• 2001-02-16 17:34 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-17 12:08 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 22:41 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 22:46 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 22:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 23:21 Re: Inlineing...
• 2001-02-19 23:24 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 00:40 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 02:13 Re: bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4
• 2001-02-20 03:05 Re: bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4
• 2001-02-21 06:08 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 06:18 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 08:53 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 14:04 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 14:21 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 14:41 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 14:49 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 15:00 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 15:05 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:06 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:39 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:39 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 20:27 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 21:57 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:16 Re: How can I submit a large testresult?
• 2001-02-22 02:07 Re: How can I submit a large testresult?
• 2001-02-22 05:09 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 10:46 Re: Question about gcc
• 2001-02-23 11:04 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 11:24 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 17:56 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 19:46 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-26 13:07 Re: Internal compiler error.
• 2001-02-26 13:19 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and --with-as
• 2001-02-27 14:28 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 14:38 Re: How can I make ELF library in C++ ?
• 2001-02-28 00:26 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-28 01:19 Re: libgcc.so.1
• 2001-02-28 01:26 Re: Missing mips-tfile dependency in 3.0 branch?
• 2001-02-28 01:27 Re: Where I can download the lastest snapshot via Http
• 2001-02-28 07:37 Re: g++ compile-time regression

Alexandre Petit-Bianco

• 2001-02-13 21:47 Re: How exactly does one build libjava successfully?

Andi Kleen

• 2001-02-20 13:32 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Andreas Jaeger

• 2001-02-03 02:40 Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-03 06:31 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-03 11:20 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-06 01:56 Re: compiling multiple source files at once
• 2001-02-08 07:15 status bounded pointer support in GCC
• 2001-02-19 04:21 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 06:44 powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-21 12:35 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:47 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-25 03:45 Both branches are broken
• 2001-02-25 08:24 Re: breakage on the 3.0 branch.

Andreas Pfeiffer

• 2001-02-13 02:09 pthread and shared C++ libs ?

Andreas Schwab

• 2001-02-01 11:54 Re: --enable-shared and libiberty.a
• 2001-02-06 05:14 Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-06 07:57 Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-20 01:54 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-20 11:28 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 09:25 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Andrew Pinski

• 2001-02-16 16:27 Re: Unnamed unions
• 2001-02-25 16:59 Re: Still problem bootstrapping 3.0

Andrew Vaught

• 2001-02-10 12:19 Missing warning message

Andy Walker

• 2001-02-01 18:36 Re: Projects for beginners

Arcana

• 2001-02-01 16:41 Documentation: Is One-Large-HTML page Manual Available?

Axel Kittenberger

• 2001-02-26 10:44 c++ dynamic typecasts... (just nosy)

Barry Perlman

• 2001-02-23 11:24 Re: Series and gcc

Benjamin Kosnik

• 2001-02-12 11:57 Re: __cplusplus revisited
• 2001-02-14 03:09 Re: build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)
• 2001-02-15 17:06 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-19 12:03 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 15:54 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-27 08:56 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 12:47 Re: Proposal on how to study g++ compile-time regression and progression since 2.95.2 and initial analysis

Benjamin Scherrey

• 2001-02-24 20:49 Internal compiler error.
• 2001-02-24 21:13 Re: Internal compiler error.

Bernd Schmidt

• 2001-02-05 05:09 Re: Third prerelease of gcc-2.95.3 available
• 2001-02-09 07:44 2.95.3 status
• 2001-02-20 08:17 Re: Rerunning CSE after GCSE
• 2001-02-20 09:34 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 09:16 The fourth test release of gcc-2.95.3 is available
• 2001-02-22 03:24 Re: How can I submit a large testresult?
• 2001-02-26 04:53 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-26 05:21 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-28 03:22 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends

bhunt

• 2001-02-07 13:40 broken link

Bill Wendling

• 2001-02-18 01:27 3.0 Changes in ASM

Billinghurst, David (CRTS)

• 2001-02-17 16:30 gcc-3.0 regression testing - POOMA

Bo Thorsen

• 2001-02-11 02:39 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-15 03:44 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 07:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 11:13 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Brad Lucier

• 2001-02-14 11:20 Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-15 06:51 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-15 11:15 Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-15 17:28 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-15 21:29 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-16 11:13 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-16 12:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 13:19 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 16:24 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 18:42 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 10:01 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 11:13 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 13:18 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 14:07 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 17:16 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc

brahmaiah vallabhaneni

• 2001-02-08 21:15 mode dependent constants
• 2001-02-19 20:50 Inlineing...

Branko Čibej

• 2001-02-01 17:12 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-01 20:22 Re: Projects for beginners

Bruce Korb

• 2001-02-01 17:11 Does anyone have 2.95.2 running on NetBSD for PowerPC?
• 2001-02-06 10:27 I need CVS write access

Bryce McKinlay

• 2001-02-06 15:34 Re: compiling multiple source files at once
• 2001-02-13 18:31 Re: How exactly does one build libjava successfully?
• 2001-02-14 17:33 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff

Carlo Wood

• 2001-02-24 16:43 -V<version> and libstdc++
• 2001-02-25 08:09 Re: breakage on the 3.0 branch.
• 2001-02-25 16:35 Still problem bootstrapping 3.0
• 2001-02-25 17:49 Re: Still problem bootstrapping 3.0
• 2001-02-28 07:30 g++ compile-time regression
• 2001-02-28 08:32 Re: g++ compile-time regression

Christian Marquardt

• 2001-02-11 09:30 Copyright forms

Christopher Faylor

• 2001-02-06 20:28 Re: Errors
• 2001-02-10 14:52 Re: Problem with sending mail to gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
• 2001-02-10 21:54 Re: OS

Clive Nicolson

• 2001-02-21 18:51 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Coutu, Alain Capt (CF) NSSF/SCOA

• 2001-02-14 13:13 gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 05:46 RE: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 05:48 RE: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 09:15 RE: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2

Craig Rodrigues

• 2001-02-10 10:52 Problem with sending mail to gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
• 2001-02-10 15:37 Should char_traits<char>::int_type be an int or unsigned long?
• 2001-02-11 04:04 Re: c++ programs want compile with glibc 2.2.1
• 2001-02-11 15:58 Problems with -O3 and C++ template instantiations
• 2001-02-12 09:13 Re: GNU & Borland Pure Virtual Functions.
• 2001-02-12 22:53 Re: a suspicious gcc warning
• 2001-02-23 13:17 Re: [Fwd: list of installed files]
• 2001-02-24 20:58 Re: Internal compiler error.
• 2001-02-27 21:41 Re: ELF Format

Dan Nicolaescu

• 2001-02-14 15:21 gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff
• 2001-02-14 18:12 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff
• 2001-02-14 18:14 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff

Daniel Berlin

• 2001-02-01 21:08 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-03 12:35 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 15:02 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 15:12 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-03 15:14 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 15:33 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 16:16 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-03 16:54 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-03 17:21 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-08 19:43 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-08 23:32 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-09 08:13 Extra constructor debug info
• 2001-02-09 23:14 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 10:26 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 14:48 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-13 09:25 Re: -fcse-follow-jumps and -fcse-skip-blocks and GCSE
• 2001-02-13 09:34 Re: -fcse-follow-jumps and -fcse-skip-blocks and GCSE
• 2001-02-15 14:48 Re: Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-16 17:57 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 18:13 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 20:28 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-17 19:48 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 10:09 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-20 15:24 Re: Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-21 07:20 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-21 10:19 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-22 19:15 Re: Arg pointer and SSE code
• 2001-02-23 21:28 Re: reload mucking with my allocation
• 2001-02-27 23:18 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends
• 2001-02-28 06:37 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends

Daniel Jacobowitz

• 2001-02-18 20:59 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 21:51 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 13:17 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 21:46 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-24 10:02 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Dara Hazeghi

• 2001-02-23 13:13 2.95.3test4 bootstrap fails on hpux11-hppa2.0w

Dave Brolley

• 2001-02-06 08:03 Re: C++ preprocessor bug or not ?

