gcc archive
author index for June, 2003

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)

Benoît SIBAUD

• 2003-06-23 13:01 Confusion with template and heritage

Jörg Reiners

• 2003-06-05 12:48 gcc 3.3 successfully built on RedHat 7.3, kernel 2.4.20-13.7smp,glibc-2.2.5-43
• 2003-06-05 12:53 gcc 3.3 successfully built on Suse 7.3, kernel 2.4.18, glibc-2.2.4-77
• 2003-06-05 12:56 gcc 3.3 successfully built on Suse 8.0, kernel 2.4.18-64GB-SMP, glibc-2.2.5-158
• 2003-06-05 12:58 gcc 3.3 successfully built on Suse 7.0, kernel 2.2.16-SMP, libc-2.1.3-213

Juliane Struve

• 2003-06-27 06:16 FTn 77 compiler - please help

Linus Sjöberg

• 2003-06-30 13:47 Tree-SSA failure on FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE
• 2003-06-30 17:11 Re: Tree-SSA failure on FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE

Pop Sébastian

• 2003-06-02 19:20 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-02 21:06 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-03 08:38 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-03 16:17 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-09 21:22 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-14 18:45 Re: [RFC] CFG hooks for rtl/tree specificities

Roberto Belloni

• 2003-06-13 10:08 HOST_WIDE_INT
• 2003-06-13 11:51 Re: HOST_WIDE_INT
• 2003-06-13 14:54 Re: HOST_WIDE_INT

Uğur Pelister

• 2003-06-26 20:54 gcj and gtk

Abhijeet Mhatre

• 2003-06-14 10:23 download gcc manual... html format
• 2003-06-16 11:29 download gcc manual... html format

Alan Modra

• 2003-06-07 04:22 crt{begin,end}.o and __do_global_{c,d}tors_aux
• 2003-06-13 02:05 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-13 15:04 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-14 08:39 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-24 01:50 Re: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-26 07:32 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc

Albert Chin

• 2003-06-05 12:42 Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-05 15:23 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-11 17:21 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-11 23:28 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1

Aldy Hernandez

• 2003-06-02 19:19 rfc: convert scalar literals to vector constants
• 2003-06-02 19:55 Re: rfc: convert scalar literals to vector constants
• 2003-06-02 20:50 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-02 21:18 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-13 01:28 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on 2003-06-12T22:32:09Z.
• 2003-06-13 02:01 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on 2003-06-12T22:32:09Z.
• 2003-06-19 14:07 Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-19 14:23 [patch] Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-19 16:36 Re: [patch] Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-19 17:27 Re: [patch] Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-25 17:01 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc
• 2003-06-25 18:32 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc
• 2003-06-27 01:39 RFC: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-family/
• 2003-06-27 13:10 Re: RFC: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-family/

Alex Hornby

• 2003-06-24 14:53 target names and glibc versions on linux
• 2003-06-25 08:42 Re: target names and glibc versions on linux

Alexander Aganichev

• 2003-06-18 08:41 register classes, predicates, constraints...

Alexandre Oliva

• 2003-06-02 18:21 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-02 18:31 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 20:49 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-02 20:56 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 22:21 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-09 22:34 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-09 22:58 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-09 23:05 Re: libtool reloadable object files versus multilib
• 2003-06-10 00:44 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 00:50 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 00:59 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 21:54 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 22:06 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 22:06 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 22:13 Re: Problem with gcc/configure
• 2003-06-10 22:21 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-11 18:04 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-11 18:11 Re: implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-11 20:39 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-11 20:48 Re: Q: Is this improper asm use or a bug?
• 2003-06-12 21:42 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-12 21:45 Re: Q: Is this improper asm use or a bug?
• 2003-06-13 14:02 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-13 15:42 Re: why std C header files are missing from my GCC 3.3 build ?
• 2003-06-13 19:25 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-13 20:54 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-14 15:43 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-16 12:34 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-16 19:52 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-18 00:51 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-18 21:35 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-20 01:04 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-25 00:08 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-26 01:03 Re: target names and glibc versions on linux
• 2003-06-26 01:03 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 05:05 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 07:24 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts

Alexy Khrabrov

• 2003-06-24 22:40 gcc 3.3 operator[] disambiguation
• 2003-06-25 16:52 Re: gcc 3.3 operator[] disambiguation
• 2003-06-26 16:33 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 20:43 GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-27 23:40 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-30 16:33 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-30 17:07 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE

Ananth Durbha

• 2003-06-13 15:18 why std C header files are missing from my GCC 3.3 build ?

Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci

• 2003-06-01 20:50 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory

Andreas Jaeger

• 2003-06-01 20:03 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:09 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 21:13 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-07 12:34 Re: List of all symbols not defined anywhere in GCC
• 2003-06-07 17:10 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-11 19:53 Re: Does gcc 3.4 compile glibc in CVS?
• 2003-06-20 05:03 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-20 05:40 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-20 11:18 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-20 12:21 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-22 17:50 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on2003-06-22T16:46:20Z.
• 2003-06-22 17:56 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on2003-06-22T16:46:20Z.
• 2003-06-25 05:01 Bootstrap problem on i686-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-25 18:31 Re: Bootstrap problem on i686-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-26 06:59 Re: Bootstrap failure due to GC / PCH memory corruption
• 2003-06-29 09:26 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-29 09:33 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-30 20:07 Re: How reuse inline assembler conditionals?

Andreas Meier

• 2003-06-01 11:41 http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net

Andreas Schwab

• 2003-06-02 20:01 Re: A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs
• 2003-06-03 16:05 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-09 15:44 IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-09 16:30 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-09 18:05 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-10 11:38 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 15:50 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-11 09:22 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-13 11:38 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-20 12:21 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-23 18:35 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-27 10:15 Bootstrap failure on ia64

Andreas Tobler

• 2003-06-03 05:03 libgcc.map
• 2003-06-03 05:33 Re: libgcc.map
• 2003-06-04 05:24 Re: libgcc.map
• 2003-06-04 06:13 Re: libgcc.map
• 2003-06-07 04:47 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-08 19:50 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 17:39 solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-09 17:57 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-09 19:32 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-10 04:25 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check resultsreported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 17:14 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-10 17:15 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results
• 2003-06-11 19:53 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-11 20:02 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-11 20:24 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 04:52 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 10:05 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-13 04:58 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-13 12:06 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings

Andrew Cagney

• 2003-06-09 21:05 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-09 22:17 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 15:44 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 17:40 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-15 02:16 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-17 21:16 [Fwd: GPL vs GFDL in generated files]

Andrew Haley

• 2003-06-05 15:30 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 15:36 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 15:44 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 17:23 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 21:43 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-10 10:37 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 12:20 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 19:36 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 17:35 implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-12 19:21 [tree-ssa] Functions that return more than one value
• 2003-06-13 12:26 Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 12:42 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 13:02 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 13:02 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-14 09:15 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-14 09:53 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 13:00 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-17 09:11 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-17 09:18 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-17 18:29 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-17 19:26 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying jsr
• 2003-06-17 19:26 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-17 19:47 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying jsr
• 2003-06-18 08:47 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-27 20:39 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos

Andrew MacLeod

• 2003-06-02 13:46 Re: [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-02 15:13 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-02 15:15 Re: [tree-ssa] What would be interesting SPEC2000 tests flags?
• 2003-06-02 18:16 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-02 22:04 Re: [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-02 22:09 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-02 22:11 Re: [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-02 22:12 Re: [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-03 01:48 Re: [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-03 01:57 Re: [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-03 04:10 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-03 11:48 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-03 12:56 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-04 17:44 [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-04 18:11 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-04 22:22 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 00:01 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-05 03:15 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 11:17 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 11:21 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 16:06 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 19:01 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-06 20:10 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:13 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:38 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:43 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:45 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:46 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:53 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-10 16:18 Re: tree-ssa performance (was: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelangnot proper front end)
• 2003-06-10 16:25 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-10 16:52 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-13 18:17 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-16 17:27 Re: [tree-ssa] Thoughts on live-on-entry variables
• 2003-06-16 17:42 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-16 20:35 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-16 20:40 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-16 23:37 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-17 12:07 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-17 12:51 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-19 12:42 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 14:28 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 15:21 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-20 19:30 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-20 20:26 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats

Andrew Pinski

• 2003-06-01 19:17 Re: ICE building Linux 2.4.20 sched.c on x86
• 2003-06-01 23:30 host on bug list
• 2003-06-02 00:51 Re: host on bug list
• 2003-06-02 12:38 Re: Customizations Won't Stick
• 2003-06-03 15:29 Version 3.2.3
• 2003-06-04 15:02 Re: GCC 3.x requires autoconf 2.13
• 2003-06-04 15:12 Re: Request to contribute new port - picoChip
• 2003-06-04 17:37 Re: -finstrument-functions and inlining problems (again)
• 2003-06-04 17:56 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-05 00:05 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-05 15:40 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 15:53 Re: Bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-09 02:36 Re: 5 GCC regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2003-06-08T21:39:04Z.
• 2003-06-11 20:44 Re: Does gcc 3.4 compile glibc in CVS?
• 2003-06-11 22:08 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 23:57 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 15:36 Re: [tree-ssa] bootstrap failure on ppc-apple-darwin6.6
• 2003-06-13 01:21 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on 2003-06-12T22:32:09Z.
• 2003-06-13 13:36 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-14 20:34 Re: [tree-ssa] bootstrap failure on ppc-apple-darwin6.6
• 2003-06-14 23:39 Re: Internal compiler error: mainline
• 2003-06-15 20:49 [tree-ssa] objective-c gimplify
• 2003-06-17 17:25 Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re: [tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
• 2003-06-17 22:32 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1
• 2003-06-18 01:18 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 03:38 Re: libstdc++/assembly-related 3.4 bootstrap failure on sparc
• 2003-06-18 17:42 Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-19 14:11 Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-19 14:52 I am getting an error when update
• 2003-06-19 19:32 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:00 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-20 01:10 Re: undeclared reference in opts.c
• 2003-06-20 19:20 The right way to have a compiler with -DGATHER_STATISTICS
• 2003-06-21 04:42 Re: bootstrap/10129 (Was: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20))
• 2003-06-22 16:30 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:19 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:21 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:35 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on 2003-06-22T16:46:20Z.
• 2003-06-24 00:50 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1, week -3.5
• 2003-06-24 01:15 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1, week -3.5
• 2003-06-24 14:49 slow mail servers
• 2003-06-24 18:52 Re: ICE on current CVS head
• 2003-06-25 16:49 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc
• 2003-06-26 00:58 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 04:35 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 04:58 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 15:13 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-26 22:24 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-26 23:03 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-27 16:15 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-27 21:04 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-27 21:23 Re: GCC Release Status (2003-06-27)
• 2003-06-28 03:12 Re: opts.sh breaks compile on mingw
• 2003-06-28 21:47 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-29 14:12 Re: GCC gprof statistics
• 2003-06-29 20:47 Re: Req: Disable I18N/L10N translation forgcc-print-search-dirsoutput.
• 2003-06-29 21:22 Re: GCC gprof statistics
• 2003-06-30 13:50 Re: Tree-SSA failure on FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE

Anthony Green

• 2003-06-12 15:22 Re: Unreviewed patch
• 2003-06-16 23:42 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-27 22:39 Re: gcj and gtk

Arnaud Villanove

• 2003-06-16 14:56 Problem with gcc and egcs... compatibility ?

arno

• 2003-06-10 17:35 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?

Arpad Beszedes

• 2003-06-12 09:54 Benchmark for Code Size

AWLaFramboise

• 2003-06-02 08:07 Status of import and pragma once?
• 2003-06-28 03:09 opts.sh breaks compile on mingw
• 2003-06-28 04:22 Re: opts.sh breaks compile on mingw

Ayal Zaks

• 2003-06-04 20:42 Re: Redundant Load Elimination in GCSE

Ben Elliston

• 2003-06-03 07:09 splitting this list
• 2003-06-05 02:03 Re: splitting this list
• 2003-06-07 00:16 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-19 01:53 Re: learning
• 2003-06-19 03:16 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] Add more verbosity

Benjamin K.

• 2003-06-30 19:57 How reuse inline assembler conditionals?

Benjamin Kosnik

• 2003-06-01 02:30 notes from gcc summit maintance BOF
• 2003-06-01 02:32 notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 17:05 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 17:10 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 18:32 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 21:00 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-04 22:55 Re: splitting this list
• 2003-06-05 01:04 Re: std::auto_ptr
• 2003-06-05 23:12 Re: Development plan (was: Re: splitting this list)
• 2003-06-11 21:44 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-18 15:44 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-25 16:55 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 17:39 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:12 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:41 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch

Bernd Geiser

• 2003-06-25 16:53 building non-FPU cross-compiler for ARM

Bernd Jendrissek

• 2003-06-12 12:09 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts

Bhattiprolu Ravikumar-A18658

• 2003-06-12 07:10 Memory profiling....
• 2003-06-12 07:18 RE: Memory profiling....

Bill Cunningham

• 2003-06-22 20:03 Contributing
• 2003-06-26 10:42 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 11:11 C++ demangler
• 2003-06-26 17:02 development
• 2003-06-28 11:28 Paperwork

Billinghurst, David (CRTS)

• 2003-06-20 01:16 RE: undeclared reference in opts.c

Bob Wilson

• 2003-06-23 17:29 importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 17:59 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-27 22:19 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-30 19:03 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?