Dave Gilbert

• 2001-02-11 06:15 Debugging help; how to debug something wrong in the rtl withoptimisation

Dave Raggett

• 2001-02-05 23:55 preprocessor question
• 2001-02-15 22:38 Bug in preprocessor which be integrated with C++ frontend

David Edelsohn

• 2001-02-01 07:59 Re: [RFC] New intermediate languages
• 2001-02-01 09:53 Re: AIX status?
• 2001-02-01 15:31 Re: AIX status?
• 2001-02-01 16:06 Re: How to change which assembler GCC uses
• 2001-02-01 18:52 Re: Does anyone have 2.95.2 running on NetBSD for PowerPC?
• 2001-02-02 11:34 Re: AIX exception-handling vs. builtin_return_address
• 2001-02-02 13:24 Re: AIX exception-handling vs. builtin_return_address
• 2001-02-05 09:54 Re: Cross-compiling from GNU/Linux to AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:14 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:45 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:53 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:59 Re: V3 problems
• 2001-02-05 11:43 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 22:35 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-06 08:10 Re: AIX vtable issues
• 2001-02-06 11:01 Re: AIX vtable issues
• 2001-02-06 11:10 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-06 11:24 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-10 16:34 Re: Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stack alignment
• 2001-02-10 19:56 Re: Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stack alignment
• 2001-02-10 20:58 Re: Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stack alignment
• 2001-02-11 17:06 Re: Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stack alignment
• 2001-02-16 12:22 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-20 16:21 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-21 06:24 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-21 06:43 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 07:38 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-21 09:59 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 10:04 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 11:04 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 13:25 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-23 10:46 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 10:51 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 11:03 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 11:08 Re: mknumeric_limits

David Greene

• 2001-02-28 15:35 Porting gcc to SimpleScalar

David Gressett

• 2001-02-26 00:04 Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-26 07:18 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-26 22:04 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 07:01 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 07:33 Submitting patches to gcc-patches
• 2001-02-27 20:10 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4

David Korn

• 2001-02-02 04:33 RE: Live range splitting in new allocator
• 2001-02-07 08:45 Quick libgcc question:
• 2001-02-08 03:35 RE: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 04:10 RE: PATCH: flag_external and DECL_EXTERNAL documentation
• 2001-02-09 08:00 libio / gen-params and __printf_fp test
• 2001-02-15 07:57 RE: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-15 08:04 RE: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-16 04:43 RE: makefile:8: *** missing separator. Stop.
• 2001-02-16 04:48 RE: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
• 2001-02-16 04:53 RE: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-16 07:44 RE: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-26 03:31 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-26 05:18 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 02:18 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 02:18 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 04:04 RE: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-28 07:07 RE: g++

David O'Brien

• 2001-02-28 10:58 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:00 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:06 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:12 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:13 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:19 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:31 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 11:36 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 13:32 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Dennis Bjorklund

• 2001-02-11 01:44 packed, aligned
• 2001-02-15 01:54 make-error in gcc-3.0-branch
• 2001-02-16 10:05 i18n and gcc 3.0
• 2001-02-16 10:07 irc

dewar

• 2001-02-01 12:39 Re: Number of registers on x86
• 2001-02-05 09:01 Re: Gnat in GCC Again
• 2001-02-05 09:02 Re: Gnat in GCC Again
• 2001-02-07 05:15 Re: [8603-003] ACT#999 - GCC 3.0 / GNAT 5.00w for NT
• 2001-02-08 04:36 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 05:10 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 05:58 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 13:17 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-11 04:55 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-11 04:57 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-18 06:32 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-18 06:35 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-18 06:36 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-18 06:52 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 07:55 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-18 08:39 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 09:02 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 10:29 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 04:36 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 11:57 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 06:33 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-22 04:52 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-22 18:45 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-24 06:35 Re: Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-24 09:52 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-25 05:10 Re: GPL...
• 2001-02-25 05:14 Re: My project
• 2001-02-27 02:51 Re: Drop VMS?
• 2001-02-27 03:51 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 15:53 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 16:16 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 09:36 Re: g++ compile-time regression
• 2001-02-28 10:13 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 19:55 Re: Deprecating GCC extensions...

Diego Novillo

• 2001-02-01 08:11 Re: [RFC] New intermediate languages
• 2001-02-20 08:56 A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-23 13:21 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-23 14:05 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator

DJ Delorie

• 2001-02-10 09:14 Re: simple question about testresults list
• 2001-02-13 13:45 Re: build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)
• 2001-02-13 13:59 Re: build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)
• 2001-02-13 16:19 Re: tips on working with 2.95.2 sources (parallel make, SGI)?
• 2001-02-14 07:08 Re: build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)

Don Bashford

• 2001-02-22 15:31 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 16:43 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 17:28 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Doug Gregor

• 2001-02-22 12:40 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 20:53 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite

Doug Landauer

• 2001-02-16 15:59 Re: Unnamed unions

Dream-D-Sign

• 2001-02-25 01:10 GPL...

Einstein Maggie

• 2001-02-06 19:00 How to avoid build fastjar?

Elena Labruna

• 2001-02-16 06:44 longjmp crash

Eric Christopher

• 2001-02-14 20:20 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 09:02 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 09:21 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-15 14:25 Re: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-18 01:54 Re: failure of the UDK compiler to bootstrap

Eric Lemings

• 2001-02-26 07:55 Wasted effort?

Eric W. Biederman

• 2001-02-15 11:11 Re: status bounded pointer support in GCC
• 2001-02-19 02:07 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 05:08 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 11:11 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 11:38 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 11:40 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 11:54 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Erik Mouw

• 2001-02-18 07:30 Re: 3.0 Changes in ASM
• 2001-02-19 05:40 make bootstrap-lean failure
• 2001-02-19 08:23 Re: make bootstrap-lean failure
• 2001-02-26 04:59 Re: How can I make ELF library in C++ ?
• 2001-02-26 11:24 Re: make bootstrap-lean failure
• 2001-02-26 16:51 Re: 3.0 Branch Remains Broken
• 2001-02-27 10:04 Re: How can I make ELF library in C++ ?

Fergus Henderson

• 2001-02-01 19:59 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-02 07:39 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-06 07:48 Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-06 17:05 Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-06 17:18 Re: -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-08 03:33 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 04:43 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 05:52 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 06:13 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-09 23:50 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 01:00 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-11 03:22 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-12 09:21 Re: GNU & Borland Pure Virtual Functions.
• 2001-02-15 09:50 Re: porting gcc
• 2001-02-16 22:46 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-17 05:45 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-18 06:43 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-19 08:27 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 10:20 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 17:17 Re: problem with purge_addressof (function.c)
• 2001-02-20 20:11 Re: Unnamed unions
• 2001-02-21 03:11 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-21 11:34 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 18:34 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:18 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 20:37 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 21:02 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 08:25 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 09:14 Re: Simula front-end: Heap-allocated activation records
• 2001-02-26 06:52 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-27 10:43 Re: Submitting patches to gcc-patches
• 2001-02-27 19:34 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 19:44 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 19:51 Re: Deprecating GCC extensions...

Filippo Basso

• 2001-02-15 08:41 porting gcc

Fleischer, Karsten (K.)

• 2001-02-15 06:09 RE: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2

Franz Sirl

• 2001-02-02 11:41 Re: AIX exception-handling vs. builtin_return_address
• 2001-02-04 05:57 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-05 07:05 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-05 09:44 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-15 14:10 Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 07:05 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-21 07:56 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-21 13:45 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken

Fred Forsman

• 2001-02-05 14:15 Re: MAX OS X gcc compiler

Gabriel Dos Reis

• 2001-02-06 17:16 Re: -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-06 18:03 Re: -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-08 05:37 Re: moving lib<foo> into GCC FTP site
• 2001-02-08 05:38 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-10 19:09 Re: Should char_traits<char>::int_type be an int or unsigned long?
• 2001-02-11 10:29 Re: Difference between struct and class in internal tree
• 2001-02-12 12:53 Re: __cplusplus revisited
• 2001-02-16 10:42 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-19 10:20 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 10:29 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 21:21 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 21:51 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-21 03:39 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-22 12:28 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 21:00 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 09:52 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 09:57 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-23 10:48 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 11:01 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 11:08 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 11:16 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-26 10:58 Re: c++ dynamic typecasts... (just nosy)
• 2001-02-27 04:14 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?

Gary Funck

• 2001-02-13 15:49 tips on working with 2.95.2 sources (parallel make, SGI)?
• 2001-02-14 09:47 probs re-building lib makefiles (2.95.2) - how to?
• 2001-02-26 14:42 stale comment in tree.h - on changing layout of tree nodes
• 2001-02-26 16:38 build_type_variant() and the restrict type qualifier
• 2001-02-26 19:43 Re: build_type_variant() and the restrict type qualifier

gcc

• 2001-02-05 08:33 Gnat in GCC Again
• 2001-02-05 09:14 Re: Gnat in GCC Again

Geert Bosch

• 2001-02-01 09:59 Re: egcs/gcc new-regalloc.c ChangeLog.RA
• 2001-02-01 15:55 Re: How to change which assembler GCC uses
• 2001-02-02 09:15 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-03 05:39 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-03 07:02 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-03 11:49 [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 13:10 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 15:13 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 17:04 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-08 18:48 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-08 19:51 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 09:13 Re: 2.95.3 status
• 2001-02-10 09:47 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 11:04 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-15 07:26 Re: Is SSE FP ABI breaking on i386?
• 2001-02-19 11:58 Problem building libgcc2 on sparcv9 with current GCC
• 2001-02-20 10:08 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 11:47 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-24 04:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-24 09:44 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-25 18:43 Re: stack pointer adjustment problem

Gentry Jeff

• 2001-02-02 16:41 HELP - Fundamental Question

Geoff Keating

• 2001-02-05 18:13 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-07 12:21 Re: gcc/gcc/testsuite/consistency.vlad/layout
• 2001-02-10 13:54 Re: Problem with sending mail to gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
• 2001-02-14 13:28 Re: 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-15 00:55 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-16 18:58 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 19:00 Re: vtgc1.C spurious failures
• 2001-02-18 14:13 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 00:07 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 13:21 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 23:38 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 02:14 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-21 13:07 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 13:20 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-21 13:24 Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken
• 2001-02-21 13:29 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 19:46 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 22:15 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 13:41 Re: Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-22 15:58 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 17:18 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 15:04 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Geoffrey Keating

• 2001-02-13 18:15 Returning structures

Gerald Pfeifer

• 2001-02-01 05:35 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill
• 2001-02-01 10:46 Re: Please update GCC mirror list
• 2001-02-05 00:55 Re: More beginners' projects
• 2001-02-05 10:50 Re: More beginners' projects
• 2001-02-06 02:46 Java web pages and #include virtual="/..."
• 2001-02-06 10:48 Re: Java web pages and #include virtual="/..."
• 2001-02-07 09:46 Re: Java web pages and #include virtual="/..."
• 2001-02-08 03:50 Re: Bootstrap status of 2.95.3test2 and 3.0 on many host types
• 2001-02-08 04:47 Re: moving lib<foo> into GCC FTP site
• 2001-02-08 05:27 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-09 01:08 Re: broken link
• 2001-02-09 16:11 PATCH htdocs/index.html for Re: Platforms?
• 2001-02-11 14:51 Re: Problem with sending mail to gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
• 2001-02-13 12:21 texinfo (was: update contribute.html for regression testing)
• 2001-02-13 12:42 build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)
• 2001-02-15 08:07 Re: Copyright assignment form
• 2001-02-15 13:50 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 13:55 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 14:12 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 14:50 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 23:51 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 00:27 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 09:23 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-17 03:13 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-17 03:45 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff
• 2001-02-18 15:34 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 05:37 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 14:55 Re: Using 'at-pr' for bugs? and maybe patches?
• 2001-02-21 23:24 Re: java bytecode considered bad

Ghost in the shell

• 2001-02-25 06:20 How can I make ELF library in C++ ?
• 2001-02-27 08:52 Re: How can I make ELF library in C++ ?

gilles lamoureux

• 2001-02-10 10:17 upgrade

Graham Murray

• 2001-02-11 03:21 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-21 22:52 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Graham Stott

• 2001-02-16 11:18 Re: Refinement of returning nonzero from cse_main

Greg Freemyer

• 2001-02-20 13:45 What is Int64_t? Used in libstdc++v3/libmath/signbitl.c
• 2001-02-21 13:10 Tru64: GCC 3.0: libstdc++v3 typecast problem in libstdc++v3/libmath/signbitl.c
• 2001-02-23 08:07 V2.95.3 test4 - Missing Patch
• 2001-02-23 10:46 GCC 3.0 - alpha-dec-osf5.0 - proposed patch

Greg McGary

• 2001-02-08 10:12 Re: status bounded pointer support in GCC
• 2001-02-15 11:43 Re: status bounded pointer support in GCC

H . J . Lu

• 2001-02-06 11:30 Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-07 17:06 binutils 2.10.1.0.7 is released.
• 2001-02-08 11:24 Update on the release note for binutils 2.10.1.0.7
• 2001-02-14 10:16 Re: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-14 19:25 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-14 22:35 Re: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-15 14:32 binutils 2.10.91.0.2 is released.
• 2001-02-15 15:46 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-16 23:59 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-17 00:16 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-18 08:33 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-18 08:56 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 09:04 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-18 09:10 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 10:35 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 12:26 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 12:52 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 20:16 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 20:24 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 10:02 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 10:10 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 10:21 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 10:30 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 10:30 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 12:15 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 16:03 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 16:11 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 17:15 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 09:20 The current shared libgcc won't work for Linux.
• 2001-02-21 09:21 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 10:11 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 11:14 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 11:27 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 11:58 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 12:00 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 12:29 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 13:02 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 13:37 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 13:38 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 14:36 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 14:42 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 14:50 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 14:54 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 16:41 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 16:48 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 16:56 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:48 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:53 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 20:53 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 22:35 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 22:40 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 23:19 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:24 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:55 Re: How can I submit a large testresult?
• 2001-02-21 23:55 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 00:01 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 07:25 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 07:26 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 07:33 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 07:41 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:40 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:50 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 10:04 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 10:08 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 13:02 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 13:04 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 13:19 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 14:07 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 18:36 Making a symbol dynamic in executable
• 2001-02-26 08:56 Binutils 2.10.91.0.4 is released

Hal Wigoda

• 2001-02-02 23:46 MAX OS X gcc compiler

Harald Dunkel

• 2001-02-12 08:18 Writing Big Endian Files With G77
• 2001-02-15 10:21 What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?

Harry

• 2001-02-23 13:04 [Fwd: list of installed files]

Helge Hess

• 2001-02-07 18:06 Re: Objective-C and IA-64 ?

Hidemiki Suzuki

• 2001-02-01 10:38 Please update GCC mirror list
• 2001-02-01 11:48 Re: Please update GCC mirror list

Hidvegi

• 2001-02-01 09:09 Re: AIX status?
• 2001-02-01 14:27 Re: AIX status?
• 2001-02-01 15:41 Re: AIX status?
• 2001-02-08 21:59 AIX troubles
• 2001-02-19 14:06 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-21 08:36 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Jacek Generowicz

• 2001-02-14 04:33 Non-template-friend warning.

Jakub Jelinek

• 2001-02-06 00:32 Re: comdat1.C

James Buchanan

• 2001-02-21 22:50 GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-28 08:21 ? Can't you-know-what

James Dennett

• 2001-02-10 17:04 Re: Missing warning message
• 2001-02-16 16:33 Re: Unnamed unions
• 2001-02-18 08:06 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-18 09:57 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-18 10:15 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-25 16:46 Re: Still problem bootstrapping 3.0
• 2001-02-27 15:37 Re: Suggestions for GNATS

James Mansion

• 2001-02-27 15:59 RE: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite

James Montgomerie

• 2001-02-01 15:40 How to change which assembler GCC uses
• 2001-02-08 02:37 Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 04:13 Re: Strange pedantic error message

Jamie Lokier

• 2001-02-23 01:48 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-23 01:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Jan Hubicka

• 2001-02-13 09:57 SSE support in the mainline gcc
• 2001-02-15 01:28 Is SSE FP ABI breaking on i386?
• 2001-02-16 03:21 Re: SSE support in the mainline gcc
• 2001-02-16 03:41 Re: Is SSE FP ABI breaking on i386?
• 2001-02-16 10:15 Re: Is SSE FP ABI breaking on i386?
• 2001-02-21 08:45 Using SSE packed types for complex number arithmetics
• 2001-02-21 09:01 RFC: caller_save.c and i386
• 2001-02-21 09:33 loop.c and new fp conditonals infr. again
• 2001-02-21 10:03 SSE parameter passing patch
• 2001-02-21 11:52 Arg pointer and SSE code
• 2001-02-21 12:14 Another unrelated SSE patch
• 2001-02-21 13:50 multiple entry prologues and flowgraph
• 2001-02-23 16:29 Re: Arg pointer and SSE code
• 2001-02-23 16:38 Re: Arg pointer and SSE code
• 2001-02-28 09:01 Status of SSE support in current gcc mainline

Janis Johnson

• 2001-02-15 13:31 Re: SSE support in the mainline gcc
• 2001-02-15 15:20 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch

Jason McDonald

• 2001-02-12 08:56 GNU & Borland Pure Virtual Functions.
• 2001-02-12 14:05 Re: GNU & Borland Pure Virtual Functions.