Bonzini

• 2003-06-04 07:45 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-07 10:02 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-10 09:29 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

Brad Lucier

• 2003-06-10 02:33 Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:20 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results
• 2003-06-10 16:23 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:25 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results
• 2003-06-19 16:41 bootstrap failure on alphaev6-unknown-linux-gnu: $ in identifiers?
• 2003-06-21 14:28 3.4 bootstrap fails in libjava on sparc-sun-solaris2.8

Bradley Lucier

• 2003-06-10 16:57 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results
• 2003-06-18 03:35 libstdc++/assembly-related 3.4 bootstrap failure on sparc

Brenner Joel

• 2003-06-24 06:10 __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target
• 2003-06-27 05:50 Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target

Briltz, Denis

• 2003-06-02 15:29 RE: PCH is used only for the first header
• 2003-06-03 07:04 RE: PCH is used only for the first header

Bruno Haible

• 2003-06-15 15:51 Comparing function pointers
• 2003-06-15 17:43 Re: Comparing function pointers

bug-binutils

• 2003-06-01 21:29 Re: Movie

C Wilkie

• 2003-06-27 15:32 VOIDmode CONST_INTs cause abort()

Carlo Wood

• 2003-06-27 22:41 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 02:12 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 10:59 Re: C++ demangler horrors

cdkhanh

• 2003-06-09 11:32 hi JH
• 2003-06-10 03:05 hi Jh

Cedric Berger

• 2003-06-17 19:37 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying jsr

cgd

• 2003-06-02 17:11 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 18:06 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 21:12 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory

Chirag Wighe

• 2003-06-11 00:41 Compiler optimization?

Chris Lattner

• 2003-06-01 06:56 Re: [tree-ssa] Switch stmts and inserting on edge
• 2003-06-02 20:06 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-06 20:02 RE: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:12 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:24 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:43 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:48 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-17 13:30 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-18 17:00 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 17:37 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 18:15 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 18:35 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 18:57 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 20:41 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 21:06 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-26 15:45 The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elftarget)
• 2003-06-26 16:07 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elftarget)
• 2003-06-26 16:32 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elftarget)
• 2003-06-26 18:23 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elftarget)

Christian Ehrhardt

• 2003-06-28 09:03 Re: binutils + gcc 3.3

Christian Joensson

• 2003-06-01 07:37 Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-01 12:48 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-01 12:54 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-01 13:35 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-01 14:44 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-06 16:16 Unknown cpu used in --with-cpu=sparc64
• 2003-06-10 07:01 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 15:48 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-14 11:13 Re: PATCH for Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-15 17:46 Test suite failures of joined gcc and binutils cvs HEAD 20030615 for cygwin
• 2003-06-16 18:26 Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030616 on cygwin: c-opts.c:153: `OPT_iwithprefixbefore' undeclared (first use in this function) etc
• 2003-06-16 20:34 SV: gcc for HP-UX 10.20
• 2003-06-18 11:57 Failure to bootstrap gcc cvs HEAD 20030618 on i686-linux: treetree.c:872:12: attempt to use poisoned "VPARAMS"
• 2003-06-23 15:21 Can't buid gcc cvs HEAD 2003-06-23 on cygwin: sorry, unimplemented: had to relocate PCH
• 2003-06-28 10:52 Re: PATCH for Re: GCC Release Status (2003-06-27)

Christopher Faylor

• 2003-06-02 02:21 Re: cygwin documentation + build instructions
• 2003-06-09 21:09 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 02:37 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 02:58 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 14:23 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 14:24 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 16:40 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-12 04:16 Red Hat logos on FSF web pages (was Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x)
• 2003-06-29 23:15 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.

Christopher Wolff

• 2003-06-03 19:50 Optimizing for Low Power Consumption
• 2003-06-03 22:07 Re: Optimizing for Low Power Consumption

Co Ngai Fung

• 2003-06-17 08:26 IA64 cross compiler problem
• 2003-06-19 07:32 Re: IA64 cross compiler problem

Colin Douglas Howell

• 2003-06-28 19:15 Garbage deletion
• 2003-06-29 06:49 Request for GCC copyright assignment forms

collison

• 2003-06-19 02:58 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)

Corey Minyard

• 2003-06-06 17:03 Doing an abort for invalid va_arg type

Cristian Coarfa

• 2003-06-04 21:36 question regarding macros

Dale Johannesen

• 2003-06-24 01:09 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1, week -3.5
• 2003-06-24 20:27 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1, week -3.5
• 2003-06-26 22:38 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.

Dan Kegel

• 2003-06-02 18:49 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-02 19:12 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-17 22:38 cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 16:14 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 16:21 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 16:42 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 18:41 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 20:15 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 20:27 re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1
• 2003-06-22 21:10 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 03:06 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 04:08 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 15:45 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 15:45 Re: cross-compilation documentation

Dan Mergens

• 2003-06-26 23:46 GCC 3.2 warnings

Dan Nicolaescu

• 2003-06-18 23:44 some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 17:45 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 22:51 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-24 07:36 Re: The right way to have a compiler with -DGATHER_STATISTICS
• 2003-06-28 21:43 sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-28 23:00 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86

Dan Towner

• 2003-06-04 15:08 Request to contribute new port - picoChip
• 2003-06-04 15:14 Re: Request to contribute new port - picoChip

Dana, Eric

• 2003-06-05 17:57 RE: explicit template specialization in GCC 3.3

Daniel Berlin

• 2003-06-01 03:01 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla
• 2003-06-01 03:04 Re: [tree-ssa] What would be interesting SPEC2000 tests flags?
• 2003-06-01 16:42 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla
• 2003-06-01 16:58 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla
• 2003-06-01 18:51 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 19:22 Re: ICE building Linux 2.4.20 sched.c on x86
• 2003-06-02 00:39 [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-02 00:47 Re: host on bug list
• 2003-06-02 21:33 Re: A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs
• 2003-06-02 21:38 Re: [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-02 21:40 Re: [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-02 21:44 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-02 21:47 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-02 21:50 Re: A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs
• 2003-06-02 23:17 Re: [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-03 02:54 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-03 05:01 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-03 12:41 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-03 17:17 Re: Need target milestone 3.3.2
• 2003-06-03 17:17 Re: Need target milestone 3.3.2
• 2003-06-03 18:24 Re: Weird bugzilla message
• 2003-06-04 17:18 Re: Bugzilla problem
• 2003-06-04 20:48 [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-04 22:49 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-04 22:51 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 04:38 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 15:37 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 16:49 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 18:27 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 20:12 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 21:07 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-06 19:52 [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:08 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:18 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:19 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-07 05:56 Going to move to log_accum_bugzillafied on sunday
• 2003-06-07 20:40 Re: Bugzilla Mail Interface [Fwd: Bugzilla Error]
• 2003-06-09 05:42 log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work (was Re: [Bug bootstrap/10974]Bootstrap failure)
• 2003-06-11 23:44 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 23:47 Re: GCC C Compiler producing Microsoft debug format?
• 2003-06-11 23:48 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 23:53 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 18:20 Bugs and versions affected (Was Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule)
• 2003-06-12 18:24 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-14 18:45 What tree flags tell me a variable is local?
• 2003-06-14 20:06 Re: What tree flags tell me a variable is local?
• 2003-06-16 14:16 Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog
• 2003-06-17 12:43 Re: Bugzilla still a bit verbose
• 2003-06-17 20:41 Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re: [tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
• 2003-06-17 21:07 Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re:[tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
• 2003-06-17 22:27 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-18 23:59 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-19 02:05 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-20 01:36 Bug summary notations (Was Re: [Bug target/11260] [alpha] 'output_operand: floating constant misused' with sqrt(0.0) and -mcpu=ev6)
• 2003-06-20 14:20 Re: Bug summary notations (Was Re: [Bug target/11260] [alpha] 'output_operand: floating constant misused' with sqrt(0.0) and -mcpu=ev6)
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-25 21:46 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 01:01 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 18:35 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 18:55 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 21:07 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 21:48 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-30 13:47 Re: C compile time

Daniel Egger

• 2003-06-02 10:01 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 12:37 Doc correction regarding parallel builds

Daniel Jacobowitz

• 2003-06-01 20:18 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 21:38 Re: A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs
• 2003-06-02 21:55 Re: A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs
• 2003-06-03 17:57 Weird bugzilla message
• 2003-06-03 18:28 Re: Weird bugzilla message
• 2003-06-04 14:10 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-05 02:00 Re: splitting this list
• 2003-06-05 15:39 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 14:38 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 15:47 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 16:23 Re: Unknown cpu used in --with-cpu=sparc64
• 2003-06-07 16:31 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 16:52 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 17:05 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 17:52 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-08 01:22 Re: Problems crosscompiling 3.3.1 (CVS branch) from i386-linux to i686-pc-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-09 18:50 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice
• 2003-06-09 22:02 Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-09 23:06 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-09 23:14 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-09 23:58 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 04:04 Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 04:38 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 05:04 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 13:56 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 14:30 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 16:42 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:06 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:15 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:25 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:38 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 21:57 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-12 16:09 libstdc++ and the LSB
• 2003-06-12 17:08 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-13 15:39 Re: why std C header files are missing from my GCC 3.3 build ?
• 2003-06-14 01:10 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-17 17:55 Symbol visibility build failure on Solaris
• 2003-06-17 18:12 Re: Symbol visibility build failure on Solaris
• 2003-06-17 19:06 Re: Symbol visibility build failure on Solaris
• 2003-06-18 02:31 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-18 02:38 Re: Symbol visibility build failure on Solaris
• 2003-06-20 15:54 ARM float ordering
• 2003-06-20 16:39 Re: ARM float ordering
• 2003-06-22 17:49 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 19:42 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 04:22 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 04:29 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 14:11 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 18:35 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 18:47 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-24 16:16 Re: cross configuration question.
• 2003-06-25 16:49 Re: bad dead code detection ?

Dara Hazeghi

• 2003-06-01 19:12 ICE building Linux 2.4.20 sched.c on x86
• 2003-06-02 02:52 Re: cygwin documentation + build instructions
• 2003-06-02 20:09 Re: Problem with Gcc Installation on HP-UX Itanium box
• 2003-06-05 08:05 Re: Giving Dara Hazeghi and Andrew Pinski Bugzilla access
• 2003-06-08 06:10 Bug 8861 (and other ABI bugs)
• 2003-06-17 19:26 glibc 2.0 targets
• 2003-06-17 23:07 C compile time
• 2003-06-18 03:01 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 05:33 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 19:30 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 21:18 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 22:12 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-19 00:55 Re: glibc 2.0 targets
• 2003-06-19 19:21 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 20:40 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:12 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:23 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 23:32 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-20 04:14 Target specific install docs.
• 2003-06-20 20:08 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-20 20:36 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-22 17:10 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:53 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-28 00:36 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-28 03:33 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-28 07:01 binutils + gcc 3.3
• 2003-06-29 16:42 Re: binutils + gcc 3.3

Daryle Walker

• 2003-06-04 04:07 Why did you make streambufs noncopyable?
• 2003-06-05 03:40 Re: Why did you make streambufs noncopyable?

David Carlton

• 2003-06-27 22:10 Re: C++ demangler horrors

David Edelsohn

• 2003-06-02 17:52 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-02 20:33 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-05 14:42 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-05 15:11 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-06 14:12 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 14:50 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 16:34 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 21:30 libtool reloadable object files versus multilib
• 2003-06-07 17:36 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-09 18:55 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 21:30 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 21:36 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 22:37 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-10 18:00 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-10 20:41 Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-10 21:33 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-10 21:50 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-11 22:55 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-13 16:41 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-17 01:41 Re: Proposed new target maintainers
• 2003-06-17 17:59 Re: Symbol visibility build failure on Solaris
• 2003-06-19 02:02 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-19 04:34 Re: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-28 02:43 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE
• 2003-06-30 16:37 Re: GCC 3.3 build on AIX 5.2, ICE

David Emile Lamy

• 2003-06-29 18:59 gcc 3.3 build

David Jobet

• 2003-06-25 15:13 bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 22:36 Re: bad dead code detection ?

David Mosberger

• 2003-06-06 19:08 will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-06 20:25 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-06 21:01 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-07 06:49 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-09 17:20 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?

David O'Brien

• 2003-06-01 20:37 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-01 20:54 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:59 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 21:03 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 16:19 C99 spelling of "asm".
• 2003-06-02 17:57 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 18:55 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory

Denis Chertykov

• 2003-06-30 16:32 Re: Register Rematerialization In New Register Allocator

Dennis Hollenbeck

• 2003-06-08 01:15 gcc 3.3 build status

Der Herr Hofrat

• 2003-06-12 07:31 Re: Memory profiling....