Jason Merrill

• 2001-02-06 01:55 Re: comdat1.C
• 2001-02-08 08:13 Re: Possible problem with debugging info on new abi constructors
• 2001-02-08 09:31 squeeze_notes vs. g++.other/loop2.C (resend)
• 2001-02-13 17:34 Re: -fvtable-gc
• 2001-02-15 04:40 Re: Non-template-friend warning.
• 2001-02-15 06:22 Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-15 07:58 Re: maybe_set_unchanging
• 2001-02-15 08:19 Re: Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-15 09:06 Re: maybe_set_unchanging
• 2001-02-15 09:24 Re: maybe_set_unchanging
• 2001-02-15 09:47 Re: Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-15 17:01 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-15 17:27 Re: Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-16 02:14 Re: g++, this, more_specialized(), and fn_type_unification()
• 2001-02-21 02:52 Re: g++, this, more_specialized(), and fn_type_unification()
• 2001-02-23 02:55 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-23 11:10 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-23 16:01 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-23 18:03 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-26 14:10 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-27 04:52 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 07:07 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 08:45 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 16:07 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 18:04 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?

Jean-Pierre Radley

• 2001-02-17 17:39 failure of the UDK compiler to bootstrap
• 2001-02-18 07:35 Re: failure of the UDK compiler to bootstrap
• 2001-02-18 14:24 Re: failure of the UDK compiler to bootstrap
• 2001-02-25 15:50 Re: breakage on the 3.0 branch.
• 2001-02-26 08:59 Re: breakage on the 3.0 branch.
• 2001-02-27 13:58 documentation blur
• 2001-02-27 14:47 Re: documentation blur

Jeff Sturm

• 2001-02-07 11:47 Re: Platforms?
• 2001-02-08 11:50 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-21 00:56 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-21 01:10 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 18:01 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 18:13 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite

jeff.sturm

• 2001-02-11 16:55 Re: Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stackalignment

Jeffrey A Law

• 2001-02-01 08:28 Re: Updates to ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
• 2001-02-14 19:59 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff
• 2001-02-14 20:01 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-14 20:32 Re: 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-16 08:25 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 08:27 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 09:13 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-19 09:00 mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 11:49 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 13:54 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 19:09 Re: Rerunning CSE after GCSE
• 2001-02-19 21:48 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-21 12:01 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:37 Re: Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-22 14:04 Re: Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-22 19:32 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-23 08:41 PA port status on GCC 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-23 11:38 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-27 23:03 RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends
• 2001-02-28 07:39 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends
• 2001-02-28 07:41 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends

Jeffrey Oldham

• 2001-02-14 16:10 gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-15 08:07 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-15 21:30 g++, this, more_specialized(), and fn_type_unification()

Jeger, Tobias

• 2001-02-20 01:43 efficient memory access from assembly

Jens Wallner

• 2001-02-03 06:31 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary

Jes Sorensen

• 2001-02-15 03:09 gcc-CVS ia64 compile fix
• 2001-02-19 07:31 CVS1902 preprocessor problem on Linux/ia64
• 2001-02-20 00:35 Re: CVS1902 preprocessor problem on Linux/ia64

Jim Meyering

• 2001-02-12 08:00 build/install failure with -jN, N > 1, and nonexistent $(prefix)

Jim Wilson

• 2001-02-07 13:18 Re: Objective-C and IA-64 ?
• 2001-02-07 18:24 Re: Objective-C and IA-64 ?
• 2001-02-21 15:36 Re: CVS1902 preprocessor problem on Linux/ia64

Jo Dillon

• 2001-02-14 05:52 C++ with gcc 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-15 00:22 Re: C++ with gcc 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-15 03:32 Re: C++ with gcc 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-15 04:04 Re: C++ with gcc 3.0 branch

Joe Buck

• 2001-02-02 11:20 Re: gcc error messages
• 2001-02-02 11:38 Re: Documentation: Is One-Large-HTML page Manual Available?
• 2001-02-02 14:55 Re: gcc error messages
• 2001-02-05 13:08 Re: V3 problems
• 2001-02-06 09:44 Re: ASCII without ANSI
• 2001-02-07 08:39 Re: Introspector Project Launch at SourceForge
• 2001-02-09 15:49 Re: 2.95.3 status
• 2001-02-12 15:59 Re: test of 'sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4' & 'powerpc-unknown-linux' still needed ?
• 2001-02-12 16:03 Re: Missing warning message
• 2001-02-12 16:21 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-13 11:06 Re: test of 'sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4' & 'powerpc-unknown-linux' still
• 2001-02-14 08:25 Re: build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)
• 2001-02-14 12:18 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-16 09:02 Re: makefile:8: *** missing separator. Stop.
• 2001-02-16 09:05 Re: longjmp crash
• 2001-02-16 10:52 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-16 10:52 Re: irc
• 2001-02-16 11:33 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-20 11:09 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 11:12 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 13:29 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:30 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:39 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:43 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 09:59 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 10:22 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 10:45 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 13:40 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 15:21 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 16:36 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 17:38 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 15:07 Re: Series and gcc
• 2001-02-23 15:09 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-26 11:41 Re: Wasted effort?
• 2001-02-26 11:49 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-26 11:58 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and --with-as
• 2001-02-27 13:37 Re: Suggestions for GNATS
• 2001-02-27 16:40 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 12:01 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 16:57 Re: g++ compile-time regression

Joern Rennecke

• 2001-02-02 10:43 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-09 00:26 Re: Introspector Project Launch at SourceForge
• 2001-02-09 05:17 Re: mode dependent constants
• 2001-02-12 15:30 Re: Debugging help; how to debug something wrong in the rtl with
• 2001-02-12 16:04 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-14 09:10 Re: Returning structures
• 2001-02-14 10:30 Re: infinite loop in calculate_global_regs_live
• 2001-02-21 21:04 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:00 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 00:29 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 21:41 Re: SUBREG questions
• 2001-02-23 11:00 Re: rtl generation & predicates
• 2001-02-23 12:26 Re: SUBREG questions
• 2001-02-23 15:11 Re: rtl generation & predicates
• 2001-02-26 16:14 Re: stack pointer adjustment problem
• 2001-02-26 16:32 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 18:15 Re: Bug in cse_insn() and emit_libcall_block()
• 2001-02-28 05:09 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends
• 2001-02-28 05:12 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends

John David Anglin

• 2001-02-18 12:59 rtx_unstable_p and rtx_varies_p when PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REG_CALL_CLOBBERED

John Levon

• 2001-02-06 03:47 C++ preprocessor bug or not ?

John Schmerge

• 2001-02-06 13:24 Question involving const-value qualifiers in c++...

Jonathan Larmour

• 2001-02-19 10:34 Re: AboutShareLib
• 2001-02-23 06:20 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-26 19:50 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and --with-as

Jonathan Lennox

• 2001-02-21 14:22 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Jonathan Thornburg

• 2001-02-01 05:27 Web pages still refer to Chill

Jose M. Moya

• 2001-02-12 07:58 Re: where can I find for distributed compilation?