Devang Patel

• 2003-06-26 05:05 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 15:54 Re: some profiling numbers

Dhananjay R. Deshpande

• 2003-06-10 10:49 dwarf2 call frame related question

Diego Novillo

• 2003-06-02 15:17 Re: [tree-ssa] What would be interesting SPEC2000 tests flags?
• 2003-06-02 20:23 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-02 20:41 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-02 21:54 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-02 22:09 Re: [tree-ssa]: Still a problem with insertion, this time, after
• 2003-06-02 22:19 Re: [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-03 01:51 Re: [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-03 17:02 [tree-ssa] Mainline merge as of 2003-05-25
• 2003-06-03 21:34 Re: [tree-ssa] Mainline merge as of 2003-05-25
• 2003-06-04 04:23 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 18:54 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 19:02 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-04 22:21 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-04 22:48 Re: [tree-ssa] ssa copy-prop issue
• 2003-06-04 23:49 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-05 00:05 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-05 03:46 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 11:11 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] mudflap not built anymore?
• 2003-06-05 14:16 [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 15:17 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 15:44 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 17:31 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 17:47 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 17:54 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 19:49 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 20:50 Re: [tree-ssa]: Easy way to get default def of a variable?
• 2003-06-05 20:57 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 21:05 Re: [tree-ssa] Overlapping live range patch.
• 2003-06-06 18:18 Re: Request for help branching. :-(
• 2003-06-06 18:21 Re: Request for help branching. :-(
• 2003-06-06 20:09 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:26 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:30 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-06 20:40 Re: [tree-ssa]: out-of-ssa breaks if something adds a pred
• 2003-06-07 15:05 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-07 15:07 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-07 17:41 Re: [tree-ssa] new -Wuninitialized warning
• 2003-06-10 13:31 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 16:55 Re: tree-ssa performance (was: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelangnot proper front end)
• 2003-06-10 17:22 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-10 17:45 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-12 15:04 Re: bootstrap failure of tree-ssa on armv5l-linux
• 2003-06-12 15:22 Re: [tree-ssa] bootstrap failure on ppc-apple-darwin6.6
• 2003-06-12 15:22 Re: [tree-ssa] const declarations and temporaries in cc1plus
• 2003-06-12 15:36 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-12 15:49 Re: [tree-ssa] bootstrap failure on ppc-apple-darwin6.6
• 2003-06-12 16:03 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-12 21:10 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-13 11:36 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-13 12:48 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 13:53 Re: bootstrap failure of tree-ssa on armv5l-linux
• 2003-06-13 15:32 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 15:40 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 15:51 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 15:52 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 16:02 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 22:38 [tree-ssa] Thoughts on live-on-entry variables
• 2003-06-13 22:42 Re: [tree-ssa] (analysis) bootstrap failure on armv5l-linux
• 2003-06-14 01:38 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 11:11 Re: [tree-ssa] Too conservative optimization with globalvariables??
• 2003-06-16 14:59 Re: C++ compile time (again, take 2)
• 2003-06-16 15:17 Re: C++ compile time (again, take 2)
• 2003-06-16 16:18 Re: [tree-ssa] Thoughts on live-on-entry variables
• 2003-06-16 18:32 Re: [tree-ssa] Thoughts on live-on-entry variables
• 2003-06-17 12:20 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-17 13:00 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-17 13:39 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 13:56 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 14:06 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 16:02 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 17:07 [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re:[tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
• 2003-06-17 19:26 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-17 19:46 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-19 17:33 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 19:53 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:26 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-20 22:20 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-28 15:44 [tree-ssa] Bootstrap broken on IA64
• 2003-06-28 17:12 Re: [tree-ssa] Bootstrap broken on IA64

DJ Delorie

• 2003-06-01 19:11 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-01 19:30 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 22:03 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-03 02:47 Re: reload vs adds with clobbers
• 2003-06-04 18:00 Re: GCC 3.x requires autoconf 2.13
• 2003-06-06 12:17 Re: reload vs adds with clobbers
• 2003-06-09 21:15 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-09 23:48 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 00:55 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 01:47 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 16:12 Re: Why is libiberty built for the target? (was Re: Why does libibertyhave to build before a C library?)
• 2003-06-10 16:17 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 16:18 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:03 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:05 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:11 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:13 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:20 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:21 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 18:40 Re: Why is libiberty built for the target? (was Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?)
• 2003-06-10 18:51 Re: Why is libiberty built for the target?
• 2003-06-10 22:58 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 23:04 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 00:42 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-12 23:32 Re: How are the specs generated?
• 2003-06-22 01:28 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-22 02:49 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-23 17:58 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 18:11 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 18:40 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 18:40 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 18:40 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 19:00 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 19:12 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-23 19:32 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-25 02:43 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 01:01 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 16:42 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 16:44 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:37 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:39 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:58 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:06 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:06 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 20:22 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:22 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?

Doug Evans

• 2003-06-12 03:09 libgcc2's warning: implicit declaration of function `abort'

Douglas B Rupp

• 2003-06-21 00:41 cross configuration question.
• 2003-06-24 06:51 Re: cross configuration question.

Dr Jeff Forshaw

• 2003-06-18 12:51 g77 problem

Dr William Bland

• 2003-06-30 15:02 Getting information on symbols and linkages at run-time

E. Weddington

• 2003-06-02 16:34 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-10 15:38 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 16:01 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:01 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-25 15:27 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.

Eddie Kohler

• 2003-06-05 16:15 explicit template specialization in GCC 3.3
• 2003-06-05 19:22 Re: explicit template specialization in GCC 3.3

Edmar Wienskoski

• 2003-06-25 15:18 CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc

edtrstory

• 2003-06-24 10:28 Dear Portal Administration

Eli Zaretskii

• 2003-06-04 03:27 Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

Elijah P Newren

• 2003-06-09 21:54 Optimization -- praise, problem, & question

epl

• 2003-06-18 09:15 gcc-3.3 success on a alphaev67-dec-osf5.1

Eric Blake

• 2003-06-20 04:53 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying jsr

Eric Botcazou

• 2003-06-01 19:13 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-02 10:09 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-04 07:30 Bugzilla problem
• 2003-06-04 09:31 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-05 08:08 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-05 20:17 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-05 21:00 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-06 10:53 Re: GCC 3.3 exception problem
• 2003-06-07 07:34 Re: non-portable construct in gcc configure script
• 2003-06-07 07:46 Re: Going to move to log_accum_bugzillafied on sunday
• 2003-06-10 07:05 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 12:49 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:35 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:42 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:59 Failure of g++.dg/tls/init-2.C on 3.3 branch
• 2003-06-10 17:13 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-11 20:18 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-18 10:05 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1
• 2003-06-19 19:53 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-20 06:37 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-20 06:56 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-20 12:21 ABI and complex integral types
• 2003-06-21 11:34 Re: ABI and complex integral types
• 2003-06-27 15:15 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap
• 2003-06-27 22:55 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap
• 2003-06-28 13:10 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap

Eric Christopher

• 2003-06-04 06:35 Re: Compilation failed for mips cross-compilation.
• 2003-06-04 16:44 Re: Compilation failed for mips cross-compilation.
• 2003-06-06 22:13 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 19:12 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 20:59 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 22:37 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-14 07:53 Re: CVS access problems?
• 2003-06-17 01:48 Re: Proposed new target maintainers
• 2003-06-17 21:11 Re: Proposed new target maintainers
• 2003-06-17 22:12 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-18 18:01 Re: mips-sni-sysv4 gcc-3.3
• 2003-06-18 18:26 Re: Sco vs. IBM
• 2003-06-18 23:16 Re: building
• 2003-06-19 23:32 Re: building
• 2003-06-20 17:08 Re: building
• 2003-06-23 18:55 Re: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-23 21:40 RE: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->

Erik Corry

• 2003-06-25 08:16 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.

Eyal Lebedinsky

• 2003-06-05 08:55 [tree-ssa mudflap] mudflap not built anymore?
• 2003-06-10 09:21 [tree-ssa mudflap] a new segfault
• 2003-06-12 11:27 [tree-ssa mudflap] stray warnings
• 2003-06-13 00:41 [tree-ssa mudflap] another segfault
• 2003-06-14 13:30 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] another segfault
• 2003-06-14 13:48 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] another segfault
• 2003-06-19 01:04 [tree-ssa mudflap] bad 'errno' registration
• 2003-06-19 01:16 [tree-ssa mudflap] Add more verbosity
• 2003-06-26 13:31 [tree-ssa mudflap] program looping
• 2003-06-29 04:18 [tree-ssa mudflap] slow startup
• 2003-06-29 05:41 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] slow startup
• 2003-06-29 08:09 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] slow startup - gotcha!

Falk Hueffner

• 2003-06-03 15:42 Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
• 2003-06-04 21:46 Re: question regarding macros
• 2003-06-20 01:58 Re: Bug summary notations (Was Re: [Bug target/11260] [alpha] 'output_operand: floating constant misused' with sqrt(0.0) and -mcpu=ev6)

Felix Lee

• 2003-06-16 19:21 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 20:19 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed

Feng Xian

• 2003-06-26 14:00 how g++ handle multiple level inline functions with -O3 option

Fergus Henderson

• 2003-06-01 07:59 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-01 13:34 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-09 02:53 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 15:04 Re: Treelang Frontend Was: [Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end]
• 2003-06-09 15:17 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-17 04:57 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed

Frank Ch. Eigler

• 2003-06-04 14:00 Re: [tree-ssa] bootstrap failure related to libmudflap
• 2003-06-13 11:39 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] another segfault
• 2003-06-16 17:22 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 17:37 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] another segfault
• 2003-06-19 16:31 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] Add more verbosity
• 2003-06-19 16:37 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] bad 'errno' registration
• 2003-06-29 11:59 Re: [tree-ssa mudflap] slow startup

Franz Sirl

• 2003-06-28 09:35 Re: binutils + gcc 3.3

Fred Fish

• 2003-06-04 00:45 Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 13:44 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 15:21 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-05 19:46 Only hard regs with pseudos considered for save/restore across calls?
• 2003-06-05 23:17 Re: Only hard regs with pseudos considered for save/restore across calls?
• 2003-06-11 20:24 Q: Is this improper asm use or a bug?
• 2003-06-11 21:59 Re: Q: Is this improper asm use or a bug?
• 2003-06-15 17:08 Q: How to do dynamic stack alignment

Gabriel Dos Reis

• 2003-06-01 10:51 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-01 21:04 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-03 16:01 C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-03 17:07 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-03 17:28 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-03 17:36 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-04 15:05 Re: GCC 3.x requires autoconf 2.13
• 2003-06-04 22:54 Re: C++ front end volunteer wanted!
• 2003-06-04 23:16 Re: C++ front end volunteer wanted!
• 2003-06-05 14:59 Re: Development plan (was: Re: splitting this list)
• 2003-06-06 19:21 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-12 09:14 Re: implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-14 20:06 [cxx-reflection] Merge from mainline
• 2003-06-14 21:45 Re: 26_numerics/c99_classification_macros_c.cc
• 2003-06-17 11:26 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-18 05:02 Re: [C++] value-dependent expressions and static_cast
• 2003-06-18 11:44 Re: [C++] value-dependent expressions and static_cast
• 2003-06-20 05:27 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-20 18:16 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-20 18:27 Re: ABI and complex integral types
• 2003-06-21 17:32 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 17:46 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 18:38 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 18:51 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 20:17 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 21:28 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-27 19:45 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 20:05 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 20:10 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 20:57 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 20:59 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 21:07 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 21:40 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 22:53 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 22:56 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:13 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:54 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-28 09:40 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 09:46 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-29 21:22 C++: decl with initialization
• 2003-06-30 00:28 Re: C++: decl with initialization

gaetan . conti

• 2003-06-08 11:33 strange error of "multiple definition"

Gareth McCaughan

• 2003-06-04 11:00 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla

Gary Funck

• 2003-06-04 14:59 GCC 3.x requires autoconf 2.13
• 2003-06-04 17:44 RE: GCC 3.x requires autoconf 2.13

Gary Hughes

• 2003-06-06 01:45 GCC 3.3 exception problem
• 2003-06-10 00:36 RE: GCC 3.3 exception problem

gccadmin

• 2003-06-02 17:22 gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-10 10:09 gcc-ss-20030610 is now available
• 2003-06-16 17:38 gcc-ss-20030616 is now available
• 2003-06-23 17:27 gcc-ss-20030623 is now available
• 2003-06-30 17:05 gcc-ss-20030630 is now available

Geert Bosch

• 2003-06-01 11:36 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-02 19:58 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 22:10 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-03 12:40 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-06 18:21 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-07 04:06 Re: front-end target arithmetic
• 2003-06-09 00:10 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 16:21 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-10 19:00 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 19:40 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 00:35 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 01:39 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-21 01:15 Re: bootstrap/10129 (Was: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20))
• 2003-06-21 12:29 Re: bootstrap/10129 (Was: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20))
• 2003-06-21 13:56 Re: tree-ssa bootstrap broken
• 2003-06-21 15:34 Problem with new option handling?
• 2003-06-21 16:25 Re: Problem with new option handling?

Geoff Keating

• 2003-06-02 16:48 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 16:54 Re: PCH is used only for the first header
• 2003-06-04 16:05 Re: Request to contribute new port - picoChip
• 2003-06-04 16:42 Re: call through pointer of function with variable arguments
• 2003-06-06 21:06 Re: [pch issue] Error: symbol `.LEHB0' is already defined
• 2003-06-10 19:40 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 20:36 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 01:33 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-14 19:10 Re: What tree flags tell me a variable is local?
• 2003-06-14 23:33 Re: What tree flags tell me a variable is local?
• 2003-06-18 00:04 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1
• 2003-06-22 19:52 Re: bootstrap/10129 (Was: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20))
• 2003-06-26 23:37 Re: Bootstrap failure due to GC / PCH memory corruption
• 2003-06-27 20:49 Re: Bootstrap failure due to GC / PCH memory corruption
• 2003-06-27 20:59 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to each symbolic label?
• 2003-06-28 20:23 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?

Geoffrey Keating

• 2003-06-10 04:26 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?