Joseph S. Myers

• 2001-02-01 08:05 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill
• 2001-02-02 05:52 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill
• 2001-02-03 10:58 More beginners' projects
• 2001-02-06 11:15 Re: Java web pages and #include virtual="/..."
• 2001-02-12 14:38 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-12 16:01 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-12 16:10 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-14 00:53 Re: 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-14 10:13 Re: 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-15 00:17 Re: merging C and C++ options
• 2001-02-15 15:13 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 15:20 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-15 18:10 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-17 04:26 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-19 05:51 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 17:04 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-24 11:23 Re: outdated dejagnu information on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html
• 2001-02-24 14:54 Re: My project
• 2001-02-24 16:56 Re: -V<version> and libstdc++
• 2001-02-26 16:08 Re: DejaGnu 1.4 release
• 2001-02-26 17:15 Re: build_type_variant() and the restrict type qualifier
• 2001-02-27 04:43 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 15:40 Re: Suggestions for GNATS

k5-suzuki

• 2001-02-14 21:19 [Q]: gcc-2.95.2 building

Kaveh R. Ghazi

• 2001-02-01 07:31 Re: Updates to ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
• 2001-02-02 13:59 Making more builtins fold-able, and handling side-effects in args
• 2001-02-05 20:19 Re: Making more builtins fold-able, and handling side-effects in args
• 2001-02-22 08:46 Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-24 05:33 Re: Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-25 06:13 Re: The semantics of `truncate'.
• 2001-02-25 20:16 Re: The semantics of `truncate'.

Kazu Hirata

• 2001-02-18 07:52 Regression testing between 2.95.2 and 3.0
• 2001-02-21 23:06 How can I submit a large testresult?
• 2001-02-21 23:39 Re: How can I submit a large testresult?
• 2001-02-22 06:57 a regression on 2.95.3 (was Re: How can I submit a large testresult?)
• 2001-02-22 08:42 Re: a regression on 2.95.3 (was Re: How can I submit a large testresult?)

Kennedy, Chris

• 2001-02-28 06:39 g++

Kerem HADIMLI

• 2001-02-06 07:08 ASCII without ANSI
• 2001-02-06 09:44 Re: ASCII without ANSI

Kevin B. Hendricks

• 2001-02-10 14:38 Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stack alignment
• 2001-02-10 19:49 Re: Bug in gcc CVS HEAD from a few days ago with alloca and stack alignment

Kevin Handy

• 2001-02-23 07:41 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 08:19 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite

Knut Aksel Rřysland

• 2001-02-23 07:49 Simula front-end: Heap-allocated activation records
• 2001-02-26 06:35 Re: Simula front-end: Heap-allocated activation records

Krzysztof Matula

• 2001-02-01 02:37 porting GCC
• 2001-02-02 03:43 Re: porting GCC
• 2001-02-02 06:07 Re: porting GCC

Lars Brinkhoff

• 2001-02-13 06:39 Pointer arithmetic: extending mark_reg_pointer?

Laurent Guerby

• 2001-02-18 10:01 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-24 11:09 Re: outdated dejagnu information on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html
• 2001-02-24 11:40 Re: outdated dejagnu information on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html
• 2001-02-24 12:00 gcc.dg/special/weak-1.c failure

law

• 2001-02-05 17:01 gcc-ss-20010205 is now available

Lieven Marchand

• 2001-02-20 10:46 problem with purge_addressof (function.c)
• 2001-02-21 12:01 Re: problem with purge_addressof (function.c)

Linus Torvalds

• 2001-02-19 18:26 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 10:00 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 10:12 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 11:21 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 11:37 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 11:54 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 16:19 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 21:03 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

log sharp

• 2001-02-22 06:03 can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-22 20:03 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-22 23:25 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-23 00:46 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-26 22:27 compile thread program using gcc-2.95.2 on UnixWare7.1.1

Long Fei

• 2001-02-10 22:15 Are there any useful/basic classes provided by gcc ?

Loren James Rittle

• 2001-02-27 19:33 Proposal on how to study g++ compile-time regression and progression since 2.95.2 and initial analysis

Maggie Einstein

• 2001-02-28 00:55 Where I can download the lastest snapshot via Http

Magnus J

• 2001-02-01 21:36 Unrecognized option `-instances=static'

Manfred Hollstein

• 2001-02-07 02:05 gcc/gcc/testsuite/consistency.vlad/layout

Marc Espie

• 2001-02-02 07:17 Re: Does anyone have 2.95.2 running on NetBSD for PowerPC?
• 2001-02-22 14:47 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 15:48 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 15:49 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 09:29 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-23 09:32 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-25 03:30 Re: Obsolete config files

Marco Marcello

• 2001-02-10 11:33 porting gcc to a different architecture

Mark Kettenis

• 2001-02-19 04:42 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 15:00 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 15:10 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Mark Mitchell

• 2001-02-02 00:42 AIX Status
• 2001-02-02 10:36 AIX exception-handling vs. builtin_return_address
• 2001-02-03 14:36 Re: AIX exception-handling vs. builtin_return_address
• 2001-02-03 14:56 Re: Making more builtins fold-able, and handling side-effectsin args
• 2001-02-03 16:16 Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-03 18:10 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-03 19:29 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-04 14:32 Re: Regression checking vs. my -shared-libgcc patch
• 2001-02-04 18:51 Problem with `fatal' changes
• 2001-02-04 21:01 Cross-compiling from GNU/Linux to AIX
• 2001-02-05 03:05 V3 problems
• 2001-02-05 09:58 V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:25 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:30 Re: V3 vs. AIX
• 2001-02-05 10:51 Re: V3 problems
• 2001-02-05 11:05 Re: V3 problems
• 2001-02-05 18:47 Re: V3 problems
• 2001-02-05 21:11 GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-05 22:21 C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-05 22:27 comdat1.C
• 2001-02-05 22:51 AIX vtable issues
• 2001-02-05 22:53 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-06 09:18 Re: comdat1.C
• 2001-02-06 09:31 Re: AIX vtable issues
• 2001-02-06 09:51 HPUX Status?
• 2001-02-06 10:03 HPUX
• 2001-02-06 10:05 Re: GNU/Linux vs. libtool --no-undefined
• 2001-02-06 10:22 -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-06 11:01 Traveling
• 2001-02-06 11:10 Re: AIX vtable issues
• 2001-02-06 11:19 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-12 02:12 Re: -fvtable-gc
• 2001-02-12 08:54 GCC 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-12 15:42 GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-12 15:55 GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-12 16:03 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-12 16:06 Re: The branch 3.0
• 2001-02-12 16:08 Re: Changes for the GCC 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-12 16:10 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-12 16:11 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-12 16:19 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-12 16:33 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-13 08:40 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-14 08:02 Re: Deprecated features
• 2001-02-15 09:38 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-15 10:09 Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 17:10 Re: Debugging of clones
• 2001-02-15 17:13 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-15 20:17 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-15 23:59 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 00:37 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 08:41 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-16 17:45 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-18 10:22 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 10:31 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-18 11:07 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 12:06 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 12:19 Re: gcc-3.0 regression testing - POOMA
• 2001-02-18 12:33 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 18:25 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 18:31 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 19:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 21:31 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 11:14 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 11:29 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 12:01 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 12:39 GCC 3.0 Status
• 2001-02-19 12:52 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 12:56 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 14:28 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 15:24 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 18:31 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 23:48 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 23:50 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 10:17 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 11:36 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-21 09:15 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-26 12:03 3.0 Branch Remains Broken
• 2001-02-26 13:19 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-26 14:30 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-27 00:45 Re: 3.0 Branch Remains Broken
• 2001-02-27 00:53 Re: Drop VMS?
• 2001-02-27 08:30 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 08:54 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 09:42 GCC 3.0 Status
• 2001-02-28 09:38 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 09:44 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 22:25 More binary snapshots

Mark Probst

• 2001-02-25 18:36 stack pointer adjustment problem

Matt Kraai

• 2001-02-14 23:23 merging C and C++ options

michael dupont

• 2001-02-06 15:09 Introspector Project Launch at SourceForge
• 2001-02-07 09:57 Re: Introspector Project Launch at SourceForge
• 2001-02-12 00:54 Re: Introspector Project Launch at SourceForge

Michael Hayes

• 2001-02-03 15:03 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-10 14:31 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 14:44 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources

Michael Matz

• 2001-02-01 08:52 Re: [RFC] New intermediate languages
• 2001-02-01 09:34 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-01 09:59 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-03 15:04 regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-03 15:25 Re: [new-regalloc] Dataflow too slow...
• 2001-02-03 15:54 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-03 16:24 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-08 07:23 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-08 20:17 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-09 22:36 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 00:35 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 01:16 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 10:51 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 15:27 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-16 13:22 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 08:43 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 05:21 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-21 05:36 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-22 11:23 SUBREG questions
• 2001-02-22 16:18 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-22 16:28 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-22 16:48 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 16:48 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 12:09 Re: SUBREG questions
• 2001-02-23 19:28 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-23 20:33 reload mucking with my allocation
• 2001-02-25 10:53 Re: The semantics of `truncate'.
• 2001-02-25 12:33 Re: No NRA Bootstrap on Alpha, was: Re: A few SPEC95 results forthe new register allocator

Michael Meissner

• 2001-02-01 07:52 Re: [RFC] New intermediate languages
• 2001-02-16 13:12 Re: Code base to start a port
• 2001-02-23 10:43 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 11:37 Re: rtl generation & predicates

Michael Shane Miller

• 2001-02-06 19:32 Errors

Michael Sokolov

• 2001-02-13 19:24 Re: Returning structures

Michael Staudenmaier (r46720)

• 2001-02-14 09:18 infinite loop in calculate_global_regs_live

Mick

• 2001-02-15 06:27 linking g++ to libstdc++-v3

Mike Stump

• 2001-02-01 13:28 Re: Please update GCC mirror list
• 2001-02-02 11:21 Re: gcc error messages
• 2001-02-06 05:09 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-06 17:20 Re: -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-08 08:07 Re: Strange pedantic error message
• 2001-02-09 09:54 Re: libio / gen-params and __printf_fp test
• 2001-02-13 17:39 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-14 17:43 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff
• 2001-02-15 08:04 Re: gcc-core- snapshot contains extra stuff
• 2001-02-15 11:48 RE: gcc problems with HP-UX 10.2
• 2001-02-20 01:29 Re: Those pesky incomprehensible if statements
• 2001-02-22 12:58 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 14:46 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 14:48 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 16:10 Re: Series and gcc
• 2001-02-23 16:55 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-26 09:01 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-27 11:41 RE: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-28 09:10 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms

Mike Yang

• 2001-02-15 07:24 Copyright assignment form

Mo McKinlay

• 2001-02-22 13:40 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite

Momchil Velikov

• 2001-02-18 08:43 ICE building PPC cross compiler

Nathan Sidwell

• 2001-02-06 01:38 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-06 04:03 Re: C++ preprocessor bug or not ?
• 2001-02-07 01:48 Re: C++ vs. AIX -ansi
• 2001-02-07 01:51 Re: C++ preprocessor bug or not ?
• 2001-02-13 01:34 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-26 06:14 [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-27 01:40 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-27 02:27 [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-27 06:24 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 01:14 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?
• 2001-02-28 05:00 Re: [C++] deprecate overload resolution extension?

Naveen Sharma

• 2001-02-28 01:12 IA-64 Porting

nbecker

• 2001-02-20 19:09 OT: Interview with Bjarne Stroustrup

Neelakanth

• 2001-02-01 10:41 --enable-shared and libiberty.a

Neil Booth

• 2001-02-02 12:02 Re: gcc error messages
• 2001-02-02 15:03 Re: gcc error messages
• 2001-02-06 00:00 Re: compiling multiple source files at once
• 2001-02-06 00:11 Re: preprocessor question
• 2001-02-06 11:24 Re: C++ preprocessor bug or not ?
• 2001-02-12 11:17 __cplusplus revisited
• 2001-02-13 11:16 Re: __cplusplus revisited
• 2001-02-13 11:25 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-14 10:58 Re: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-14 23:37 Re: merging C and C++ options
• 2001-02-15 14:04 The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-15 15:45 libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-15 23:19 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-16 00:32 Re: Bug in preprocessor which be integrated with C++ frontend
• 2001-02-18 09:37 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-18 10:08 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-18 10:21 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-19 11:09 Re: CVS1902 preprocessor problem on Linux/ia64
• 2001-02-20 10:54 Re: CVS1902 preprocessor problem on Linux/ia64
• 2001-02-22 00:23 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-23 13:27 [ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE: preprocessor/2074: cpp doesn't emit builtin macros with -E/-save-temps]
• 2001-02-25 23:28 Re: Still problem bootstrapping 3.0
• 2001-02-27 11:17 Missing mips-tfile dependency in 3.0 branch?
• 2001-02-27 11:37 Suggestions for GNATS
• 2001-02-27 13:06 Re: Missing mips-tfile dependency in 3.0 branch?
• 2001-02-27 13:43 Re: Suggestions for GNATS
• 2001-02-27 14:23 Re: documentation blur
• 2001-02-27 15:03 Re: documentation blur
• 2001-02-27 23:42 Re: Proposal on how to study g++ compile-time regression and progression since 2.95.2 and initial analysis
• 2001-02-28 10:46 Re: Suggestions for GNATS
• 2001-02-28 15:28 Deprecating GCC extensions...

nIc nIc

• 2001-02-22 14:32 would you be able to help me out please?

Nick Clifton

• 2001-02-10 11:56 Re: porting gcc to a different architecture
• 2001-02-13 14:19 Re: vtable is in the wrong segment

Nicola Pero

• 2001-02-26 08:38 Re: objc is badly broken

NIIBE Yutaka

• 2001-02-14 21:21 SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-14 22:55 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-14 23:57 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag

odeen

• 2001-02-24 14:02 My project

Oleg Krivosheev

• 2001-02-22 08:06 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Olivier Hainque

• 2001-02-06 07:18 Linker errors with large objects and -pg on PA
• 2001-02-09 09:18 float to uint conv. requires quad precision fp on sparc 64 ?

Pardesi Amitsingh

• 2001-02-23 22:33 Bug during installation!

Pascal Francq

• 2001-02-23 09:30 Question about gcc

Patrick Mauritz

• 2001-02-14 06:22 g++ on solaris
• 2001-02-16 07:36 Re: g++ on solaris

Pawan Singh

• 2001-02-14 09:59 Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-14 10:48 RE: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc
• 2001-02-14 22:30 Re: Increased binary size in RedHat 7 using gcc

Per Bothner

• 2001-02-05 18:09 compiling multiple source files at once
• 2001-02-06 09:34 Re: compiling multiple source files at once
• 2001-02-09 23:36 Re: libio / gen-params and __printf_fp test
• 2001-02-10 10:06 Re: [PATCH] variable size arrays in nested functions
• 2001-02-13 20:13 Re: How exactly does one build libjava successfully?
• 2001-02-15 21:42 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-16 11:09 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-21 14:30 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 15:18 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:29 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Phil Edwards

• 2001-02-07 12:31 moving lib<foo> into GCC FTP site
• 2001-02-12 13:42 Re: __cplusplus revisited
• 2001-02-14 09:33 Re: 3.0 Branch
• 2001-02-15 15:04 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-19 09:56 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 10:19 Re: mknumeric_limits
• 2001-02-19 12:49 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 13:02 Using 'at-pr' for bugs? and maybe patches?
• 2001-02-19 16:14 libstdc++ FTP dir moved into gcc dir
• 2001-02-19 16:39 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 10:51 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 09:41 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-22 11:46 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-22 15:09 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-24 17:00 Re: -V<version> and libstdc++
• 2001-02-26 12:09 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and --with-as

Philip Blundell

• 2001-02-02 09:58 Re: R_ARM_GNU_VTINHERIT/R_ARM_GNU_VTENTRY

Philipp Rumpf

• 2001-02-15 01:57 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag

Philipp Thomas

• 2001-02-06 10:05 Re: C++ preprocessor bug or not ?