Gerald Pfeifer

• 2003-06-01 10:58 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla
• 2003-06-02 06:34 Re: sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk mirror out of date
• 2003-06-02 10:23 PATCH: Re: sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk mirror out of date
• 2003-06-02 18:00 Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-02 18:07 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-02 18:21 Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-02 18:25 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-03 08:50 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-03 15:29 Re: Need target milestone 3.3.2
• 2003-06-04 13:03 [tree-ssa] bootstrap failure related to libmudflap
• 2003-06-04 20:20 Re: Bugzilla problem
• 2003-06-05 07:15 Bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-05 07:49 Re: Giving Dara Hazeghi and Andrew Pinski Bugzilla access
• 2003-06-10 10:16 Re: gcc-ss-20030610 is now available
• 2003-06-10 10:47 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 15:39 tree-ssa performance (was: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang notproper front end)
• 2003-06-10 22:01 Re: several messages
• 2003-06-10 23:30 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-11 13:15 proposing new maintainers (was: notes from gcc summit maintenanceBOF)
• 2003-06-11 13:32 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-12 15:42 Re: Unreviewed patch
• 2003-06-12 23:19 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-13 00:39 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-13 11:49 Re: Bugs and versions affected (Was Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4Schedule)
• 2003-06-13 14:04 Re: implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-14 10:58 PATCH for Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-14 11:41 Re: PATCH for Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-14 12:27 Re: gcc_latest_snapshot CVS tag
• 2003-06-14 13:13 Re: PATCH for Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-17 10:08 Bugzilla still a bit verbose
• 2003-06-17 10:16 RE: ARC maintainer was Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-17 10:18 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-17 15:42 Re: Bugzilla still a bit verbose
• 2003-06-17 19:08 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-17 19:13 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-17 19:14 Re: Doc correction regarding parallel builds
• 2003-06-17 19:37 Re: CVS commit links for new files are wrong
• 2003-06-17 21:10 Re: gcc_latest_snapshot CVS tag
• 2003-06-18 13:10 Re: GCJ and $PREFIX/include
• 2003-06-18 23:21 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-19 00:06 Re: CVS commit links for new files are wrong
• 2003-06-19 00:14 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-19 08:36 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-19 12:02 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-19 21:23 sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-19 22:47 bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-19 23:34 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-20 10:32 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-20 11:53 Re: bootstrap failure (libstdc++ testsuite_hooks)
• 2003-06-23 12:15 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-25 08:42 Re: gcc-ss-20030623 is now available
• 2003-06-26 07:54 Re: problem with online docs
• 2003-06-26 17:36 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-27 07:17 Re: GCC 3.2 warnings
• 2003-06-27 08:25 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-27 12:13 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 12:53 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 08:16 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 10:40 PATCH for Re: GCC Release Status (2003-06-27)
• 2003-06-28 11:01 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-29 09:05 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-30 12:18 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-30 13:02 Bootstrap failure on i386-*

Giovanni Bajo

• 2003-06-03 15:56 Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
• 2003-06-10 12:17 CVS commit links for new files are wrong
• 2003-06-11 22:30 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 09:55 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-13 10:53 Re: Bugs and versions affected (Was Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule)
• 2003-06-15 16:54 [C++] comptypes and TYPENAME_TYPE
• 2003-06-15 17:52 Re: [C++] comptypes and TYPENAME_TYPE
• 2003-06-18 00:36 [C++] value-dependent expressions and static_cast
• 2003-06-18 09:57 Re: [C++] value-dependent expressions and static_cast
• 2003-06-23 18:18 C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-23 23:10 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 13:37 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 14:54 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 16:17 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-25 18:30 C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-25 21:41 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-25 21:46 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-26 10:46 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-26 19:46 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave

gp

• 2003-06-10 20:06 rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-10 21:01 Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-14 03:14 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-17 21:43 MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-18 03:53 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-18 04:36 Re: Mips C++ undefined reference to std::_Alloc_traits<...>::_S_instanceless

Graham Stott

• 2003-06-11 20:58 Q. How to get better global register allocation?
• 2003-06-12 23:06 Re: Q. How to get better global register allocation?

graydon hoare

• 2003-06-25 18:31 some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-25 21:42 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-25 21:46 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-25 21:49 Re: some profiling numbers

GroupShield for Exchange (CVO-EXCHANGE)

• 2003-06-01 16:12 ALERT - GroupShield ticket number OA1337_1054483828_CVO-EXCHANGE_1 was generated

Gunther Nikl

• 2003-06-27 08:46 libiberty/configure.in and --enable-multilib

H. J. Lu

• 2003-06-03 21:27 SSE2 intrinsic source compatibility
• 2003-06-04 00:40 Re: SSE2 intrinsic source compatibility
• 2003-06-04 23:25 Re: SSE2 intrinsic source compatibility
• 2003-06-05 14:46 Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-05 14:53 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-05 17:50 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-05 22:11 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 14:44 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 14:50 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 14:56 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 15:27 Why are there 2 stageprofile_build targets in gcc/Makefile.in?
• 2003-06-06 15:54 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice
• 2003-06-06 17:38 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-07 22:32 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-11 14:05 The gcc mainline is broken on Linux/ia64
• 2003-06-11 15:42 libjava is broken
• 2003-06-11 15:46 Does gcc 3.4 compile glibc in CVS?
• 2003-06-11 18:10 Re: libjava is broken
• 2003-06-11 18:11 Re: libjava is broken
• 2003-06-11 20:36 Re: Does gcc 3.4 compile glibc in CVS?
• 2003-06-12 14:42 Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-12 16:09 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-14 02:00 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-14 14:11 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-14 17:12 Does java build for anyone today?
• 2003-06-15 16:03 Re: Comparing function pointers
• 2003-06-20 02:21 RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-20 06:02 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-20 19:08 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-20 22:25 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-21 15:33 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-21 17:12 Problems with __int64, unsigned __int64 and DImode/ILP32 on ia64
• 2003-06-21 17:24 Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 17:37 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 20:52 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 21:17 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 23:52 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-23 15:22 Does ggc-page.c require MMAP_DEV_ZERO and MMAP_ANON?
• 2003-06-23 15:38 Re: Does ggc-page.c require MMAP_DEV_ZERO and MMAP_ANON?
• 2003-06-23 15:49 Re: Does ggc-page.c require MMAP_DEV_ZERO and MMAP_ANON?
• 2003-06-23 19:15 Re: Does ggc-page.c require MMAP_DEV_ZERO and MMAP_ANON?
• 2003-06-24 05:41 Re: Problems with __int64, unsigned __int64 and DImode/ILP32 on ia64
• 2003-06-25 00:54 The Linux binutils 2.14.90.0.4.1 is released
• 2003-06-25 00:55 RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 00:56 libjava is broken
• 2003-06-25 02:43 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 06:18 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 14:39 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 16:56 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 18:29 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 18:32 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 21:41 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-25 21:41 Re: target names and glibc versions on linux
• 2003-06-26 00:56 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 00:58 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 01:05 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 01:05 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 01:46 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 05:47 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 15:45 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 16:58 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 17:01 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 17:30 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 18:00 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:05 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:23 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:48 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:49 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:54 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 18:55 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:03 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:07 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 19:09 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:24 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 19:45 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 20:37 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 21:54 Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap
• 2003-06-27 01:51 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 05:22 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 19:49 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 22:01 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 01:32 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 14:59 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 15:28 Re: C++ demangler horrors

Hans Horn

• 2003-06-23 16:13 workaround for legacy code using fortran integer pointers
• 2003-06-23 20:36 Re: workaround for legacy code using fortran integer pointers

Hans-Peter Nilsson

• 2003-06-19 01:19 Re: glibc 2.0 targets
• 2003-06-19 01:26 Re: glibc 2.0 targets
• 2003-06-19 10:50 Re: [testsuite]
• 2003-06-19 11:45 Re: [testsuite]
• 2003-06-19 11:48 Re: [testsuite]
• 2003-06-19 11:59 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-23 12:20 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-23 14:50 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 15:50 Re: cross-compilation documentation

Hartmut Schirmer

• 2003-06-30 14:56 Another patch for Granlund's soft-fp lib
• 2003-06-30 14:58 Patch for Granlund's soft-fp lib

Henrik Stokseth

• 2003-06-18 04:49 gcc puts .data and .bss symbols in .text segment.
• 2003-06-19 14:02 Re: gcc puts .data and .bss symbols in .text segment.

Ian Lance Taylor

• 2003-06-10 03:43 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

Igor Shevlyakov

• 2003-06-19 23:34 How to determine aligned/unaligned loads in RTL?

ishikawa

• 2003-06-28 18:44 Req: Disable I18N/L10N translation for gcc -print-search-dirs output.
• 2003-06-29 04:06 Re: Req: Disable I18N/L10N translation for gcc -print-search-dirsoutput.
• 2003-06-29 10:45 GCC gprof statistics
• 2003-06-29 12:51 Re: Req: Disable I18N/L10N translation for gcc-print-search-dirsoutput.
• 2003-06-29 20:31 Re: GCC gprof statistics
• 2003-06-29 20:42 Re: Req: Disable I18N/L10N translation forgcc-print-search-dirsoutput.
• 2003-06-29 21:06 Re: GCC gprof statistics
• 2003-06-30 20:16 Re: GCC gprof statistics

Jack Howarth

• 2003-06-14 23:21 re: xfree86 miscompilation (XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1 key generation and/or validation) with gcc-3.3 -O2

Jakub Jelinek

• 2003-06-02 16:32 Re: C99 spelling of "asm".
• 2003-06-05 14:49 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 07:42 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 20:46 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-26 08:02 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc

Jakub Sadowski

• 2003-06-18 04:12 Cross Compiling, Target String, etc...

Jamie Lokier

• 2003-06-21 20:40 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-22 11:11 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-23 15:44 Re: Does ggc-page.c require MMAP_DEV_ZERO and MMAP_ANON?
• 2003-06-26 17:09 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target)

Jan Hoogerbrugge

• 2003-06-20 14:16 dependence information in assembly output
• 2003-06-20 14:18 Condition branch on least significant bit
• 2003-06-25 12:22 Re: Condition branch on least significant bit

Jan Hubicka

• 2003-06-01 19:24 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-03 11:42 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-03 13:37 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-04 20:56 Re: Redundant Load Elimination in GCSE
• 2003-06-07 12:19 Re: Why are there 2 stageprofile_build targets in gcc/Makefile.in?
• 2003-06-07 12:44 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 13:13 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-07 13:36 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-07 16:04 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 16:38 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 16:44 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 16:58 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-07 17:36 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-08 19:04 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-09 12:20 Re: 5 GCC regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2003-06-08T21:39:04Z.
• 2003-06-11 19:44 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-11 19:56 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-11 20:37 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 09:12 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 18:44 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 18:54 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 21:34 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-14 09:09 Re: [tree-ssa] Thoughts on live-on-entry variables
• 2003-06-14 12:09 Re: [RFC] CFG hooks for rtl/tree specificities
• 2003-06-14 20:27 Re: [RFC] CFG hooks for rtl/tree specificities
• 2003-06-15 15:53 Re: [RFC] CFG hooks for rtl/tree specificities
• 2003-06-18 07:32 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 08:50 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 10:38 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 10:47 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 12:26 Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-18 16:43 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 16:51 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 17:31 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 19:49 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 06:19 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 08:47 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 14:47 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 14:58 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 15:08 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 15:15 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 16:38 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 20:16 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 20:44 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:13 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:31 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:57 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 21:58 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-22 23:20 [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 12:20 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 14:14 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 14:14 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 15:38 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 15:57 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 16:04 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 16:12 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 16:32 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 16:53 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 18:19 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 18:19 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-24 19:03 expand_builtin_mathfn_2 and re-expanding arguments
• 2003-06-26 00:57 Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-26 21:06 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-26 21:58 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-27 10:44 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-27 15:30 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-27 16:37 Re: 21 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2003-06-26T09:45:01Z.
• 2003-06-27 19:53 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap
• 2003-06-28 09:42 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 10:05 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 11:32 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 11:34 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 22:35 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 22:46 Re: Function body size estimates
• 2003-06-29 07:57 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-29 12:57 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-29 22:27 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-30 13:38 Re: Bootstrap failure on i386-*

Jan Reimers

• 2003-06-26 17:51 RE: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch

Jan-Benedict Glaw

• 2003-06-22 16:48 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:12 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:30 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 17:43 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 20:36 Re: cross-compilation documentation

Janis Johnson

• 2003-06-06 00:49 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-11 22:09 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 17:45 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 18:49 Re: Please change the comment Mitsubishi M32R to Renesas M32R.
• 2003-06-13 17:01 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 22:18 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]

Jason Merrill

• 2003-06-03 16:08 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-03 16:58 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-03 17:30 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-03 18:45 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-04 22:25 [tree-ssa] ssa copy-prop issue
• 2003-06-05 15:13 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 15:52 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 19:47 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 02:31 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 14:43 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-07 16:42 [tree-ssa] new -Wuninitialized warning
• 2003-06-14 00:27 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-14 00:32 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-28 13:21 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-29 02:00 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-30 12:35 Re: C++: decl with initialization

Jason R Thorpe

• 2003-06-13 00:34 Re: C99 spelling of "asm".

Jason Thorpe

• 2003-06-16 21:14 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)

jb

• 2003-06-24 16:17 Old version of gcc

jbuck

• 2003-06-11 22:02 Re: Does gcc 3.4 compile glibc in CVS?
• 2003-06-11 22:07 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-24 18:55 Re: GCC 3.3 ICE policy

jean-frederic clere

• 2003-06-18 10:07 mips-sni-sysv4 gcc-3.3
• 2003-06-18 16:12 Re: mips-sni-sysv4 gcc-3.3

Jeff Chen

• 2003-06-11 09:46 How to fill delay slot for a VLIW target?

Jeff Sturm

• 2003-06-02 22:16 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-03 14:29 Bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 (mainline)
• 2003-06-06 22:18 [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-07 16:10 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-07 16:14 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-09 17:55 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-09 21:10 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 21:17 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 21:23 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 16:47 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check resultsreported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:59 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check resultsreported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-17 13:06 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-17 19:06 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-18 19:31 Re: [Cygwin, please help] Re: g77 problem
• 2003-06-19 17:12 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 20:55 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-19 21:26 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-19 21:41 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-19 21:58 Re: Compiling Source Tree Using GCJ
• 2003-06-19 21:59 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-28 05:25 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-28 05:46 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-29 00:55 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-29 13:56 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-30 15:28 Re: Getting information on symbols and linkages at run-time

Jeffery Roberts

• 2003-06-08 00:22 req. for copyright assignment form

jenny

• 2003-06-01 21:32 Re: Approved

jeroen dobbelaere

• 2003-06-13 13:40 Re: bootstrap failure of tree-ssa on armv5l-linux
• 2003-06-13 14:32 Re: bootstrap failure of tree-ssa on armv5l-linux
• 2003-06-13 21:37 [tree-ssa] (analysis) bootstrap failure on armv5l-linux
• 2003-06-14 08:35 Re: [tree-ssa] (analysis) bootstrap failure on armv5l-linux

Jerry Moore

• 2003-06-16 20:22 gcc for HP-UX 10.20

Jerry Quinn

• 2003-06-14 02:05 CVS access problems?

Jim Wilson

• 2003-06-02 19:08 Re: Problem with Gcc Installation on HP-UX Itanium box
• 2003-06-02 20:44 Re: Problem with Gcc Installation on HP-UX Itanium box
• 2003-06-02 23:18 Re: PR4490: Why is this suspended?
• 2003-06-04 17:07 Re: The absence of a arm-thumb interworking libgcc.a
• 2003-06-05 17:16 Re: make error
• 2003-06-05 17:32 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the.note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 05:23 Re: reload vs adds with clobbers
• 2003-06-06 07:07 Re: ICE building Linux 2.4.20 sched.c on x86
• 2003-06-06 17:02 Re: reload vs adds with clobbers
• 2003-06-06 17:35 Re: how to use libgcc2.c
• 2003-06-06 18:10 Re: Why are there 2 stageprofile_build targets in gcc/Makefile.in?
• 2003-06-07 05:48 Re: cc1plus 3.4 segfault.
• 2003-06-07 06:15 Re: crt{begin,end}.o and __do_global_{c,d}tors_aux
• 2003-06-07 06:28 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-07 06:38 Re: Doing an abort for invalid va_arg type
• 2003-06-09 17:57 Re: Working with Shared Object build with different Complier.
• 2003-06-09 18:01 Re: strange error of "multiple definition"
• 2003-06-10 17:41 Re: Optimization -- praise, problem, & question
• 2003-06-10 17:55 Re: Reversing bitfields on solaris
• 2003-06-10 20:55 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or,why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-11 18:58 Re: Compiler optimization?
• 2003-06-11 19:46 Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-11 19:50 Re: How to fill delay slot for a VLIW target?
• 2003-06-11 20:09 Re: Memory Barrier [Q]
• 2003-06-11 20:23 Re: GCC C Compiler producing Microsoft debug format?
• 2003-06-11 22:04 Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-11 22:15 Re: GCC C Compiler producing Microsoft debug format?
• 2003-06-11 22:20 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-12 22:52 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 23:10 Re: libgcc2's warning: implicit declaration of function `abort'
• 2003-06-12 23:22 Re: Binary increased memory ( leaks )
• 2003-06-12 23:29 Re: How are the specs generated?
• 2003-06-12 23:46 Re: AVR prologue & epilogue
• 2003-06-14 19:42 Re: Which of (set (reg:HI) (const_int 0)) and (set (reg:SI) (const_int 0)) is cheaper?
• 2003-06-14 19:59 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-14 20:11 Re: Help solicited: technical documentations on GCC
• 2003-06-14 20:20 Re: how control testsuite
• 2003-06-14 21:01 Re: 26_numerics/c99_classification_macros_c.cc
• 2003-06-14 21:25 Re: download gcc manual... html format
• 2003-06-14 21:48 Re: i386-G++ ICE in output_operand with static and -fPIC
• 2003-06-16 17:23 Re: download gcc manual... html format
• 2003-06-16 17:45 Re: Comparing function pointers
• 2003-06-16 18:02 Re: Q: How to do dynamic stack alignment
• 2003-06-18 21:51 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-18 22:13 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-18 23:12 Re: register classes, predicates, constraints...
• 2003-06-18 23:21 Re: gcc puts .data and .bss symbols in .text segment.
• 2003-06-18 23:28 Re: Cross Compiling, Target String, etc...
• 2003-06-18 23:31 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-18 23:40 Re: glibc 2.0 targets
• 2003-06-18 23:52 Re: IA64 cross compiler problem
• 2003-06-19 00:02 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 03:46 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 04:48 Re: glibc 2.0 targets
• 2003-06-24 01:26 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-24 01:35 Re: gcc puts .data and .bss symbols in .text segment.
• 2003-06-24 02:13 Re: building
• 2003-06-24 05:26 Re: Problems with __int64, unsigned __int64 and DImode/ILP32 on ia64
• 2003-06-24 05:27 Re: arm-linux-ld doesn't create codes for arm-thumb interworking
• 2003-06-24 06:37 Re: cross configuration question.
• 2003-06-24 06:37 Re: The right way to have a compiler with -DGATHER_STATISTICS
• 2003-06-24 07:25 Re: cross configuration question.
• 2003-06-24 07:52 Re: Target specific install docs.
• 2003-06-24 19:02 Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target
• 2003-06-24 20:02 Re: Old version of gcc
• 2003-06-24 20:43 Re: target names and glibc versions on linux
• 2003-06-25 00:01 Re: expand_builtin_mathfn_2 and re-expanding arguments
• 2003-06-25 18:31 Re: target names and glibc versions on linux
• 2003-06-25 20:56 Re: Condition branch on least significant bit
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: Creating builtin platform specific typedefs
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: adding a new -f switch
• 2003-06-26 18:19 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elftarget)
• 2003-06-27 06:42 Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target
• 2003-06-27 06:55 Re: Confused about rtl generation
• 2003-06-27 10:16 Re: Confused about rtl generation
• 2003-06-27 19:58 Re: VOIDmode CONST_INTs cause abort()
• 2003-06-27 20:04 Re: CROSS GCC : Host : sparc solaris2.7, Target : i386 solaris2.7
• 2003-06-29 23:35 Re: link against libc5 error...
• 2003-06-29 23:51 Re: Would you help me?

jishu . sengupta

• 2003-06-19 20:36 Compiling Source Tree Using GCJ

Joe Buck

• 2003-06-09 20:31 Re: Working with Shared Object build with different Complier.
• 2003-06-09 20:35 Re: Optimizing for Low Power Consumption
• 2003-06-09 23:38 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 00:33 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 17:47 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 22:21 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 22:46 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-11 01:19 Re: Compiler optimization?
• 2003-06-11 18:10 Re: implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-12 16:34 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-13 00:27 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-13 15:58 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-16 18:23 Re: xfree86 miscompilation (XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1 key generation and/or validation) with gcc-3.3 -O2
• 2003-06-18 16:34 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-18 20:36 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-18 23:58 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-19 00:00 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-19 16:38 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-19 16:58 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-19 17:03 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 21:59 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-23 16:05 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-23 17:05 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-24 17:26 Re: GCC 3.3 ICE policy
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 16:42 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-26 17:38 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:28 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:01 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:04 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 21:22 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 22:49 Re: GCC for HPUX 11i
• 2003-06-26 22:56 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 23:58 Re: GCC 3.2 warnings

Joel Sherrill

• 2003-06-16 17:26 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-16 21:45 ARC maintainer was Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-16 21:50 Request update of config.sub on 3.3 branch
• 2003-06-18 13:20 Re: cross-compilation documentation

Joerg . Richter

• 2003-06-05 14:39 Re: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1
• 2003-06-05 14:59 RE: Undefined symbol: vtable error with 3.2.2/3.3 on AIX 5.1

Joern Rennecke

• 2003-06-02 13:32 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-03 13:44 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-03 20:36 mangling of real-valued template parameters: inherent ABI instability and cross-compiling nightmare
• 2003-06-06 11:16 testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 17:47 Re: expect buffer overruns (was: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice)
• 2003-06-10 15:39 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-10 16:37 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results
• 2003-06-10 21:04 Re: Why does sparc build for you? or, why are make check results reported when it hasn't bootstrapped since May 5?
• 2003-06-13 17:44 RFC: constraint reshuffle for SH gcc target port
• 2003-06-16 17:47 Re: [tree-ssa] Thoughts on live-on-entry variables
• 2003-06-19 10:47 Re: Patch broke bootstrap on i386.
• 2003-06-19 11:23 Adding new files
• 2003-06-19 18:10 Re: Patch broke bootstrap on i386.
• 2003-06-19 18:48 RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-19 18:53 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-19 19:08 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-19 19:54 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-19 22:09 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-20 11:17 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-20 15:09 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-20 16:49 Re: RFC: reloading sums

Johansson Mikael (mj)

• 2003-06-24 13:23 Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-24 13:23 Licensquestions on GNU Software.

John David Anglin

• 2003-06-06 17:25 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 20:18 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-16 21:19 Re: gcc for HP-UX 10.20
• 2003-06-25 17:58 Re: Bootstrap problem on i686-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-25 18:38 Re: Bootstrap problem on i686-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-27 03:59 Re: GCC for HPUX 11i

Joseph D. Wagner

• 2003-06-02 12:27 Customizations Won't Stick
• 2003-06-02 19:21 RE: Customizations Won't Stick

Joseph S. Myers

• 2003-06-01 12:42 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla
• 2003-06-01 12:47 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-01 12:53 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 15:09 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxxundeclared
• 2003-06-01 15:13 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-01 16:49 Re: RESOLVED states in bugzilla
• 2003-06-01 20:40 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:43 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 18:24 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 18:34 Re: C99 spelling of "asm".
• 2003-06-02 18:42 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 19:03 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 21:07 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 21:10 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 22:22 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 23:10 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-02 23:26 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-03 10:17 Re: splitting this list
• 2003-06-03 18:34 Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]
• 2003-06-03 21:19 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-07 14:43 Re: Going to move to log_accum_bugzillafied on sunday
• 2003-06-08 23:12 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 09:36 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work (was Re: [Bug bootstrap/10974]Bootstrap failure)
• 2003-06-09 20:58 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 09:25 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 14:22 Re: CVS commit links for new files are wrong
• 2003-06-10 15:17 Re: gcc-ss-20030610 is now available
• 2003-06-10 19:22 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 22:13 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 22:52 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 14:18 Re: Format checking: allowing width/precision with/without "*"
• 2003-06-11 22:03 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 08:54 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-12 10:05 flex version
• 2003-06-12 16:09 Re: Unreviewed patch
• 2003-06-13 14:07 Re: HOST_WIDE_INT
• 2003-06-13 14:14 Re: Regenerating intl/plural.c with new bison?
• 2003-06-16 14:13 Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog
• 2003-06-17 16:34 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-17 20:48 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-18 09:14 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 19:28 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-18 20:49 Re: DEFAULT_MAIN_RETURN and C99...
• 2003-06-19 06:32 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work
• 2003-06-20 09:09 Re: Bug summary notations (Was Re: [Bug target/11260] [alpha]'output_operand: floating constant misused' with sqrt(0.0) and -mcpu=ev6)
• 2003-06-21 19:55 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 21:03 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 21:22 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-21 21:43 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-22 18:07 Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on 2003-06-22T16:46:20Z.
• 2003-06-26 08:52 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 12:25 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-26 17:06 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 18:20 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 18:43 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-26 21:18 Re: Not delivering {bugs,gnats,faq}.html in releases
• 2003-06-28 20:20 Re: Garbage deletion
• 2003-06-30 18:25 Re: C99 features

Kai Henningsen

• 2003-06-01 12:27 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-02 20:02 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-06 20:14 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-06 20:14 Re: front-end target arithmetic
• 2003-06-10 06:07 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-19 06:52 bootstrap failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-19 08:08 Copyright assignment/disclaimer
• 2003-06-21 13:17 tree-ssa bootstrap broken

Karel Gardas

• 2003-06-06 12:15 cc1plus 3.4 segfault.
• 2003-06-06 13:02 [pch issue] Error: symbol `.LEHB0' is already defined
• 2003-06-07 14:58 Re: cc1plus 3.4 segfault.
• 2003-06-07 14:58 Re: [pch issue] Error: symbol `.LEHB0' is already defined
• 2003-06-13 15:40 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-13 15:49 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 13:33 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 14:03 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 15:58 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 16:20 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-18 07:26 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-18 07:28 Re: cc1plus 3.4 segfault.
• 2003-06-18 13:53 correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-18 14:32 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: Ccompiletime]
• 2003-06-30 11:22 [arm] -mthumb option broken in gcc3.2.3.