postmaster

• 2001-02-27 01:26 Question_about_targets

pradit.w

• 2001-02-06 00:05 gcc problem

qiulm

• 2001-02-12 07:32 about .mdebug
• 2001-02-27 06:40 about reginfo

Ra

• 2001-02-11 03:55 c++ programs want compile with glibc 2.2.1

Raja R Harinath

• 2001-02-19 13:56 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

Richard Earnshaw

• 2001-02-01 03:10 Re: porting GCC
• 2001-02-01 08:11 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill
• 2001-02-02 02:38 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-02 04:00 Re: porting GCC
• 2001-02-02 07:08 Re: porting GCC
• 2001-02-20 03:19 Re: efficient memory access from assembly
• 2001-02-22 04:08 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 10:58 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 02:18 Re: rtl generation & predicates
• 2001-02-24 05:10 Re: Where is the size max of each mailing list set?
• 2001-02-28 03:54 Re: Suggestions for GNATS
• 2001-02-28 09:03 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Richard Henderson

• 2001-02-01 11:17 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-01 18:49 Re: Does anyone have 2.95.2 running on NetBSD for PowerPC?
• 2001-02-05 15:31 Re: AIX exception-handling vs. builtin_return_address
• 2001-02-05 15:33 Re: Making more builtins fold-able, and handling side-effects in args
• 2001-02-05 15:45 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-05 15:49 Re: regclass FLOAT_INT_REGS on x86/graph coloring allocator
• 2001-02-08 10:18 Re: squeeze_notes vs. g++.other/loop2.C (resend)
• 2001-02-10 13:07 On killing SAVE_EXPR
• 2001-02-10 13:29 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 18:03 Re: Missing warning message
• 2001-02-10 22:17 Re: squeeze_notes vs. g++.other/loop2.C (resend)
• 2001-02-11 11:15 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-11 20:15 -fvtable-gc
• 2001-02-12 10:23 Re: about .mdebug
• 2001-02-13 13:54 Re: build machinery TODO (was: Testsuite and Fortran)
• 2001-02-13 14:53 Re: On killing SAVE_EXPR
• 2001-02-13 22:37 Re: Returning structures
• 2001-02-14 16:12 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-14 17:00 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-14 17:03 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-14 17:10 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-14 18:52 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-14 18:53 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-15 20:13 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-16 09:57 Re: The preprocessor and lack of support for -V
• 2001-02-16 23:38 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-16 23:40 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-16 23:48 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-17 00:16 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-18 14:18 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 14:29 Re: Use of register 17 on x86
• 2001-02-18 15:46 Re: Use of register 17 on x86
• 2001-02-19 11:11 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 12:07 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 01:46 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 01:53 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 12:04 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-20 12:18 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-22 14:01 Re: Arg pointer and SSE code
• 2001-02-22 14:46 Re: Another unrelated SSE patch
• 2001-02-22 18:55 ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-23 00:13 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 00:19 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 00:21 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 01:00 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 10:05 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-23 14:26 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-23 14:31 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 14:33 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 16:34 Re: Arg pointer and SSE code
• 2001-02-23 17:16 Re: ia64 unwind thoughts
• 2001-02-24 00:52 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-24 01:00 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-24 13:27 Re: Names beginning with '*'
• 2001-02-25 09:54 Re: Obsolete config files
• 2001-02-27 21:29 Re: Bug in cse_insn() and emit_libcall_block()
• 2001-02-28 02:03 Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends

Richard Kenner

• 2001-02-01 02:36 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-01 18:44 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-02 03:30 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-02 08:01 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-02 12:00 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-02 14:21 Re: Making more builtins fold-able, and handling side-effects in args
• 2001-02-04 19:54 Re: Problem with `fatal' changes
• 2001-02-05 08:40 Re: Gnat in GCC Again
• 2001-02-05 15:46 Re: Making more builtins fold-able, and handling side-effects in args
• 2001-02-07 04:20 Re: [8603-003] ACT#999 - GCC 3.0 / GNAT 5.00w for NT
• 2001-02-07 04:52 Sorry for bogus messages
• 2001-02-09 18:30 Re: [PATCH] variable size arrays in nested functions
• 2001-02-09 18:32 Re: [PATCH] variable size arrays in nested functions
• 2001-02-12 12:52 Changes for the GCC 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-12 15:49 Re: GCC 3.0 Branch: Guidelines
• 2001-02-13 08:56 -fcse-follow-jumps and -fcse-skip-blocks and GCSE
• 2001-02-13 09:27 Re: -fcse-follow-jumps and -fcse-skip-blocks and GCSE
• 2001-02-13 09:35 Re: -fcse-follow-jumps and -fcse-skip-blocks and GCSE
• 2001-02-13 14:27 Re: On killing SAVE_EXPR
• 2001-02-13 14:29 Re: packed, aligned
• 2001-02-13 14:34 More on SAVE_EXPR
• 2001-02-14 15:46 More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-14 16:16 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-14 16:25 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-14 18:36 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-14 18:37 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-14 18:55 Re: More /u conflicts
• 2001-02-15 07:10 maybe_set_unchanging
• 2001-02-15 08:58 Re: maybe_set_unchanging
• 2001-02-15 09:00 Re: gcc/resource.c mark_target_live_regs Question
• 2001-02-15 09:07 Re: maybe_set_unchanging
• 2001-02-15 09:39 SAVE_EXPR and sibling calls
• 2001-02-16 10:58 Re: Refinement of returning nonzero from cse_main
• 2001-02-17 04:36 Re: ICEs in validate_replace_src
• 2001-02-18 04:57 Use of register 17 on x86
• 2001-02-18 06:49 Re: libstdc++ headers and system headers
• 2001-02-18 08:44 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-18 15:24 Re: Use of register 17 on x86
• 2001-02-18 15:49 Re: Use of register 17 on x86
• 2001-02-19 03:36 Re: sibcall fixup
• 2001-02-19 18:15 Re: Rerunning CSE after GCSE
• 2001-02-19 19:29 Re: Rerunning CSE after GCSE
• 2001-02-20 20:10 Re: Rerunning CSE after GCSE
• 2001-02-21 04:49 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-21 05:57 Re: java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-21 11:58 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 12:36 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 12:40 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-24 07:45 objc is badly broken

Richard Troy

• 2001-02-07 11:40 Platforms?
• 2001-02-07 12:11 Re: Platforms?

Rob Savoye

• 2001-02-26 15:51 DejaGnu 1.4 release
• 2001-02-26 16:16 Re: DejaGnu 1.4 release

Rob Taylor

• 2001-02-01 01:31 RE: Live range splitting in new allocator
• 2001-02-15 03:33 RE: C++ with gcc 3.0 branch

Robert Boehne

• 2001-02-12 14:30 AIX and broken collect2
• 2001-02-16 11:15 Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-16 17:54 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-19 12:06 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX
• 2001-02-21 06:59 Re: Building g++ 3.0 under AIX

Robert Lipe

• 2001-02-14 06:43 why "no new warnings" is good. was: regclass changes reverted
• 2001-02-15 18:52 Re: AboutShareLib
• 2001-02-16 11:13 Re: build gcc on unixware7 and sco505
• 2001-02-18 11:44 Re: failure of the UDK compiler to bootstrap
• 2001-02-22 09:48 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-22 20:16 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-22 23:40 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-23 07:28 Re: can't build gcc-2.95.2 on SCO OSR 5.0.5
• 2001-02-25 07:36 breakage on the 3.0 branch.
• 2001-02-26 06:25 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-26 22:52 Re: compile thread program using gcc-2.95.2 on UnixWare7.1.1
• 2001-02-26 23:01 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4
• 2001-02-27 07:33 Re: Grief with Dejagnu; Testing gcc 2.95.3.test4 on SCO OS5.0.4

Robert McNulty Junior

• 2001-02-12 14:41 The branch 3.0
• 2001-02-12 16:53 Re: GCC 3.0 Bugs: Call for Volunteers
• 2001-02-18 06:54 GCC and Visual C++

Robert Schweikert

• 2001-02-11 18:30 troubles compiling ncurses5.2

Robert Thorpe

• 2001-02-04 11:17 Register renaming on x86

Rod Stewart

• 2001-02-25 13:11 Re: [Fwd: list of installed files]
• 2001-02-25 13:46 Re: outdated dejagnu information on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html

Rodrigo Diaz

• 2001-02-10 21:03 OS

Roger Collins

• 2001-02-10 15:48 no matching function
• 2001-02-11 05:49 RE: no matching function (now subclassing iostream)

Romain Dolbeau

• 2001-02-12 01:22 test of 'sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4' & 'powerpc-unknown-linux' still needed ?
• 2001-02-13 01:03 Re: test of 'sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4' & 'powerpc-unknown-linux' still needed ?
• 2001-02-20 01:43 bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4
• 2001-02-20 02:20 Re: bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4
• 2001-02-27 10:34 Re: bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-sunos4.1.4

Roman Lechtchinsky

• 2001-02-27 11:46 signed_or_unsigned_type

Russ Allbery

• 2001-02-19 16:11 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 00:01 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc

Rutkowski, Steve

• 2001-02-27 12:37 libgcc.so.1

Ryszard Kabatek

• 2001-02-20 01:39 Compilation of gcc-20010205

Sangwan, Vikas (CORP, GEITC)

• 2001-02-13 13:43 Clarification

Scholz Maik (K7/EEM15) *

• 2001-02-08 01:51 need help for mcount for MIPS

Sim Dara

• 2001-02-12 03:55 Problem compiling apache1.3.12

Sorin Costea

• 2001-02-16 11:13 Linking errors

Soubhik Bhattacharya

• 2001-02-12 08:46 gen_* functions in gcc source
• 2001-02-22 11:22 rtl generation & predicates
• 2001-02-23 03:07 Re: rtl generation & predicates
• 2001-02-24 04:35 Names beginning with '*'
• 2001-02-25 02:56 Re: My project

Stan Shebs

• 2001-02-28 16:48 objc/objc.gperf ?

Stane Gruden

• 2001-02-01 22:51 DOS compatibility problem
• 2001-02-12 22:41 a suspicious gcc warning

Stephane Carrez

• 2001-02-27 15:09 Bug in cse_insn() and emit_libcall_block()

Stephen Smith

• 2001-02-02 08:58 gcc error messages
• 2001-02-13 12:49 vtable is in the wrong segment

stephen.webb

• 2001-02-13 06:02 Re: __cplusplus revisited
• 2001-02-15 13:09 Re: __cplusplus revisited

student

• 2001-02-24 06:33 Cross compilation (fwd)

Sung-taek Lim

• 2001-02-23 06:03 How to get positional information of a variable declaration?

Swaminathan.PR

• 2001-02-27 21:14 ELF Format

Theodore Papadopoulo

• 2001-02-15 01:34 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 11:49 Re: Those pesky incomprehensible if statements
• 2001-02-21 08:11 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc

Thomas Burnett

• 2001-02-19 07:08 !!!REMOVE ME!!!

Thomas R. Dean

• 2001-02-11 10:19 Difference between struct and class in internal tree

Thomas Roeblitz

• 2001-02-07 07:45 Objective-C and IA-64 ?
• 2001-02-15 10:13 Profiling with -pg and gprof AND multiple processes

Thorsten Kukuk

• 2001-02-17 00:05 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc

Tim Prince

• 2001-02-01 08:21 Re: Projects for beginners
• 2001-02-03 07:19 Re: Question about -mpreferred-stack-boundary
• 2001-02-06 04:59 Re: gcc problem
• 2001-02-10 16:43 Re: upgrade
• 2001-02-15 22:14 Re: Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
• 2001-02-16 07:03 Re: Is SSE FP ABI breaking on i386?
• 2001-02-16 21:55 Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
• 2001-02-22 23:56 Re: would you be able to help me out please?
• 2001-02-24 05:46 Re: Bug during installation!
• 2001-02-24 08:17 Re: Cross compilation (fwd)
• 2001-02-26 06:10 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and --with-as

Timothy J. Wood

• 2001-02-16 15:12 Unnamed unions
• 2001-02-16 16:22 Re: Unnamed unions
• 2001-02-20 18:26 Re: Unnamed unions

Tom Dean

• 2001-02-11 11:23 Re: Difference between struct and class in internal tree

Tom Leete

• 2001-02-06 16:59 Re: -ansi vs. V3
• 2001-02-06 21:37 Re: -ansi vs. V3

Tom Tromey

• 2001-02-06 09:47 Re: Java web pages and #include virtual="/..."

Ton Hospel

• 2001-02-28 08:02 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-28 15:20 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

Toon Moene

• 2001-02-12 14:39 Re: Writing Big Endian Files With G77
• 2001-02-15 14:32 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-16 11:54 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-17 03:19 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-17 07:56 Re: Version numbers
• 2001-02-20 15:31 Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-22 13:20 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-23 13:10 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-23 13:57 Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-24 06:49 No NRA Bootstrap on Alpha, was: Re: A few SPEC95 results for the new register allocator
• 2001-02-25 05:30 The semantics of `truncate'.
• 2001-02-25 14:06 Re: The semantics of `truncate'.

Toshi Morita

• 2001-02-05 12:16 Re: Register renaming on x86
• 2001-02-16 15:31 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-16 15:33 Re: SuperH: -m4-nofpu flag
• 2001-02-16 16:06 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-17 00:27 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-18 13:53 Re: Simple benchmarks with gcc-3_0-branch
• 2001-02-19 23:17 sh-elf target build failures
• 2001-02-19 23:23 Re: sh-elf target build failures
• 2001-02-20 02:21 mips-elf target build failure

tprinceusa

• 2001-02-15 13:54 Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
• 2001-02-15 15:52 Re: Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?

Trent Waddington

• 2001-02-20 09:19 java bytecode considered bad
• 2001-02-22 15:32 Re: java bytecode considered bad

Trevor Jenkins

• 2001-02-02 05:00 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill
• 2001-02-02 05:00 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill
• 2001-02-02 11:58 Re: Web pages still refer to Chill

Ulrich Drepper

• 2001-02-15 15:27 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-19 11:58 Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
• 2001-02-20 00:37 Re: GCC: support of daVinci graph format

Vincent Diepeveen

• 2001-02-09 21:01 simple question about testresults list

William Gacquer

• 2001-02-05 09:25 RE: Gnat in GCC Again

Wolfgang Bangerth

• 2001-02-26 02:03 [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and --with-as
• 2001-02-26 06:27 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and--with-as
• 2001-02-27 00:29 Re: [Q] Configure: Choosing as on Solaris, --with-gnu-as, and--with-as

Wolfram Gloger

• 2001-02-27 01:05 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms
• 2001-02-28 03:08 Re: [C++] float, double & complex template non-type parms [OT]

Yu Xuanwei

• 2001-02-15 18:05 AboutShareLib

Zack Weinberg

• 2001-02-01 23:20 Re: DOS compatibility problem
• 2001-02-05 09:56 Re: More beginners' projects
• 2001-02-06 00:27 Re: gcc problem
• 2001-02-09 23:56 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-10 12:30 Re: [new-regalloc] What is the status on current sources
• 2001-02-12 02:53 Re: where can I find for distributed compilation?
• 2001-02-12 19:04 Patches suggested for 3.0 branch
• 2001-02-12 19:09 If you're wondering what happened to the fixup_var_refs changes
• 2001-02-13 17:57 How exactly does one build libjava successfully?
• 2001-02-15 15:11 Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
• 2001-02-15 16:16 Re: Re: What is the future of gcc-2.95.3-prerelease ?
• 2001-02-16 13:56 mainline still broken...
• 2001-02-16 17:14 vtgc1.C spurious failures
• 2001-02-16 17:27 Re: vtgc1.C spurious failures
• 2001-02-16 20:01 Re: vtgc1.C spurious failures
• 2001-02-17 03:08 ICEs in validate_replace_src
• 2001-02-19 11:34 Those pesky incomprehensible if statements
• 2001-02-20 22:04 A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 09:50 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 11:13 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 11:15 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 11:29 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 12:11 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 12:54 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:15 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 17:59 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 22:45 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:20 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:37 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-21 23:39 Re: GCC Needs a backend cleanup and complete rewrite
• 2001-02-21 23:47 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 00:17 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 00:42 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-22 23:33 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 00:43 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 13:53 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 18:16 Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime
• 2001-02-23 21:12 Re: Making a symbol dynamic in executable
• 2001-02-24 13:33 Obsolete config files
• 2001-02-25 09:15 Re: Obsolete config files
• 2001-02-26 22:11 Drop VMS?
• 2001-02-26 22:43 Re: Drop VMS?

Indexes:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Site Nav:	[Browse other archives for this mailing list] [Browse other mailing lists at this site]
Search: Limit to: This time period only This mailing list only All mailing lists Entire site (no limit)