Kaveh R. Ghazi

• 2003-06-01 14:24 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-10 13:48 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-11 14:09 Format checking: allowing width/precision with/without "*"
• 2003-06-12 03:11 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-13 02:07 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-26 18:48 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 18:57 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 18:59 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 19:08 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-26 19:12 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-28 02:10 Re: [tree-ssa] Maintaining g95

kaz Kojima

• 2003-06-12 23:11 Unreviewed patch
• 2003-06-15 01:15 Re: RFC: constraint reshuffle for SH gcc target port

Kazu Hirata

• 2003-06-02 11:53 Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-03 02:21 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-03 13:18 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-13 16:57 Which of (set (reg:HI) (const_int 0)) and (set (reg:SI) (const_int0)) is cheaper?
• 2003-06-14 20:34 Re: Which of (set (reg:HI) (const_int 0)) and (set (reg:SI)(const_int 0)) is cheaper?
• 2003-06-18 17:39 What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a = {1,-1};?
• 2003-06-18 17:48 Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8))) short a ={1, -1};?
• 2003-06-19 15:04 Re: [patch] Re: What happens with __attribute__((vector_size(8)))short a = {1, -1};?
• 2003-06-27 20:16 Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?
• 2003-06-28 16:09 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?
• 2003-06-28 21:44 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?
• 2003-06-29 03:35 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?
• 2003-06-29 04:28 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?
• 2003-06-29 19:04 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?
• 2003-06-30 15:01 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to eachsymbolic label?

Kazuhiro Inaoka

• 2003-06-12 05:11 Please change the comment Mitsubishi M32R to Renesas M32R.

Kelley Cook

• 2003-06-04 13:52 Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]
• 2003-06-04 13:55 <20030603193258.GA32189@doctormoo> <7458-Wed04Jun2003062758+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>

Kick Damien-DKICK1

• 2003-06-05 00:17 std::auto_ptr
• 2003-06-05 15:09 FW: std::auto_ptr
• 2003-06-05 15:46 RE: std::auto_ptr

Klein, Bernhard

• 2003-06-12 07:01 Binary increased memory ( leaks )
• 2003-06-12 07:14 AW: Memory profiling....

Kris Warkentin

• 2003-06-18 01:46 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-28 13:51 Re: Paperwork

Krister Walfridsson

• 2003-06-06 14:50 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exprun twice in the test suite?)

L-Soft list server at LISTSERV.VT.EDU (1.8d)

• 2003-06-03 00:14 Message ("Your message dated Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:24:37...")

Laurent GUERBY

• 2003-06-01 19:15 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-03 18:45 Re: front-end target arithmetic (was: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa]Integrating g95)

law

• 2003-06-01 00:49 Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 00:49 Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 02:03 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-01 02:07 Re: [tree-ssa] What would be interesting SPEC2000 tests flags?
• 2003-06-01 02:10 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 23:33 Re: Application
• 2003-06-10 16:06 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-10 16:43 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-10 16:55 Re: [tree-ssa] Insert on edge comment
• 2003-06-10 17:07 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-10 17:18 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-11 02:44 Re: Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-12 01:28 Re: [tree-ssa] FIX_.*_EXPR
• 2003-06-12 19:43 Re: [tree-ssa] Functions that return more than one value
• 2003-06-13 23:48 [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-14 21:17 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-15 16:31 Re: [tree-ssa] Failure with contained functions
• 2003-06-15 16:38 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-16 15:02 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-16 15:05 Re: C++ compile time (again, take 2)
• 2003-06-16 15:13 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 17:15 [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-16 17:20 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-16 19:46 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-16 19:47 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-16 23:00 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-16 23:11 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 23:31 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-17 00:28 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-17 02:19 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-17 02:22 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-17 20:34 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-19 14:17 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 14:40 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 14:44 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 21:23 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-20 02:02 Re: [tree-ssa] Out of SSA bug
• 2003-06-20 09:00 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-20 14:34 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-20 19:54 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-30 16:04 Re: Tree-SSA failure on FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE

Leon Spencer

• 2003-06-06 19:18 Where 2 Find Info On Generating Assembly for OS?

Leonardo Alabart

• 2003-06-16 22:53 GCC reliability analysis
• 2003-06-18 13:08 RE: GCC reliability analysis

License

• 2003-06-27 05:34 Licensing has received your request

licensors

• 2003-06-27 07:06 License request received, manual processing initiated.

Lih-der Wang

• 2003-06-13 05:16 Help solicited: technical documentations on GCC

linas

• 2003-06-12 23:49 ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-13 15:40 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-13 17:24 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-13 21:02 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-17 16:29 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-17 23:00 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!

Linus Torvalds

• 2003-06-05 17:45 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 05:38 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 05:46 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 15:31 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs

Liviu Dudau

• 2003-06-07 23:31 Problems crosscompiling 3.3.1 (CVS branch) from i386-linux to i686-pc-linux-gnu
• 2003-06-08 20:19 Re: Problems crosscompiling 3.3.1 (CVS branch) from i386-linux toi686-pc-linux-gnu

Loren James Rittle

• 2003-06-13 23:09 Re: C++ compile time (again)

Luca Saiu

• 2003-06-30 21:33 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-30 21:53 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos

M.A.Chojnowski

• 2003-06-03 16:19 Successful compile GCC 3.3 on Mandrake 9.1

Maciej W. Rozycki

• 2003-06-10 10:59 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 12:45 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-11 11:32 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-11 19:39 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-12 11:21 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-12 12:26 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-13 10:35 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-13 18:32 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-13 20:15 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-14 14:33 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-14 18:27 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-27 19:27 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts

MailScanner

• 2003-06-02 14:32 Warning: E-mail viruses detected

Marc Espie

• 2003-06-15 23:25 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

Marc Waeckerlin

• 2003-06-30 14:25 Using gcc for C++ backend to checking exceptions?

Marcel Cox

• 2003-06-01 12:03 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net

Mark Douglas

• 2003-06-23 16:11 two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-23 21:38 RE: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-23 21:55 RE: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->

Mark Mitchell

• 2003-06-03 15:42 Re: Need target milestone 3.3.2
• 2003-06-03 17:16 Re: Need target milestone 3.3.2
• 2003-06-03 17:18 Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
• 2003-06-05 01:16 Re: Using exception specifications to help compiler
• 2003-06-05 23:30 Re: Development plan (was: Re: splitting this list)
• 2003-06-06 20:31 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-06 20:52 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-06 22:49 i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-08 18:55 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-08 19:13 Re: i386-cmov1.c broken
• 2003-06-08 19:24 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-08 19:47 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-08 19:49 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 21:02 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 22:23 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-09 22:40 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-10 02:57 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-10 06:42 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 15:57 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-10 16:03 Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x
• 2003-06-11 18:21 GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 22:45 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 22:53 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 22:55 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-11 22:55 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-15 17:44 Re: [C++] comptypes and TYPENAME_TYPE
• 2003-06-15 17:57 Re: [C++] comptypes and TYPENAME_TYPE
• 2003-06-17 21:50 Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1
• 2003-06-18 14:58 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 19:24 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 20:52 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 21:51 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 23:13 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 06:32 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 14:25 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 14:56 Re: Unit at a time C++ again
• 2003-06-19 15:09 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 16:06 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:59 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-19 22:10 Re: sparc-sun-solaris versus sparc64-sun-solaris
• 2003-06-20 00:03 Re: mangling of real-valued template parameters: inherent ABIinstability and cross-compiling nightmare
• 2003-06-20 04:14 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-20 19:54 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-20 22:38 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-21 00:31 GCC Release Status (2003-06-20)
• 2003-06-23 15:44 Re: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20)
• 2003-06-24 16:17 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 16:20 GCC 3.3 ICE policy
• 2003-06-24 17:25 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 17:34 Re: GCC 3.3 ICE policy
• 2003-06-24 18:57 Re: GCC 3.3 ICE policy
• 2003-06-24 22:41 Re: GCC 3.3 ICE policy
• 2003-06-27 21:09 GCC Release Status (2003-06-27)
• 2003-06-29 23:27 Re: C++: decl with initialization

Mark Wielaard

• 2003-06-07 18:49 Bugzilla Mail Interface [Fwd: Bugzilla Error]

Martin Buchholz

• 2003-06-21 14:40 Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-21 16:14 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-22 05:58 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.

Martin Schlemmer

• 2003-06-30 19:50 gcc-3.3 CVS failing during libjava compile with:./.libs/libgcj.so: undefined reference to `__gcc_personality_v0'

Marty Hauff

• 2003-06-27 01:37 Confused about rtl generation
• 2003-06-27 08:50 Re: Confused about rtl generation

Mashrab Kuvatov

• 2003-06-24 15:49 two locales for one country

Matt Austern

• 2003-06-19 20:22 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-24 17:24 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr

Matt Kraai

• 2003-06-19 02:54 powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-24 17:35 Re: ICE on current CVS head
• 2003-06-24 18:50 Re: ICE on CVS head
• 2003-06-25 16:49 Re: Bootstrap problem on i686-linux-gnu

Matthias Klose

• 2003-06-14 14:41 xfree86 miscompilation (XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1 key generation and/or validation) with gcc-3.3 -O2

Maxwell, Drew

• 2003-06-18 22:41 The 'progressive' compiler package clusters--availability?

Michael Eager

• 2003-06-13 20:54 i386-G++ ICE in output_operand with static and -fPIC
• 2003-06-16 02:46 Re: i386-G++ ICE in output_operand with static and -fPIC
• 2003-06-19 17:14 Re: Cross Compiling, Target String, etc...
• 2003-06-24 18:55 Re: ELF executable & relocatable

Michael Koch

• 2003-06-11 16:36 Re: libjava is broken
• 2003-06-11 18:21 Re: libjava is broken
• 2003-06-25 05:00 Re: libjava is broken

Michael Matz

• 2003-06-02 00:55 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-04 16:03 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-05 19:14 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-06 20:16 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-06 20:45 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-06 20:50 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-06 21:57 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-12 07:06 Re: Q. How to get better global register allocation?
• 2003-06-13 12:40 Re: new-reg-alloc branch status ?
• 2003-06-16 11:30 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 11:41 re: xfree86 miscompilation (XDM-AUTHORIZATION-1 key generation and/or validation) with gcc-3.3 -O2
• 2003-06-16 13:36 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 18:32 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 20:32 Re: [tree-ssa] edge insertion/split problem
• 2003-06-20 14:11 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-20 14:24 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-20 15:59 Re: RFC: reloading sums
• 2003-06-30 07:25 RE: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.

Michael Meissner

• 2003-06-02 22:05 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-05 22:45 Re: Only hard regs with pseudos considered for save/restore across calls?
• 2003-06-11 14:04 Re: How to fill delay slot for a VLIW target?
• 2003-06-12 15:47 Re: How are the specs generated?
• 2003-06-14 00:46 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-14 22:07 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-17 20:34 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-19 01:55 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-20 15:49 Re: ELF executable & relocatable
• 2003-06-20 15:59 Re: Condition branch on least significant bit
• 2003-06-20 16:05 Re: dependence information in assembly output
• 2003-06-23 18:45 Re: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-23 22:35 Re: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-25 21:41 Re: Condition branch on least significant bit

Michael Ritzert

• 2003-06-15 14:47 Re: cc1plus 3.4 segfault.

Michael S . Zick

• 2003-06-01 18:47 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-03 15:42 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-03 21:01 Re: front-end target arithmetic (was: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95)
• 2003-06-04 17:08 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-04 23:31 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-04 23:33 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-06 19:10 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-07 02:03 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-09 14:55 Treelang Frontend Was: [Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end]
• 2003-06-12 21:46 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-12 21:52 Re: [tree-ssa] Functions that return more than one value
• 2003-06-13 01:34 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-13 17:01 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-13 21:17 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-14 00:12 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-14 14:57 Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
• 2003-06-15 01:18 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-15 02:16 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-15 03:07 Re: 3.3 error when inlining
• 2003-06-21 14:30 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-24 02:03 Re: bootstrap/10129 (Was: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20))

Mike Lerwill

• 2003-06-24 16:18 ICE on current CVS head

Mike Stump

• 2003-06-02 22:41 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-02 22:49 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-04 01:43 Re: Optimizing for Low Power Consumption
• 2003-06-04 01:44 Re: Optimizing for Low Power Consumption
• 2003-06-04 17:35 Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]
• 2003-06-10 22:01 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 23:09 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-11 21:08 Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-12 01:05 Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
• 2003-06-17 04:40 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 05:05 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-17 05:29 Re: GCC reliability analysis
• 2003-06-17 20:49 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-17 21:07 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-18 17:52 Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!
• 2003-06-18 18:13 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-18 18:28 Re: GCC reliability analysis
• 2003-06-18 21:05 Re: Cross Compiling, Target String, etc...
• 2003-06-18 21:24 Re: gcc puts .data and .bss symbols in .text segment.
• 2003-06-23 23:22 Re: dependence information in assembly output
• 2003-06-23 23:30 Re: ELF executable & relocatable
• 2003-06-24 00:00 Re: Contributing
• 2003-06-24 00:18 Re: How to determine aligned/unaligned loads in RTL?
• 2003-06-24 00:23 Re: bootstrap/10129 (Was: GCC Release Status (2003-06-20))
• 2003-06-26 04:33 Re: target names and glibc versions on linux
• 2003-06-26 04:34 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-26 05:04 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 18:08 Re: C++ demangler
• 2003-06-27 00:12 Re: GCC 3.2 warnings
• 2003-06-27 06:52 Re: RFC: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-family/
• 2003-06-30 18:57 Re: RFC: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-family/

Mukta Punjani, Noida

• 2003-06-30 09:04 Register Rematerialization In New Register Allocator

Natasha Wilson

• 2003-06-30 13:27 Pre_dec and Post_inc insns

Nathan Myers

• 2003-06-12 16:28 Re: libstdc++ and the LSB

Nathan Sidwell

• 2003-06-02 08:49 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-23 14:13 Re: Confusion with template and heritage
• 2003-06-24 11:36 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 14:49 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-24 14:49 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-24 16:19 Re: C++ ABI: Mangling of call_expr
• 2003-06-25 09:51 Re: gcc 3.3 operator[] disambiguation
• 2003-06-25 09:54 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-26 08:42 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-26 09:36 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave

Nathanael Nerode

• 2003-06-03 17:36 Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]
• 2003-06-03 17:45 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-03 17:48 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-03 17:57 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-03 19:33 Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]
• 2003-06-03 20:27 Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
• 2003-06-05 00:44 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-05 01:04 [OT] GFDL (was Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT])
• 2003-06-05 01:33 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-06 18:11 Request for help branching. :-(
• 2003-06-10 00:40 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 01:40 Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• 2003-06-10 04:19 Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 04:44 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 16:56 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:10 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 17:30 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 19:27 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 19:41 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 19:50 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 22:04 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 22:41 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-13 00:59 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-13 01:04 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-13 13:49 Regenerating intl/plural.c with new bison?
• 2003-06-15 16:27 [Attn. Steering Committee] Proposal to fix libiberty licensing issues
• 2003-06-16 20:41 Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-17 01:17 Proposed new target maintainers
• 2003-06-18 23:31 Patch broke bootstrap on i386.
• 2003-06-19 04:20 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-26 17:08 C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 21:56 Re: C++ demangler horrors

Naveen Sharma, Noida

• 2003-06-13 09:58 new-reg-alloc branch status ?
• 2003-06-16 11:04 Re: new-reg-alloc branch status ?

Neil Booth

• 2003-06-01 12:30 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-01 13:10 Re: Failure to build gcc cvs HEAD 20030601: c-opts.c:163: `OPT_xxx undeclared
• 2003-06-01 18:59 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 19:19 RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 19:52 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:05 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 20:18 Re: Status of import and pragma once?
• 2003-06-06 06:06 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 20:18 Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-06 20:38 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-06 20:40 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-06 21:02 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-07 10:54 Re: Going to move to log_accum_bugzillafied on sunday
• 2003-06-07 14:52 Re: Going to move to log_accum_bugzillafied on sunday
• 2003-06-08 19:51 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-08 19:52 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-08 19:54 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-10 20:55 Re: Testsuite failures
• 2003-06-14 18:56 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-14 20:32 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-15 21:03 Re: Build problem with current tree
• 2003-06-15 21:59 Re: Build problem with current tree
• 2003-06-16 19:05 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-16 19:55 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-16 20:02 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-16 20:12 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-20 05:31 Re: Adding new files
• 2003-06-20 05:37 Re: Patch broke bootstrap on i386.
• 2003-06-20 05:49 Re: line-map.c
• 2003-06-20 05:54 Re: undeclared reference in opts.c
• 2003-06-21 16:01 Re: Problem with new option handling?
• 2003-06-21 16:07 Re: Problem with new option handling?
• 2003-06-21 17:48 Re: Problem with new option handling?
• 2003-06-22 07:10 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-25 21:40 Re: adding a new -f switch
• 2003-06-26 00:57 Re: some profiling numbers
• 2003-06-26 00:57 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-28 06:26 Re: opts.sh breaks compile on mingw
• 2003-06-28 19:31 Re: Req: Disable I18N/L10N translation for gcc -print-search-dirs output.
• 2003-06-28 22:13 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-28 22:55 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-29 08:35 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86
• 2003-06-29 08:37 Re: line-map.c
• 2003-06-29 09:29 Re: sched2 seems to be disabled on x86

Nick Clifton

• 2003-06-06 15:52 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice

Olaf Hering

• 2003-06-21 18:39 libstdc++ check-abi not selfcontained
• 2003-06-25 21:39 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc
• 2003-06-26 17:56 Re: CVS head do not bootstrap for powerpc

Olivier Hainque

• 2003-06-26 15:26 ICE in fixup_abnormal_edges after deletion of trapping insn on x86

Oscar Fuentes

• 2003-06-26 20:26 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 20:59 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 01:33 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 05:12 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 22:16 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 22:37 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 22:55 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:00 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:17 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch

packetnews

• 2003-06-01 16:10 Re: 45443-343556

Paolo Carlini

• 2003-06-04 22:35 C++ front end volunteer wanted!
• 2003-06-04 23:16 Re: C++ front end volunteer wanted!

Patrick McAllister

• 2003-06-03 14:15 Soundmasking Systems for Noise Control

Paul Brook

• 2003-06-01 20:21 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-11 22:10 [tree-ssa] FIX_.*_EXPR
• 2003-06-12 19:45 Re: [tree-ssa] FIX_.*_EXPR
• 2003-06-14 19:43 [tree-ssa] Failure with contained functions
• 2003-06-15 16:59 [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-17 00:45 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-17 19:15 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-17 19:37 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
• 2003-06-28 00:37 [tree-ssa] Maintaining g95
• 2003-06-30 22:13 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos

Paul Koning

• 2003-06-05 18:48 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 18:48 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 21:50 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 15:35 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-10 19:47 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-11 17:21 implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-11 17:42 Re: implicit typename deprecated, "see documentation"
• 2003-06-16 20:47 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-26 15:55 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elftarget)
• 2003-06-30 13:03 Re: C compile time

Paul Ward

• 2003-06-11 00:47 Successful build on SCO OpenServer 5.0.4

Per Bothner

• 2003-06-27 22:28 Re: gcj and gtk

Peter Barada

• 2003-06-03 19:59 Re: Optimizing for Low Power Consumption
• 2003-06-04 19:10 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-10 16:40 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-22 17:09 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-22 19:36 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 02:49 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 03:06 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 14:10 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-23 14:11 Re: cross-compilation documentation
• 2003-06-28 04:11 Re: C++ demangler horrors

Peter Brown via RT

• 2003-06-09 17:36 [gnu.org #20553] Lars Segerlund

Peter Keller

• 2003-06-03 21:40 gcc and C structures

Peter T Greening

• 2003-06-18 23:09 building
• 2003-06-19 23:32 Re: building
• 2003-06-20 16:24 Re: building
• 2003-06-20 17:38 Re: building
• 2003-06-20 20:00 Re: building

Petr Baudis

• 2003-06-21 19:20 [ANNOUNCE][CFH] gcc-cvs <-> CIA gateway

Phil Edwards

• 2003-06-01 19:21 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-01 20:02 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:37 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-02 18:28 Re: notes from gcc summit maintenance BOF
• 2003-06-02 18:54 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-04 08:51 Re: Why did you make streambufs noncopyable?
• 2003-06-05 03:57 Re: Why did you make streambufs noncopyable?
• 2003-06-05 15:45 Re: Bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-06 22:18 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-09 16:31 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work (was Re: [Bug bootstrap/10974] Bootstrap failure)
• 2003-06-10 18:37 Re: Why is libiberty built for the target? (was Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?)
• 2003-06-10 20:03 Re: Why is libiberty built for the target?
• 2003-06-10 20:09 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-10 23:36 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-23 18:35 Re: importing another file into top-level include directory?
• 2003-06-25 21:42 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-25 21:47 Re: C++ defect reports: how to behave
• 2003-06-26 01:02 Re: http://gcc.gnu.org down???
• 2003-06-26 14:49 Re: C++ demangler
• 2003-06-26 17:07 Re: development
• 2003-06-26 18:49 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-26 19:34 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 20:26 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 21:08 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 21:13 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 22:46 Re: C++ demangler horrors
• 2003-06-27 22:47 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 22:50 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:07 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-30 16:34 Re: Patch for Granlund's soft-fp lib
• 2003-06-30 20:32 Re: libstdc++ check-abi not selfcontained

Phil Prentice

• 2003-06-02 13:37 GDB & VxWorks 5.4

postmaster

• 2003-06-07 23:01 This is an alert from eSafe
• 2003-06-30 08:04 Content violation

qinfeng . zhang

• 2003-06-02 06:54 set "cc1_options and invoke_as" as target macro
• 2003-06-03 01:37 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-04 01:44 Re: Optimizing for Low Power Consumption
• 2003-06-04 10:01 a problem about type checking
• 2003-06-06 07:17 how to use libgcc2.c
• 2003-06-13 05:21 how control testsuite
• 2003-06-13 10:53 Re: HOST_WIDE_INT
• 2003-06-19 03:14 [testsuite]
• 2003-06-19 03:18 Re: Cross Compiling, Target String, etc...
• 2003-06-19 11:34 Re: [testsuite]

Rainer Orth

• 2003-06-26 22:04 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap
• 2003-06-27 13:43 Re: [PATCH] Re: Bootstrap failure due to GC / PCH memory corruption
• 2003-06-27 13:46 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap

Randall Hyde

• 2003-06-08 14:47 HLA v1.49 is now available

Ranjit Mathew

• 2003-06-03 04:24 Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-03 07:14 FAQ entry for GCC and EGCS relationship
• 2003-06-03 07:33 Re: FAQ entry for GCC and EGCS relationship
• 2003-06-03 12:01 Re: FAQ entry for GCC and EGCS relationship
• 2003-06-12 10:26 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-13 05:16 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-24 13:26 Re: gcc-ss-20030623 is now available

Ric Rocheleau

• 2003-06-25 21:39 Loaded gcc 2.95.2 - but how do I get ld?

Rich DAddio

• 2003-06-17 00:20 RE: ARC maintainer was Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-17 13:27 RE: ARC maintainer was Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)

Richard Earnshaw

• 2003-06-02 17:09 Re: [Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
• 2003-06-03 16:08 Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
• 2003-06-05 10:14 Re: The absence of a arm-thumb interworking libgcc.a
• 2003-06-06 10:21 Re: The absence of a arm-thumb interworking libgcc.a
• 2003-06-11 08:45 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-11 09:07 Re: Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-11 09:28 Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
• 2003-06-14 13:13 Re: RFC: constraint reshuffle for SH gcc target port
• 2003-06-20 16:31 Re: ARM float ordering
• 2003-06-25 18:32 Re: building non-FPU cross-compiler for ARM
• 2003-06-26 16:28 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target)
• 2003-06-30 11:36 Re: [arm] -mthumb option broken in gcc3.2.3.

Richard Guenther

• 2003-06-03 21:09 __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-05 18:49 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-05 19:26 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-06 14:18 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-06 19:44 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-07 13:24 Re: __attribute__((leafify))
• 2003-06-12 21:04 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-13 08:56 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-14 10:19 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-14 19:38 Re: tree-ssa branch: Call for preliminary testing
• 2003-06-18 10:55 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 14:42 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-23 14:14 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-23 15:11 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 15:39 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 15:52 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 16:16 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 16:52 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 17:09 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 10:32 Re: Please try out new inlining heuristics

Richard Henderson

• 2003-06-02 21:34 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-03 00:56 Re: rfc: convert scalar literals to vector constants
• 2003-06-03 05:13 Re: Is (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI) 0) (const_int)) valid rtx?
• 2003-06-03 05:24 Re: libgcc.map
• 2003-06-04 00:25 Re: SSE2 intrinsic source compatibility
• 2003-06-04 04:15 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 05:38 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 05:39 Re: libgcc.map
• 2003-06-05 17:17 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 17:18 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 18:36 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 20:48 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 20:49 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 21:02 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-05 21:06 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-05 21:26 Re: Only hard regs with pseudos considered for save/restore across calls?
• 2003-06-06 00:51 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 00:58 Re: Only hard regs with pseudos considered for save/restore across calls?
• 2003-06-06 05:04 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 05:32 Re: Marking ia64 psABI conformance (Re: PATCH: Support the .note.GNU-property section)
• 2003-06-06 09:05 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-07 16:08 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-07 22:32 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-07 22:34 Re: crt{begin,end}.o and __do_global_{c,d}tors_aux
• 2003-06-08 04:15 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-08 16:55 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-09 21:05 Re: will multi-register returns get fixed?
• 2003-06-11 01:14 Re: Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-11 03:51 Re: Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-11 03:53 Re: Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-12 21:29 Re: solaris 2.9 sun assembler warnings
• 2003-06-12 22:31 Re: [tree-ssa] FIX_.*_EXPR
• 2003-06-13 15:51 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-13 22:48 Re: IA64 bootstrap failure
• 2003-06-14 01:19 Re: [tree-ssa] Fun with exceptions -- opinions needed
• 2003-06-16 01:03 Re: What tree flags tell me a variable is local?
• 2003-06-16 01:24 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-16 19:30 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-16 19:51 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-17 02:50 Re: [GCC] x86 optimizer suggestion
• 2003-06-17 22:50 Re: Symbol visibility build failure on Solaris
• 2003-06-19 16:51 Re: Patch broke bootstrap on i386.
• 2003-06-19 17:22 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 17:27 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 20:15 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 20:27 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 21:59 Re: Patch broke bootstrap on i386.
• 2003-06-20 05:20 Re: RFC: More ia64 intrinsics
• 2003-06-20 22:42 Re: ABI and complex integral types
• 2003-06-20 22:47 Re: Condition branch on least significant bit
• 2003-06-23 21:08 Re: emit_library_call help
• 2003-06-25 21:40 Re: Condition branch on least significant bit
• 2003-06-26 00:56 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 00:57 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 01:00 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 22:20 Re: The future of __main (was Re: __main call for c++ on sparc-elf target)
• 2003-06-27 03:53 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-30 05:42 Re: Is there really only one symbol_ref object referring to each symbolic label?

Richard Kenner

• 2003-06-04 00:55 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-05 01:22 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-05 01:40 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-08 00:54 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-08 13:47 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-08 16:58 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-10 21:10 Problem with gcc/configure
• 2003-06-10 22:09 Re: Problem with gcc/configure (obvious patch applied)
• 2003-06-10 22:53 Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-11 01:48 Re: Question about cfgrtl.c:flow_delete_block_noexpunge
• 2003-06-13 12:22 Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 12:29 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 12:50 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 12:54 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 12:55 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-13 13:18 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-14 01:04 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-15 13:28 Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-15 20:33 Build problem with current tree
• 2003-06-15 21:31 Re: Build problem with current tree
• 2003-06-15 22:07 Re: Build problem with current tree
• 2003-06-15 23:08 Re: Build problem with current tree
• 2003-06-17 13:23 genattrtab for ia64
• 2003-06-17 16:51 Re: genattrtab for ia64
• 2003-06-17 18:01 Re: genattrtab for ia64
• 2003-06-19 00:55 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 14:18 line-map.c
• 2003-06-19 17:26 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 20:16 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-19 22:36 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-20 00:55 Re: Question on TREE_CODE_CLASS of 's'
• 2003-06-20 12:40 Re: line-map.c
• 2003-06-26 04:34 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-27 13:01 Re: Confused about rtl generation

Richard Sandiford

• 2003-06-10 15:12 Re: dwarf2 call frame related question
• 2003-06-18 07:43 Re: MIPS C++ bug
• 2003-06-27 14:11 Re: Linux/ia64 failed to bootstrap

Richard Stallman

• 2003-06-07 10:22 Using this list

Rimpei Sosa

• 2003-06-04 02:30 The absence of a arm-thumb interworking libgcc.a
• 2003-06-06 05:54 Re: The absence of a arm-thumb interworking libgcc.a
• 2003-06-20 09:09 arm-linux-ld doesn't create codes for arm-thumb interworking

Rob Savoye

• 2003-06-06 15:36 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 17:19 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 17:59 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 18:02 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 18:19 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-06 20:25 Re: testsuite/*/*/*/*.exp run twice (Was: Is gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/ieee.exp run twice in the test suite?)
• 2003-06-11 00:09 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-13 15:20 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]

Robert Dewar

• 2003-06-01 12:42 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-03 18:10 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-03 18:45 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-03 18:50 Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
• 2003-06-03 19:10 Re: front-end target arithmetic (was: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95)
• 2003-06-03 20:30 Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
• 2003-06-06 21:02 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-25 16:49 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-26 04:58 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 04:58 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 21:13 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-27 19:50 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos
• 2003-06-27 22:48 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-27 23:38 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-28 04:26 Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
• 2003-06-28 19:20 Re: Garbage deletion
• 2003-06-28 21:30 Re: Garbage deletion
• 2003-06-29 01:32 Re: line-map.c
• 2003-06-29 09:45 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-29 13:51 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-29 14:58 RE: two PPC gcc issues in 2.95.3 ->
• 2003-06-29 16:18 Re: Licensquestions on GNU Software.
• 2003-06-30 13:10 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-30 14:25 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-30 21:29 Re: How reuse inline assembler conditionals?
• 2003-06-30 21:32 Re: [tree-ssa] Computed gotos

Robert McNulty Junior

• 2003-06-14 23:26 Internal compiler error: mainline
• 2003-06-15 03:13 Re: Internal compiler error: mainline
• 2003-06-18 03:38 Re: libstdc++/assembly-related 3.4 bootstrap failure on sparc
• 2003-06-20 01:08 undeclared reference in opts.c
• 2003-06-20 01:19 Re: undeclared reference in opts.c
• 2003-06-20 01:20 Re: undeclared reference in opts.c
• 2003-06-20 05:58 Re: undeclared reference in opts.c
• 2003-06-25 02:45 Error in Mainline(again)
• 2003-06-27 06:28 Re: FTn 77 compiler - please help

Robert Myers

• 2003-06-18 15:34 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-18 15:54 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-19 03:14 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-19 15:25 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-22 02:36 Re: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-26 05:32 nbench as a benchmark for gcc

Roger Sayle

• 2003-06-07 01:51 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-25 15:08 Re: expand_builtin_mathfn_2 and re-expanding arguments

Roger.Gough

• 2003-06-03 19:46 Dump error sto
• 2003-06-05 09:48 make error

Ronald Landheer-Cieslak

• 2003-06-12 13:14 How are the specs generated?
• 2003-06-13 08:33 Re: How are the specs generated?

Russ Allbery

• 2003-06-01 20:10 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-05 04:09 Re: splitting this list
• 2003-06-05 04:15 Re: splitting this list

Ryan Smiderle

• 2003-06-06 21:47 Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 19:09 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite
• 2003-06-10 22:32 Re: Questions about the gcc testsuite

S kris

• 2003-06-20 12:27 ELF executable & relocatable

S. Bosscher

• 2003-06-06 07:14 RE: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-28 09:58 RE: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 10:40 RE: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-28 12:26 RE: Please try out new inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-29 14:01 RE: Intel compiler 8.0 pretends to be gcc 3.2.
• 2003-06-29 14:19 RE: Please try out new inlining heuristics

Samaresh Pradhan

• 2003-06-09 23:29 Reversing bitfields on solaris

Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, Noida

• 2003-06-25 08:42 adding a new -f switch

Scott Robert Ladd

• 2003-06-01 13:45 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-18 12:38 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 15:04 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-18 15:30 Benchmarks
• 2003-06-18 16:08 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-18 16:12 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-18 18:14 Re: Sco vs. IBM
• 2003-06-18 18:35 Re: Sco vs. IBM
• 2003-06-19 14:53 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-19 15:17 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-20 19:35 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-21 18:29 Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
• 2003-06-30 16:35 Re: C99 features

Segher Boessenkool

• 2003-06-15 01:47 Re: log_accum_bugzillafied seems to work (was Re: [Bug bootstrap/10974]Bootstrap failure)

Shaun Jackman

• 2003-06-23 14:15 arm-wince-pe users' group
• 2003-06-26 16:06 stddef.h, cstddef, and ptrdiff_t
• 2003-06-26 16:37 Re: stddef.h, cstddef, and ptrdiff_t
• 2003-06-30 15:07 C99 features
• 2003-06-30 16:58 Re: C99 features

Siddharameshwar

• 2003-06-07 12:10 Working with Shared Object build with different Complier.

Stan Shebs

• 2003-06-16 22:46 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)

Stephan T. Lavavej

• 2003-06-02 06:10 PR4490: Why is this suspended?

Stephen Biggs

• 2003-06-03 07:45 Re: Testsuite custom environment
• 2003-06-04 16:13 call through pointer of function with variable arguments
• 2003-06-04 17:09 Re: call through pointer of function with variable arguments
• 2003-06-22 14:55 emit_library_call help
• 2003-06-23 09:10 Re: emit_library_call help
• 2003-06-23 15:20 Re: emit_library_call help

Steve Ellcey

• 2003-06-25 00:22 Creating builtin platform specific typedefs
• 2003-06-25 21:41 Re: Creating builtin platform specific typedefs
• 2003-06-27 20:31 Re: GCC for HPUX 11i

Steve Kluth

• 2003-06-25 21:41 http://gcc.gnu.org down???

Steven Bosscher

• 2003-06-01 00:06 Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-01 12:27 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-01 12:28 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-01 19:50 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 19:56 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:14 Re: RFC: Moving C to its own directory
• 2003-06-01 20:43 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95
• 2003-06-02 06:03 Bugzilla and email addresses
• 2003-06-02 16:46 [tree-ssa] Optimizing if statements
• 2003-06-02 23:05 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-02 23:18 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-02 23:22 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-05 09:13 [tree-ssa] FYI: GENERIC vs. C front end dependencies for G95
• 2003-06-05 13:59 Development plan (was: Re: splitting this list)
• 2003-06-08 22:16 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 10:33 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 15:32 [PATCH]: eliminate C front-end dependencies in treelang (was: Re:treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end)
• 2003-06-09 15:35 Re: [PATCH]: eliminate C front-end dependencies in treelang
• 2003-06-09 16:40 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 21:06 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 21:14 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 10:58 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 16:55 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-10 17:05 Re: tree-ssa performance
• 2003-06-13 15:29 Re: C++ compile time (again)
• 2003-06-16 10:57 [tree-ssa] Too conservative optimization with global variables??
• 2003-06-16 15:03 Re: C++ compile time (again, take 2)
• 2003-06-17 20:56 Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re:[tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
• 2003-06-17 21:31 Re: [tree-ssa] Preliminary analysis on POOMA slow downs (was Re:[tree-ssa] Speed up constant propagation)
• 2003-06-18 07:19 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 07:43 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 09:41 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-18 14:07 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-19 04:29 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-19 21:59 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 21:59 Re: C compile time
• 2003-06-19 22:30 Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
• 2003-06-22 13:34 Re: tree-ssa bootstrap broken
• 2003-06-23 14:11 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 15:35 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 15:57 Re: [RFC/patch] Callgraph based inlining heuristics
• 2003-06-23 21:07 Re: workaround for legacy code using fortran integer pointers
• 2003-06-26 01:02 Re: some profiling numbers

Steven G. Kargl

• 2003-06-01 00:41 Re: [G95] Re: [tree-ssa] Integrating g95

Stuart McRobert

• 2003-06-02 07:02 Re: sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk mirror out of date
• 2003-06-03 23:15 Re: PATCH: Re: sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk mirror out of date

suresh kumar

• 2003-06-27 13:43 CROSS GCC : Host : sparc solaris2.7, Target : i386 solaris2.7

Svein E. Seldal

• 2003-06-12 16:01 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-12 18:27 AVR prologue & epilogue
• 2003-06-14 00:32 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-15 13:27 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub
• 2003-06-16 18:10 Re: Updated config.guess and config.sub

Theodore Papadopoulo

• 2003-06-10 16:38 Re: tree-ssa performance (was: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end)
• 2003-06-16 15:02 Re: Problem with gcc and egcs... compatibility ?

Tim Josling

• 2003-06-08 21:29 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-08 23:10 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 03:14 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 20:10 Re: [PATCH]: eliminate C front-end dependencies in treelang (was:Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end)
• 2003-06-09 20:23 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-09 20:32 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 20:36 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 20:36 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end
• 2003-06-10 20:59 Re: treelang fix for rs6000 / treelang not proper front end

tm_gccmail

• 2003-06-06 19:58 Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Never gimplify ASM_EXPRs
• 2003-06-06 20:02 Re: Where 2 Find Info On Generating Assembly for OS?
• 2003-06-13 00:35 Re: Binary increased memory ( leaks )
• 2003-06-13 01:03 Re: GCC C Compiler producing Microsoft debug format?
• 2003-06-13 01:06 Re: GCC C Compiler producing Microsoft debug format?
• 2003-06-13 01:07 Re: GCC C Compiler producing Microsoft debug format?
• 2003-06-17 20:03 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-17 21:34 Re: Proposed new target maintainers
• 2003-06-18 21:26 Re: correctness and comprehensiveness of compilers [was: Re: C compiletime]
• 2003-06-19 20:36 Re: Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)
• 2003-06-21 00:34 Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying jsr
• 2003-06-25 21:40 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 00:57 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 00:59 Re: bad dead code detection ?
• 2003-06-26 19:39 Re: bad dead code detection ?

Tom St Denis

• 2003-06-17 02:36 [GCC] x86 optimizer suggestion

Tom Tromey

• 2003-06-07 15:41 Re: Going to move to log_accum_bugzillafied on sunday
• 2003-06-10 06:10 Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?
• 2003-06-10 15:41 Re: CVS commit links for new files are wrong
• 2003-06-12 14:23 Re: Unreviewed patch
• 2003-06-12 16:59 Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
• 2003-06-13 16:35 Re: Questions on tree-inline.c
• 2003-06-14 18:03 build regression
• 2003-06-14 18:23 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-15 02:38 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-16 19:48 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-16 20:09 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-17 15:01 Re: build regression
• 2003-06-17 22:18 Re: CVS commit links for new files are wrong

Tony Finch

• 2003-06-02 16:30 Re: C99 spelling of "asm".

Toon Moene

• 2003-06-02 22:29 Re: Loop optimizer issues
• 2003-06-03 11:40 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-03 19:13 Re: http://g95.sourceforge.net or http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net
• 2003-06-03 21:30 Re: [tree-ssa] Mainline merge as of 2003-05-25
• 2003-06-04 18:49 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-04 19:32 Re: Question about mem_set_list in propagate_block_info
• 2003-06-08 12:35 Re: [tree-ssa] tree-ssa vs. fold
• 2003-06-11 21:03 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
• 2003-06-14 12:35 Re: PATCH for Re: gcc-ss-20030602 is now available
• 2003-06-18 19:10 [Cygwin, please help] Re: g77 problem
• 2003-06-18 19:14 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-18 20:11 Re: Benchmarks
• 2003-06-23 19:56 Re: workaround for legacy code using fortran integer pointers
• 2003-06-23 21:07 Re: workaround for legacy code using fortran integer pointers
• 2003-06-28 11:14 Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule