gcc archive
date index for November, 2005

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)

November 30, 2005

23:04	Re: gcc help	Mike Stump
22:55	Re: SVN conversion glitch?	Daniel Berlin
22:53	Re: SVN conversion glitch?	Mike Stump
22:40	gcc help	pati (sent by Nabble.com)
22:32	[C++] cp_token::type and cp_token::keyword	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:20	Re: pr14516 and GCC 3.4	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:22	Re: Adding new target OS for GCC	Ben Elliston
21:10	Re: pr14516 and GCC 3.4	Mark Mitchell
21:10	Adding new target OS for GCC	Leif Ekblad
19:57	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Richard Henderson
17:18	Re: incomplete type return types	Jason Merrill
17:14	Re: pr14516 and GCC 3.4	Ian Lance Taylor
16:56	Re: SVN Problem?	Jeffrey A Law
16:41	RE: Suggestion	Dave Korn
16:32	Re: Suggestion	Christian . Iseli
16:23	Re: SVN conversion glitch?	Gunther Nikl
15:58	Re: SVN conversion glitch?	Daniel Berlin
15:48	Re: SVN conversion glitch?	Gunther Nikl
15:41	Re: Suggestion	Paul Jarc
15:37	Re: Suggestion	Robert Dewar
15:32	Suggestion	YaniMan
15:06	pr14516 and GCC 3.4	Gunther Nikl
13:37	Re: SVN Problem?	Daniel Berlin
13:12	Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Paolo Bonzini
13:09	Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Joern RENNECKE
12:43	Re: SVN Problem?	Paolo Bonzini
10:27	Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Jakub Jelinek
09:01	SVN Problem?	Jeffrey A Law
08:37	Re: incomplete type return types	Gabriel Dos Reis
07:54	Re: Performance regression testing?	René Rebe
01:33	Re: LLVM patch X function lowering	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola

November 29, 2005

23:59	Re: Performance regression testing?	Ben Elliston
23:53	Re: Performance regression testing?	Ben Elliston
23:13	Re: incomplete type return types	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:58	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Joseph S. Myers
22:50	Re: [RFH] Restrict support for trees	Richard Guenther
22:44	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Hans-Peter Nilsson
22:41	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Daniel Jacobowitz
22:39	gcc-3.4-20051129 is now available	gccadmin
22:28	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Paolo Bonzini
22:05	Re: LLVM patch X function lowering	Chris Lattner
22:01	Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Joern RENNECKE
21:53	Re: Performance regression testing?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
21:49	LLVM patch X function lowering	Rafael Espíndola
21:38	Re: [RFH] Restrict support for trees	Daniel Berlin
21:12	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Anthony Green
21:12	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Daniel Jacobowitz
21:09	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Mark Mitchell
21:08	[RFH] Restrict support for trees	Richard Guenther
21:02	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Richard Henderson
20:54	Re: Performance regression testing?	Mike Stump
20:52	Re: incomplete type return types	Mark Mitchell
20:50	incomplete type return types	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:42	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Mark Mitchell
20:41	Re: Performance regression testing?	Mike Stump
20:37	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Anthony Green
20:27	Re: Performance regression testing?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
20:12	Re: Performance regression testing?	Mike Stump
19:57	Re: Performance regression testing?	Laurent GUERBY
19:48	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Daniel Jacobowitz
19:41	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Mark Mitchell
19:21	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Richard Henderson
18:07	updated llvm patch to the apple branch	Rafael Espíndola
17:54	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Joe Buck
17:32	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Joe Buck
17:17	Re: Performance regression testing?	Nicholas Nethercote
14:00	Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Jakub Jelinek
13:45	Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Joern RENNECKE
10:53	Re: port of the LLVM patch to the trunk	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
08:18	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Paolo Bonzini
06:26	Re: The actual LLVM integration patch	Chris Lattner
06:18	Re: The actual LLVM integration patch	Andrew Pinski
04:56	Re: Performance regression testing?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
04:48	Re: port of the LLVM patch to the trunk	Andrew Pinski
04:41	Re: Performance regression testing?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
04:34	Re: Java on uClinux	Eric Botcazou
04:20	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Jim Wilson
04:08	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Gabriel Dos Reis
03:58	Re: Warning bug with -fPIC? (was Re: Some testsuite cleanups (mostly for -fPIC))	Kean Johnston
03:53	Re: unable to find a register to spill in class	Jim Wilson
03:43	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Jim Wilson
03:38	Re: port of the LLVM patch to the trunk	Mike Stump
03:36	Re: Performance regression testing?	Mike Stump
03:02	port of the LLVM patch to the trunk	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
02:54	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Mark Mitchell
02:46	Re: m68k exception handling	Hans-Peter Nilsson
02:28	Re: Performance regression testing?	Richard Kenner
02:26	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	David Edelsohn
02:23	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Mark Mitchell
02:22	Re: Performance regression testing?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
02:21	Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Joe Buck
02:06	Re: Performance regression testing?	Daniel Jacobowitz
02:05	Torbjorn's ieeelib.c	Mark Mitchell
02:03	Re: Performance regression testing?	Paul Brook
01:57	Re: Performance regression testing?	Mike Stump
01:34	Re: Performance regression testing?	Mark Mitchell
01:18	Re: Performance regression testing?	Joe Buck
01:15	Re: m68k exception handling	Jim Wilson
01:04	Re: __thread and builtin memcpy() bug	Jim Wilson
00:42	Re: Java on uClinux	Andrew Pinski
00:40	Re: Java on uClinux	Bernd Schmidt
00:39	Performance regression testing?	Mark Mitchell
00:09	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Gabriel Dos Reis

November 28, 2005

23:55	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Joe Buck
22:47	Re: Wiki pages on tests cases	Jonathan Wakely
22:26	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
22:14	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Andrew Pinski
21:57	Re: matching function for out_waiting in gcc 3.4.2	Jonathan Wakely
21:55	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
21:05	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Laurent GUERBY
20:52	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Andrew Haley
20:49	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Tom Tromey
20:48	Re: Warning bug with -fPIC? (was Re: Some testsuite cleanups (mostly for -fPIC))	Mike Stump
20:40	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Andrew Pinski
20:35	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Tom Tromey
20:25	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
20:21	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
20:18	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:01	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
19:56	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
19:53	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
19:22	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Gabriel Dos Reis
19:12	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
19:05	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
18:52	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:50	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Kenner
18:42	Warning bug with -fPIC? (was Re: Some testsuite cleanups (mostly for -fPIC))	Kean Johnston
18:28	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
18:14	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
18:08	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Joe Buck
17:53	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
17:44	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
17:41	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Andrew Pinski
17:35	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
17:29	RE: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Dave Korn
17:28	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Kenner
17:22	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
17:20	Re: C++ vague linkage data	Joe Buck
17:19	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Andrew Pinski
17:14	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
17:11	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
17:00	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Mark Mitchell
15:22	Re: C++ vague linkage data	Daniel Jacobowitz
15:20	Re: C++ vague linkage data	Jakub Jelinek
15:11	C++ vague linkage data	Lubos Lunak
14:49	s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1	Jakub Jelinek
13:09	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Paolo Bonzini
11:13	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
11:01	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Earnshaw
10:32	GCC-3.4.5 Release Status	Gabriel Dos Reis
09:11	Re: How implemented "typeof"	Nathan Sidwell
09:03	How implemented "typeof"	Alexander
08:45	Re: Wiki pages on tests cases	Jim Blandy
08:31	matching function for out_waiting in gcc 3.4.2	anandi.thirunavukkarasu
03:39	Re: ppc-linux and s390-linux compilers requiring 64-bit HWI?	Ulrich Weigand
02:54	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
02:32	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner

November 27, 2005

23:29	Re: LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS vs address_reloaded	Alan Modra
23:23	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Neil Booth
20:55	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
19:58	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Devang Patel
18:50	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Richard Henderson
17:37	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Andreas Schwab
17:26	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Andrew Pinski
17:21	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Andrew Pinski
17:18	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Falk Hueffner
17:13	Re: 20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Andreas Schwab
17:02	20040309-1.c vs overflow being undefined	Andrew Pinski
12:26	Re: Wiki pages on tests cases	Giovanni Bajo
11:58	Wiki pages on tests cases	Jonathan Wakely
07:59	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Mike Stump
06:34	Re: Would Like to Contribute, Where to Start?	Mike Stump
03:18	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump
03:14	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Mike Stump

November 26, 2005

22:16	Re: ppc-linux and s390-linux compilers requiring 64-bit HWI?	Richard Henderson
16:08	Re: ppc-linux and s390-linux compilers requiring 64-bit HWI?	Andrew Pinski
08:38	ppc-linux and s390-linux compilers requiring 64-bit HWI?	Jakub Jelinek
02:39	Re: Alias analysis of parameters	Daniel Berlin
02:14	Alias analysis of parameters	shreyas krishnan

November 25, 2005

22:41	gcc-4.1-20051125 is now available	gccadmin
21:16	Re: [C++] Should the complexity of std::list::size() be O(n) or O(1)?	Phil Edwards
20:55	Re: gcc 4.1 release showstopper on darwin	Jack Howarth
20:10	Re: gcc 4.1 release showstopper on darwin	David Edelsohn
19:32	Re: Would Like to Contribute, Where to Start?	Henrik Sorensen
19:28	gcc 4.1 release showstopper on darwin	Jack Howarth
19:17	Re: Running testsuite with extra --param argument	Kean Johnston
19:15	Re: Running testsuite with extra --param argument	Kean Johnston
18:47	Running testsuite with extra --param argument	Richard Guenther
18:32	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Daniel Berlin
18:21	Re: LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS vs address_reloaded	Ulrich Weigand
18:17	Re: [C++] Should the complexity of std::list::size() be O(n) or O(1)?	Howard Hinnant
18:00	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Kaveh R. Ghazi
17:49	Would Like to Contribute, Where to Start?	Michael Garvin
15:29	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
14:28	Re: [C++] Should the complexity of std::list::size() be O(n) or O(1)?	Phil Edwards
13:00	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Rafael Espíndola
10:28	Re: Hallo GCC Gurus..	Karel Gardas
10:11	Hallo GCC Gurus..	FRANCIS MACHOKA
09:45	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Richard Guenther
04:09	LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS vs address_reloaded	Alan Modra
02:17	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Scott Robert Ladd
01:32	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Branko Äibej

November 24, 2005

22:39	gcc-4.0-20051124 is now available	gccadmin
20:51	Re: Register Allocation	Joern RENNECKE
17:50	Re: should _GNU_SOURCE be used in libiberty if glibc is present?	Rafael Espíndola
17:11	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
16:59	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Giovanni Bajo
16:50	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
16:36	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Giovanni Bajo
16:31	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
15:28	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Paolo Bonzini
14:26	Re: should _GNU_SOURCE be used in libiberty if glibc is present?	DJ Delorie
13:42	Re: should _GNU_SOURCE be used in libiberty if glibc is present?	Kai Ruottu
13:19	mips-irix6.5 and complex.h	François-Xavier Coudert
13:07	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Giovanni Bajo
12:43	Re: overcoming info build failures	Joseph S. Myers
12:41	Re: overcoming info build failures	Christian Joensson
12:39	should _GNU_SOURCE be used in libiberty if glibc is present?	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
12:39	Re: overcoming info build failures	Uros Bizjak
11:00	Re: Creating a partial mirror of the repository with SVK	Richard Earnshaw
10:05	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
09:37	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
09:21	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Giovanni Bajo
09:19	problems bootstrapping gcc-4.0-20051117 on i386-pc-solaris2.10	Peter Zijlstra
08:57	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
08:00	Re: Results for 2.16.91 20051124 testsuite on sparc-unknown-linux-gnu	Christian Joensson
07:59	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Nathan Sidwell
07:58	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Nathan Sidwell
07:33	__thread and builtin memcpy() bug	Frank Cusack
06:48	Successfull build & install of gcc-4.0.2 on MacOS-X 10.3.9-520.19	william . franck
01:31	Re: overcoming info build failures	Alan Modra
01:23	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Mark Mitchell
01:09	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis
00:59	Re: overcoming info build failures	Mark Mitchell
00:56	overcoming info build failures	Ben Elliston
00:48	Re: Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Mark Mitchell
00:41	Default arguments and FUNCTION_TYPEs	Gabriel Dos Reis

November 23, 2005

23:48	Re: [RFC] fixproto and canadian cross builds	Mark Mitchell
23:44	Re: [RFC] fixproto and canadian cross builds	Ian Lance Taylor
23:11	Re: SVN conversion glitch?	Ian Lance Taylor
23:06	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
22:54	Re: [RFC] fixproto and canadian cross builds	Mark Mitchell
21:11	Creating a partial mirror of the repository with SVK	Ludovic Brenta
20:50	Re: Register Allocation	Peter Bergner
20:43	Re: Register Allocation	Ian Lance Taylor
19:56	Re: Accidentally on the list....	Gerald Pfeifer
19:54	Accidentally on the list....	Eric J. Goforth
18:56	[RFC] fixproto and canadian cross builds	Paul Brook
18:56	Re: dfp-branch merge plans	Janis Johnson
18:30	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
18:13	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
17:46	Re: The actual LLVM integration patch	Rafael Espíndola
17:08	Re: Register Allocation	Andrew MacLeod
17:08	Re: Register Allocation	Andrew MacLeod
17:07	Re: Register Allocation	Andrew MacLeod
14:33	SVN conversion glitch?	Jakub Jelinek
14:06	Re: Register Allocation	Michael Matz
14:05	Re: dfp-branch merge plans	Joseph S. Myers
12:32	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
12:15	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
12:11	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
12:07	Re: Compilation of Ada for Arm failed	Eric Botcazou
12:04	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Earnshaw
12:03	Compilation of Ada for Arm failed	Frédéric PRACA
11:53	Re: [C++] Should the complexity of std::list::size() be O(n) or O(1)?	chris jefferson
11:50	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Berlin
11:41	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
11:41	[C++] Should the complexity of std::list::size() be O(n) or O(1)?	聂久焘
11:27	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Earnshaw
11:04	Anh vao dia chi nay nhe	hoanglanhuong1980
11:02	Anh vao dia chi nay nhe	hoanglanhuong1980
11:01	Successfull build & install of GCC 4.0.2	Laban, Marinko
08:40	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Arnaud Charlet
06:48	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Gabriel Dos Reis
05:30	Re: Gcc help pages about __mode__ keyword	Jim Wilson
05:21	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Jacobowitz
05:19	Re: dfp-branch merge plans	Daniel Jacobowitz
05:10	Re: trees	Mark Mitchell
04:28	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Berlin
03:27	dfp-branch merge plans	Ben Elliston
02:43	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Gabriel Dos Reis
02:28	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
02:24	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
00:30	Re: Some GCC 4.1 benchmarks (Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO)	Scott Robert Ladd
00:09	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Joe Buck
00:08	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Robert Dewar
00:05	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Gabriel Dos Reis
00:00	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Gabriel Dos Reis

November 22, 2005

23:57	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
23:52	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Jacobowitz
23:43	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Russ Allbery
23:42	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	David Edelsohn
23:35	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Scott Gilbertson
23:23	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
23:05	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Eric Botcazou
23:01	The actual LLVM integration patch	Chris Lattner
22:59	trees	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:58	Re: Broken link to documentation	Joseph S. Myers
22:58	Re: Register Allocation	Peter Bergner
22:52	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
22:51	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Steven Bosscher
22:50	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
22:44	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
22:39	Broken link to documentation	Simon Wright
22:39	gcc-3.4-20051122 is now available	gccadmin
22:31	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
22:28	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Eric Botcazou
22:27	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Chris Lattner
22:19	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Steven Bosscher
22:15	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Steven Bosscher
22:06	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Steven Bosscher
22:02	Re: Some GCC 4.1 benchmarks (Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO)	Steven Bosscher
21:55	Re: Register Allocation	Steven Bosscher
21:04	Re: Some GCC 4.1 benchmarks (Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO)	Jan Hubicka
20:39	RE: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Dave Korn
20:34	Re: Target processor detection	James E Wilson
20:20	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
20:19	Re: Some GCC 4.1 benchmarks (Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO)	Scott Robert Ladd
20:17	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
20:10	Re: failed to run testsuite for libstdc++ on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for target unix/-m32	James E Wilson
20:09	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
20:04	Some GCC 4.1 benchmarks (Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO)	Jan Hubicka
19:58	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
19:55	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
19:48	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
19:37	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Gabriel Dos Reis
19:28	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	David Edelsohn
19:26	Re: Register Allocation	Peter Bergner
19:21	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Benjamin Kosnik
19:10	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
19:07	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Benjamin Kosnik
19:06	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Richard Henderson
19:06	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
19:02	RE: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Dave Korn
18:59	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:53	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
18:50	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Richard Henderson
18:47	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
18:38	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
18:34	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
18:27	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:20	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
18:17	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Benjamin Kosnik
18:03	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Scott Robert Ladd
17:49	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
17:40	Re: New SVN repo is up	Joseph S. Myers
17:37	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
17:28	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
17:11	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Gabriel Dos Reis
17:08	Re: GCC-3.4.5 pre-release available	Joe Buck
16:57	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Steven Bosscher
16:45	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Berlin
16:37	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Rafael Espíndola
16:37	Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Daniel Jacobowitz
16:30	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Berlin
16:22	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Paul Brook
16:20	Thoughts on LLVM and LTO	Diego Novillo
16:16	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Kenner
16:12	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Jacobowitz
16:11	Re: New SVN repo is up	Gabriel Dos Reis
16:10	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Robert Dewar
16:09	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Gabriel Dos Reis
16:02	Re: New SVN repo is up	Daniel Berlin
15:56	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
15:54	Re: New SVN repo is up	Gabriel Dos Reis
15:52	RE: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Earnshaw
15:40	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release status report	Gabriel Dos Reis
15:33	RE: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Dave Korn
15:22	m68k exception handling	Kövesdi György
14:49	Gcc help pages about __mode__ keyword	Anton Soppelsa
14:26	Build results for gcc 4.0.2 on SuSE 9.2	Walter Zimmer
13:44	Re: failed to run testsuite for libstdc++ on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for target unix/-m32	Rainer Emrich
13:27	RE: typedefs	Dave Korn
12:05	unable to find a register to spill in class	Nemanja Popov
10:45	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Richard Earnshaw
09:53	Re: Target processor detection	Richard Guenther
09:39	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Anthony Shipman
05:46	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Kaveh R. Ghazi
05:06	Re: GCC 4.2	Mark Mitchell
04:53	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Daniel Jacobowitz
03:20	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Kaveh R. Ghazi
02:52	Re: Ada on ARM	Ralf Corsepius
01:43	Re: A question about having multiple insns for one operation	Jim Wilson
01:24	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
01:23	Re: typedefs	Giovanni Bajo
01:19	Re: Vectorizer in GCC 4.0	Dorit Naishlos
01:01	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Joseph S. Myers
00:34	Re: Target processor detection	Jim Wilson
00:27	RE: Vectorizer in GCC 4.0	Balaji V. Iyer

November 21, 2005

23:55	Re: failed to run testsuite for libstdc++ on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for target unix/-m32	Jim Wilson
23:31	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:57	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Robert Dewar
22:52	Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Neil Booth
22:49	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Joe Buck
22:27	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Robert Dewar
22:11	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:09	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:50	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Robert Dewar
21:46	Re: Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Ian Lance Taylor
21:31	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Daniel Jacobowitz
21:21	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
21:19	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	James E Wilson
21:13	Re: SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	David Daney
21:09	typedefs	Manu Abraham
21:05	RE: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
20:55	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release status report	Gerald Pfeifer
20:53	SV: Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Fredrik Hederstierna
20:16	Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Gabriel Dos Reis
19:43	Re: Ada on ARM	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
19:41	Re: Ada on ARM	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
19:40	Re: MISRA C support for GCC?	Daniel Jacobowitz
19:36	GCC-3.4.5 pre-release available	Gabriel Dos Reis
19:35	Re: Ada on ARM	Frédéric PRACA
19:16	Re: Ada on ARM	Laurent GUERBY
19:14	MISRA C support for GCC?	Fredrik Hederstierna
18:27	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:26	Re: Ada on ARM	Frédéric PRACA
18:12	Why doesn't combine like volatiles? (volatile_ok again, sorry!)	Dave Korn
18:08	Re: Ada on ARM	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
18:06	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Daniel Berlin
17:58	Re: Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Nicholas Nethercote
17:55	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Richard Henderson
17:53	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Sebastian Pop
17:51	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Gabriel Dos Reis
17:34	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Paolo Carlini
17:33	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Daniel Berlin
17:30	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Paolo Carlini
17:26	Re: Ada on ARM	Ralf Corsepius
17:22	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Daniel Berlin
17:09	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Scott Gilbertson
17:08	Re: improved ia64 atomic ops	Richard Henderson
17:07	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Andreas Schwab
16:58	Re: Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Sebastian Pop
16:18	Stupid issue with Bugzilla	Paolo Carlini
16:14	Ada on ARM	Frédéric PRACA
15:46	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Arnaud Charlet
15:45	Re: GCC 4.2	Gabor Loki
15:33	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Thomas Quinot
15:27	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
15:20	improved ia64 atomic ops	Jan Beulich
14:30	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release status report	Gabriel Dos Reis
13:22	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Sebastian Pop
12:41	Re: GCC-3.4.5 Release status report	Giovanni Bajo
12:12	GCC-3.4.5 Release status report	Gabriel Dos Reis
11:19	Re: Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Giovanni Bajo
09:57	Re: ACATS script generation problem	Georg Bauhaus
07:14	Re: ACATS script generation problem	Arnaud Charlet
06:51	Re: Checksum mismatch	Jim Blandy
05:58	Re: Creating temporary variables	VIbhav Garg
05:23	Re: Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Sandeep Kumar
05:19	Re: Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Andrew Pinski
05:14	Re: Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Sandeep Kumar
05:02	Re: Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Andrew Pinski
04:58	Abnormal behavior of malloc in gcc-3.2.2	Sandeep Kumar
04:05	A question about having multiple insns for one operation	Kazu Hirata
03:36	Re: Creating temporary variables	Ian Lance Taylor
01:51	Re: Checksum mismatch	Cauchy Song
01:27	Checksum mismatch	Cauchy Song
00:04	ACATS script generation problem	Georg Bauhaus

November 20, 2005

23:39	Vectorizer in GCC 4.0	Balaji V. Iyer
20:07	Creating temporary variables	VIbhav Garg
19:58	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
19:40	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Andreas Schwab
19:31	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
18:53	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Andreas Schwab
18:38	Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Paolo Bonzini
16:27	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
14:33	Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Graham Stott
14:16	Re: Working with SVK: how to get it actually work?	Gabriel Dos Reis
05:25	Re: Working with SVK: how to get it actually work?	Daniel Jacobowitz
05:13	Re: GCC 4.2	Dueway Qi
04:04	Working with SVK: how to get it actually work?	Gabriel Dos Reis
03:41	Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Andrew Pinski
03:28	Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Andrew Pinski
01:51	Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Andrew Pinski
01:47	Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Andrew Pinski
01:03	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Paul Brook
00:57	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
00:54	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Steven Bosscher
00:49	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
00:40	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Steven Bosscher
00:37	Re: Register Allocation	Steven Bosscher
00:20	Re: Register Allocation	Giovanni Bajo

November 19, 2005

22:40	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Devang Patel
22:22	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
22:10	Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64	Richard Guenther
21:33	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Daniel Jacobowitz
21:26	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Richard Henderson
20:24	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Steve Kargl
20:21	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Kenneth Zadeck
20:20	Re: Register Allocation	Denis Chertykov
20:16	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Steve Kargl
20:11	Re: Can't build 4.1 branch on Linux x86	Panagiotis Papadakos
20:00	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Giovanni Bajo
19:31	Re: Register Allocation	Ian Lance Taylor
19:29	Re: Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Jim Blandy
19:08	Re: svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Daniel Berlin
18:23	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
17:56	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
17:49	Re: Can't build 4.1 branch on Linux x86	Panagiotis Papadakos
17:48	Re: Can't build 4.1 branch on Linux x86	Richard Guenther
17:44	Can't build 4.1 branch on Linux x86	Panagiotis Papadakos
17:30	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Mike Hearn
15:23	Overwrite a file with "svn update"?	Steve Kargl
15:23	svn speed traversing slow filesystems	Kaveh R. Ghazi
11:18	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Joseph S. Myers
11:01	Re: GCC 4.1 branch created	Joseph S. Myers
10:09	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Richard Guenther
08:46	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Andrew Haley
06:55	Dich vu moi!!!	emailquangcao2005
06:47	Dich vu moi!!!	emailquangcao2005
06:42	GCC 4.2	Mark Mitchell
05:19	Re: GCC 4.1 branch created	Mark Mitchell
05:18	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Daniel Berlin
04:43	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
04:29	GCC 4.1 branch created	Mark Mitchell
04:17	Re: LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Daniel Jacobowitz
03:47	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Daniel Jacobowitz
01:55	Re: Issue with find_tail_calls	Richard Henderson
01:51	LLVM/GCC Integration Proposal	Chris Lattner
01:48	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Richard Henderson
01:07	Re: Issue with find_tail_calls	Richard Kenner
01:03	Re: pruning unused debugging types (enums/PR23336)	Mark Mitchell

November 18, 2005

23:34	Re: Incompatible behavior -O0, -O3, std::cout	Andreas Schwab
23:18	dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	Scott Gilbertson
23:01	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
22:55	Re: dwarf2 unwinder hacks get my static build going: Bug, or indication of what I'm doing wrong?	David Daney
22:50	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Joe Buck
22:45	Sta cekate?	avalanche
22:05	Re: RTEMS GCC Status Report	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
22:04	Re: Incompatible behavior -O0, -O3, std::cout	Pankaj Gupta
21:55	Re: RTEMS GCC Status Report	Laurent GUERBY
21:53	Re: Incompatible behavior -O0, -O3, std::cout	Andrew Pinski
21:47	Incompatible behavior -O0, -O3, std::cout	Pankaj Gupta
21:21	Re: Issue with find_tail_calls	Richard Henderson
21:07	RTEMS GCC Status Report	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
20:34	Re: Pragma callback to insert text in input buffer?	Richard Henderson
20:31	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
20:24	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Joe Buck
20:12	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Eric Botcazou
20:09	Re: pruning unused debugging types (enums/PR23336)	Aldy Hernandez
19:34	Re: compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Joe Buck
19:24	GCC 4.0.2 build report on Fedora Core 3	Josef Nygrin
19:23	Re: Code getting optimized away after instrumenation for memory analysis	Prateek Saxena
18:52	compiling gcc-4.0.2 on solaris 9	Douglas B. Jones
18:43	Re: Link-time optimzation	Mike Stump
18:35	Re: Link-time optimzation	Mike Stump
18:30	Re: Link-time optimzation	Mike Stump
18:15	Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)	Mike Stump
17:47	Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)	Mark Mitchell
17:43	Successfull build of gcc-4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu	Rainer Emrich
17:41	Re: Directly generating binary code [Was Re: Link-time optimzation]	Jim Blandy
17:32	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Thomas Quinot
17:29	Re: Link-time optimzation	Michael Matz
17:24	Re: Link-time optimzation	Nathan Sidwell
17:04	Re: Link-time optimzation	Steven Bosscher
16:46	Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)	Diego Novillo
16:31	Re: Link-time optimzation	Michael Matz
16:24	Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)	Mark Mitchell
15:28	Re: Register Allocation	Andrew MacLeod
13:54	Re: Issue with find_tail_calls	Richard Kenner
13:43	Re: Issue with find_tail_calls	Richard Guenther
13:37	Issue with find_tail_calls	Richard Kenner
13:22	Pragma callback to insert text in input buffer?	Jan Hoogerbrugge
12:51	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
12:25	Target processor detection	Piotr Wyderski
12:04	Re: Directly generating binary code [Was Re: Link-time optimzation]	Laurent GUERBY
11:43	Re: Code getting optimized away after instrumenation for memory analysis	Diego Novillo
11:40	Directly generating binary code [Was Re: Link-time optimzation]	Andrew Haley
11:29	Re: Link-time optimzation	Richard Earnshaw
11:26	Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)	Diego Novillo
11:19	Re: Link-time optimzation	Robert Dewar
11:01	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Neil Booth
09:53	Re: Register Allocation	Giovanni Bajo
09:29	Re: Link-time optimzation	Bernd Schmidt
09:13	Code getting optimized away after instrumenation for memory analysis	Prateek Saxena
08:59	failed to run testsuite for libstdc++ on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnufor target unix/-m32	Rainer Emrich
08:54	Successfull build of gcc-4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu	Rainer Emrich
08:53	Successfull build of gcc-4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Rainer Emrich
08:51	Successfull build of gcc-4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) on mips-sgi-irix6.5	Rainer Emrich
08:49	Successfull build of gcc-4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00	Rainer Emrich
08:48	GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)	Mark Mitchell
08:38	Results for 4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) testsuite on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00	Rainer Emrich
06:24	Re: pruning unused debugging types (enums/PR23336)	Mark Mitchell
06:18	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Mark Mitchell
03:27	Re: Register Allocation	Daniel Jacobowitz
03:11	Re: Link-time optimzation	Geert Bosch
02:55	Re: Register Allocation	Mark Mitchell
02:35	Re: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender	Jim Wilson
02:33	Re: Link-time optimzation	Dale Johannesen
02:13	Re: Link-time optimzation	Daniel Jacobowitz
02:06	Re: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender	Jim Wilson
01:35	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	Jim Wilson
01:07	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Richard Henderson
01:06	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Richard Henderson
00:46	Re: question about gcc	Paul Albrecht
00:43	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Aldy Hernandez
00:26	Re: question about gcc	Jim Wilson
00:25	Re: question about gcc	Paul Albrecht
00:19	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Steven Bosscher

November 17, 2005

23:52	Build failed gcc-4.1.0-20051112 on MacOS-X 10.3.9	william . franck
23:42	Re: Link-time optimzation	Ian Lance Taylor
23:25	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Richard Henderson
23:20	Re: question about gcc	Robert Dewar
23:20	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Richard Henderson
23:18	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Ian Lance Taylor
23:10	Re: Link-time optimzation	Robert Dewar
23:09	Re: pruning unused debugging types (enums/PR23336)	Richard Henderson
23:05	question about gcc	Paul Albrecht
23:00	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Joe Buck
22:56	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Richard Henderson
22:40	gcc-4.0-20051117 is now available	gccadmin
22:39	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
22:32	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Thomas Quinot
22:08	pruning unused debugging types (enums/PR23336)	Aldy Hernandez
22:02	Re: [RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Ian Lance Taylor
21:42	Re: Link-time optimzation	Ian Lance Taylor
21:40	Re: Link-time optimzation	Ian Lance Taylor
21:36	Successfull build of gcc-4.0.2 on MacOS-X 10.3.9	william . franck
21:34	[RFC] PR/24900: computed but not used cast values	Aldy Hernandez
20:37	Re: specific instantiation of static members from template class	Jonathan Wakely
19:13	Re: Is there a GIMPLE equivalent of UNSPEC?	Richard Henderson
18:59	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Richard Henderson
17:16	Re: Cirrus arm Maverick Crunch fixes	Dario Massarin
16:53	Register Allocation	Andrew MacLeod
16:41	Re: Link-time optimzation	Jan Hubicka
16:25	Re: Link-time optimzation	Kenneth Zadeck
16:17	Re: Link-time optimzation	Kenneth Zadeck
15:54	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Steven Bosscher
15:54	Re: Link-time optimzation	Kenneth Zadeck
15:52	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-strideaccesses	Dorit Naishlos
15:47	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-strideaccesses	Dorit Naishlos
15:39	specific instantiation of static members from template class	cedric
15:32	Re: m68k does not build on head	Paul Brook
15:20	Re: m68k does not build on head	Hans-Peter Nilsson
15:12	Re: m68k does not build on head	Paul Brook
14:48	Re: Link-time optimzation	mathieu lacage
14:23	m68k does not build on head	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
14:09	Re: Link-time optimzation	Daniel Berlin
13:18	RE: Is there a GIMPLE equivalent of UNSPEC?	Unruh, Erwin
13:08	Re: Link-time optimzation	Ulrich Weigand
12:54	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
12:29	Re: Is there a GIMPLE equivalent of UNSPEC?	Diego Novillo
12:21	Re: Is there a GIMPLE equivalent of UNSPEC?	Steven Bosscher
12:12	Is there a GIMPLE equivalent of UNSPEC?	Unruh, Erwin
11:41	Re: Link-time optimzation	Richard Earnshaw
11:08	Re: Cirrus arm Maverick Crunch fixes	Dario Massarin
10:27	Re: Cirrus arm Maverick Crunch fixes	Richard Earnshaw
10:23	Cirrus arm Maverick Crunch fixes	Dario Massarin
09:04	Re: Link-time optimzation	Giovanni Bajo
08:44	Re: Ada Broken with h_errno change	Arnaud Charlet
07:17	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
05:53	Re: Link-time optimzation	Ian Lance Taylor
03:35	Re: Link-time optimzation	Jeffrey A Law
02:39	Re: Link-time optimzation	Kean Johnston
01:53	Re: Link-time optimzation	Andrew Pinski
01:43	Re: Link-time optimzation	Gabriel Dos Reis
01:31	Re: Link-time optimzation	Daniel Jacobowitz
01:28	Re: Link-time optimzation	Mark Mitchell
01:20	Re: Link-time optimzation	Richard Henderson
00:52	Re: Link-time optimzation	Chris Lattner
00:52	Re: Link-time optimzation	Tom Tromey
00:45	Re: New GCC mirror	Gerald Pfeifer
00:43	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Devang Patel
00:32	Re: Link-time optimzation	Daniel Berlin
00:26	Re: Link-time optimzation	Giovanni Bajo
00:25	Re: Link-time optimzation	Andrew Pinski
00:02	Re: Link-time optimzation	Andrew Pinski

November 16, 2005

23:19	Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Jeffrey A Law
22:58	Re: Link-time optimzation	Andrew Pinski
22:42	Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Joern RENNECKE
22:41	Re: Link-time optimzation	Andrew Pinski
22:26	Link-time optimzation	Mark Mitchell
22:25	Re: Syntax question	Joe Buck
22:21	Re: Ada ACATS status	Laurent GUERBY
22:09	Re: Syntax question	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
22:05	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Richard Henderson
21:38	Re: Syntax question	Andrew Pinski
21:34	Syntax question	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
21:33	svn switch (was: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch)	Gerald Pfeifer
21:33	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
21:05	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Richard Henderson
21:02	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
20:49	Ada Broken with h_errno change	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
20:39	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Steven Bosscher
20:21	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Joe Buck
20:20	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Richard Henderson
20:17	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:07	Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Richard Henderson
19:59	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Richard Henderson
19:40	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
19:19	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Richard Henderson
19:07	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Richard Henderson
18:04	Re: Bogus testcase?	Jeffrey A Law
18:00	gcc cross-reference	Paul Albrecht
17:07	Re: ultrasparc3 optimisation	Eric Botcazou
17:05	Re: ultrasparc3 optimisation	Eric Botcazou
16:53	Re: ultrasparc3 optimisation	Jason . Beech-Brandt
16:26	Re: ultrasparc3 optimisation	Richard Guenther
16:04	Successfull build of gcc-4.1.0 20051112 (experimental) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu	Rainer Emrich
15:58	ultrasparc3 optimisation	Jason . Beech-Brandt
15:03	Re: [rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Paul Brook
15:01	Re: Extracting destination register from an instruction	Ian Lance Taylor
14:47	Re: Question about mudflap	Doug Graham
14:46	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
14:37	announcement for our members.	jkeon
14:31	[rfc] new tree-codes/optabs for vectorization of non-unit-stride accesses	Dorit Naishlos
14:23	Re: Question about mudflap	Richard Guenther
14:21	announcement for our members.	ephone_guo
14:16	Re: Question about mudflap	Frank Ch. Eigler
14:16	Forw: Question about mudflap	Frank Ch. Eigler
14:16	announcement for our members.	dldovinh
13:46	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Steven Bosscher
13:46	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Diego Novillo
13:35	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Osku Salerma
13:20	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Diego Novillo
13:17	[ia64-improvements] Rename branch	Diego Novillo
11:26	Re: Adding the D programming language	Andrew Haley
09:13	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Arnaud Charlet
07:43	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Laurent GUERBY
05:33	Extracting destination register from an instruction	Balaji V. Iyer
05:01	Re: Adding the D programming language	Ed Smith-Rowland
03:47	Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender	Gabriel Dos Reis
02:17	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Branko Äibej
00:37	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Gerald Pfeifer

November 15, 2005

23:27	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Geert Bosch
23:11	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Laurent GUERBY
22:59	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Geert Bosch
22:39	gcc-3.4-20051115 is now available	gccadmin
21:43	Re: [Treelang] flag_signed_char	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
21:31	Re: Bogus testcase?	Joe Buck
21:30	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
21:28	Re: Bogus testcase?	Paolo Bonzini
21:25	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Daniel Jacobowitz
21:15	Bogus testcase?	Jeffrey A Law
21:11	RE: Null pointer check elimination	Boehm, Hans
20:55	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Jim Wilson
20:41	Re: 10 Nov notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call	Paolo Bonzini
20:21	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	James E Wilson
20:01	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
20:01	Re: 10 Nov notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call	Steven Bosscher
19:44	Re: Null pointer check elimination	David Daney
19:20	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	James E Wilson
19:17	Re: 10 Nov notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call	Richard Guenther
19:15	Re: 10 Nov notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call	Andrew Pinski
19:12	Re: 10 Nov notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call	Andrew Pinski
18:59	10 Nov notes from GCC improvement for Itanium conference call	Mark K. Smith
18:48	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Paolo Bonzini
18:40	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Mike Stump
18:39	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Joe Buck
18:35	subversion trouble (was Re: Incorrect default options for h8300target)	James E Wilson
17:32	Successful "make bootstrap" of native gcc-4.0.2 on PowerPC 405	Koen De Vleeschauwer
17:00	Re: cross builds to avr fail	Denis Chertykov
16:59	Re: Java on uClinux (was: Null pointer check elimination)	Andrew Haley
16:46	Re: Java on uClinux (was: Null pointer check elimination)	Tom Tromey
16:41	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Tom Tromey
16:12	Re: Adding the D programming language	Larry Evans
15:47	Re: 'gcc -whatever' unrecognized option returns 0	Andrew Pinski
15:41	'gcc -whatever' unrecognized option returns 0	Uros Bizjak
14:24	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Daniel Jacobowitz
11:52	Re: Java on uClinux	Andrew Haley
11:49	Re: Java on uClinux	Bernd Schmidt
11:27	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Mathieu Lacage
11:24	Re: Java on uClinux (was: Null pointer check elimination)	Andrew Haley
11:18	Java on uClinux (was: Null pointer check elimination)	Bernd Schmidt
09:11	Re: Incorrect default options for h8300 target	Jim Blandy
07:41	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
07:39	Re: Null pointer check elimination	David Daney
07:20	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Mathieu Lacage
06:59	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Eric Christopher
06:57	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
06:45	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
06:25	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Eric Christopher
06:08	精彩HDTV高清影碟.机等时尚家电尽在www.hdtvshop.org
06:07	žÇÃŒœºÅÍ À¯³ªÀÌÆŒµå ¿îµ¿º¹ ±¹³»ÃÖÀú°¡ Œ±ÂøŒø ÈĺÒÁŠ ÆÇžÅÇÕŽÏŽÙ.	ÈĺÒÁŠÆÇžÅ
04:02	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Daniel Berlin
03:48	Re: Incorrect default options for h8300 target	Jim Wilson
03:18	Re: New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Andrew Pinski
02:48	Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Jim Wilson
02:47	New branch: ia64-improvements-branch	Diego Novillo
02:40	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	James E Wilson
02:35	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
02:30	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Daniel Jacobowitz
02:26	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Daniel Jacobowitz
02:24	Re: dwarf2 basic block start information	Jim Wilson
02:20	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Richard Kenner
02:19	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
02:17	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	Gabriel Dos Reis
01:57	Re: fixincludes make check broken?	Jim Wilson
01:10	Re: [Treelang] flag_signed_char	Jim Wilson
00:59	Re: arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Jim Wilson
00:43	Re: [gfortran] Second try: Problem parsing hexadecimal constants?	Jim Wilson
00:40	Re: strange result when compiling w/ -fpreprocessed but w/out -fdumpbase	Jim Wilson
00:33	Re: can DECL_RESULT be 0?	Jim Wilson
00:28	Re: new operator in gcc-3.4	Jim Wilson
00:17	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Janis Johnson

November 14, 2005

22:57	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:28	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
22:24	[c++] stuff proposed for C++0x	Pedro LamarÃo
22:17	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
22:05	Re: Add revision number to gcc version?	H. J. Lu
21:56	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:53	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:27	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
21:21	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
21:17	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
21:17	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:14	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:09	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
21:07	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:02	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
20:55	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
20:52	Re: Add revision number to gcc version?	Mike Stump
20:42	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:42	Re: should_duplicate_loop_header_p and volatile asm statements	Mike Stump
19:04	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Joe Buck
18:47	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Michael N. Moran
17:58	Re: cross builds to avr fail	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
17:41	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Joe Buck
17:37	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Joe Buck
17:31	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Joe Buck
17:21	Re: arm sof float	Richard Earnshaw
17:17	Re: arm sof float	Michael Trimarchi
17:14	Add revision number to gcc version?	H. J. Lu
17:03	Re: arm sof float	Richard Earnshaw
16:52	arm sof float	Michael Trimarchi
14:36	Re: cross newlib builds on svn head	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
12:51	Re: cross builds to avr fail	Paolo Bonzini
12:14	Re: Mainline bootstrap broken	Steven Bosscher
11:53	Re: Change in order of evaluation in 4.0.2	Giovanni Bajo
11:52	Mainline bootstrap broken	Martin Reinecke
10:28	Re: Change in order of evaluation in 4.0.2	Richard Guenther
10:15	Change in order of evaluation in 4.0.2	bil
09:54	Re: inline-unit-growth tweek	Richard Guenther
09:42	Re: should_duplicate_loop_header_p and volatile asm statements	Florian Weimer
09:34	Re: should_duplicate_loop_header_p and volatile asm statements	Steven Bosscher
09:32	should_duplicate_loop_header_p and volatile asm statements	Florian Weimer
05:36	Re: inline-unit-growth tweek	Ian Lance Taylor
04:09	Re: Adding the D programming language	Robert Dewar
00:45	Re: Adding the D programming language	Romain Failliot
00:28	Re: Adding the D programming language	Robert Dewar
00:06	Re: Ada ACATS status	Richard Kenner

November 13, 2005

22:44	Re: Adding the D programming language	Romain Failliot
22:43	Re: Runtime Memory Usage Graph	Mike Stump
21:26	Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Jeffrey A Law
21:20	Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Steven Bosscher
21:02	Re: Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Jeffrey A Law
20:50	new operator in gcc-3.4	Lars Callenbach
20:20	Delay branch scheduling vs. the CFG	Steven Bosscher
20:13	Re: Adding the D programming language	Brian Makin
19:23	Re: Where is TARGET_EXPLICIT_RELOCS defined for MIPS?	Daniel Jacobowitz
19:19	Re: Where is TARGET_EXPLICIT_RELOCS defined for MIPS?	Graham Stott
19:15	Re: Where is TARGET_EXPLICIT_RELOCS defined for MIPS?	Daniel Jacobowitz
19:01	The Linux binutils 2.16.91.0.4 os released	H. J. Lu
18:20	Where is TARGET_EXPLICIT_RELOCS defined for MIPS?	Steven Bosscher
16:56	Ada ACATS status	Laurent GUERBY
16:02	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
12:14	Re: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-5.c	Eric Botcazou
11:17	Re: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-5.c	Razya Ladelsky
11:08	Re: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-5.c	Eric Botcazou
09:34	Re: How Can I Get See A Memory Map For An Executable	Florian Weimer
09:33	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Robert Dewar
09:31	How Can I Get See A Memory Map For An Executable	Steven Woody
09:26	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Richard Guenther
07:43	Runtime Memory Usage Graph	Steven Woody
07:38	How Can I Get See A Memory Map For An Executable	Steven Woody
05:44	Re: Adding the D programming language	Florian Weimer
05:10	Re: cross builds to avr fail	Ian Lance Taylor
02:04	Re: Adding the D programming language	Mike Stump
01:06	Adding the D programming language	Romain Failliot
01:01	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
00:58	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
00:22	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Andrew Pinski
00:18	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Paul Brook
00:15	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
00:04	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo

November 12, 2005

23:38	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Andrew Pinski
23:30	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
22:05	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Paul Brook
21:34	Re: cross builds to avr fail	Richard Guenther
21:15	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:14	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Per Bothner
21:11	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Per Bothner
21:03	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Andrew Pinski
21:00	Re: cross builds to avr fail	Eric Botcazou
21:00	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:58	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:56	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
20:33	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
20:33	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Tom Tromey
20:31	cross builds to avr fail	Richard Guenther
20:24	Re: cross newlib builds on svn head	Laurent GUERBY
19:35	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Per Bothner
18:53	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
18:47	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Per Bothner
18:44	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Paul Brook
18:38	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Andrew Pinski
18:37	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:34	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:33	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Gabriel Dos Reis
18:17	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
17:51	gcc-4.1-20051112 is now available	gccadmin
17:44	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Laurent GUERBY
17:39	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
17:30	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
17:29	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Andrew Haley
17:27	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Per Bothner
17:25	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
17:24	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Laurent GUERBY
17:19	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Andrew Haley
17:16	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
17:05	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Per Bothner
16:38	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Daniel Berlin
15:40	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Diego Novillo
12:03	can DECL_RESULT be 0?	Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
06:54	Re: Null pointer check elimination	Ian Lance Taylor
05:53	Re: Null pointer check elimination	David Daney
02:37	Re: [RFC] PR C++/24138	Mark Mitchell
00:28	Re: darwin building ppc64 libjava?	Mike Stump
00:20	Re: i686-pc-cygwin crash gcc-4.0 branch	Brian Dessent
00:15	Re: darwin building ppc64 libjava?	Andrew Pinski
00:08	darwin building ppc64 libjava?	Mike Stump

November 11, 2005

23:57	Re: i686-pc-cygwin crash gcc-4.0 branch	Bobby McNulty
21:49	Re: [gfortran] Second try: Problem parsing hexadecimal constants?	Mike Stump
20:26	Re: non-ambiguous typedefs	Mark Mitchell
19:46	Re: Using Alias analysis	Daniel Berlin
19:34	strange result when compiling w/ -fpreprocessed but w/out -fdumpbase	Joern RENNECKE
19:33	Using Alias analysis	drizzle drizzle
17:16	Re: UNITS vs. BYTES	Ian Lance Taylor
16:56	Re: CSiBE compile time improvement	Andrew Pinski
16:53	CSiBE compile time improvement	Steven Bosscher
16:18	[gfortran] Second try: Problem parsing hexadecimal constants?	Ioannis E. Venetis
09:10	Re: UNITS vs. BYTES	Paolo Bonzini
09:05	Re: UNITS vs. BYTES	Hans-Peter Nilsson
08:53	UNITS vs. BYTES	Adrian Prantl
00:29	RE: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Rui Wang

November 10, 2005

22:50	Re: PR24138 and flexible arrays in C++	Joe Buck
22:39	gcc-4.0-20051110 is now available	gccadmin
22:36	Re: PR24138 and flexible arrays in C++	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:28	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Mark Wielaard
21:24	Re: PR24138 and flexible arrays in C++	Mark Mitchell
21:05	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	TJ Laurenzo
21:00	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	TJ Laurenzo
20:10	[RFC] PR C++/24138	Aldy Hernandez
19:53	Re: r106743 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog Makefile.in ...	Daniel Berlin
18:37	Re: r106743 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog Makefile.in ...	Hans-Peter Nilsson
17:56	RFC/RFH: My new library call rewriting optimization pass is ICEing	David Daney
15:52	arm-rtems Ada Aligned_Word compilation error	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
14:10	RE: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Rui Wang
12:43	PR24138 and flexible arrays in C++	Aldy Hernandez
12:22	RE: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Rui Wang
11:51	Incorrect default options for h8300 target	Mike Lerwill
11:27	fixincludes make check broken?	Andreas Jaeger
09:03	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
04:55	Re: [RFC] What should be the semantics of a zero-bit bit-field withpragma pack?	Hans-Peter Nilsson
01:32	Re: Second Try: Assembly Programmer Contributions	Ian Lance Taylor
01:08	Second Try: Assembly Programmer Contributions	Redefined Horizons
00:57	Lowering return statements in gimple pass	Olatunji Ruwase
00:47	[Treelang] flag_signed_char	Rafael Espíndola

November 09, 2005

22:18	Re: Is -fvisibility patch possible on GCC 3.3.x	Gabriel Dos Reis
21:38	RE: Is -fvisibility patch possible on GCC 3.3.x	Gary M Mann
21:32	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
20:13	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Tom Tromey
18:24	RE: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Rui Wang
18:19	dwarf2 basic block start information	mathieu lacage
17:23	Re: non-ambiguous typedefs	Joerg Richter
17:09	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Tom Tromey
16:49	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Paolo Bonzini
16:13	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
16:00	Re: i686-pc-cygwin crash gcc-4.0 branch	Brian Dessent
14:32	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	TJ Laurenzo
14:27	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Ranjit Mathew
14:21	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	TJ Laurenzo
12:48	Re: Is "-fdump-tree-original-raw" a stable feature?	Florian Weimer
12:43	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Paolo Bonzini
08:54	RE: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Rui Wang
08:49	Is "-fdump-tree-original-raw" a stable feature?	Hendrik Post
07:39	Re: i686-pc-cygwin crash gcc-4.0 branch	Bobby McNulty
07:30	Re: i686-pc-cygwin crash gcc-4.0 branch	Brian Dessent
07:18	Re: Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Ranjit Mathew
06:50	i686-pc-cygwin crash gcc-4.0 branch	Bobby McNulty
06:31	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Christian Joensson
03:08	Re: non-ambiguous typedefs	Gabriel Dos Reis
02:58	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Devang Patel
02:48	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Jacobowitz
02:41	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Devang Patel
02:21	non-ambiguous typedefs	Howard Hinnant
02:11	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Kaveh R. Ghazi
01:49	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	James E Wilson
01:22	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Albert Chin
00:13	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
00:00	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Jim Wilson

November 08, 2005

22:38	gcc-3.4-20051108 is now available	gccadmin
20:34	apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault	Peter S. Mazinger
20:32	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Jakub Jelinek
19:31	Re: Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Steve Ellcey
19:01	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Berlin
18:56	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Jacobowitz
18:47	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Berlin
18:42	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Jacobowitz
18:37	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Devang Patel
18:28	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Christian Joensson
17:37	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Christian Joensson
16:58	Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Eric Botcazou
16:46	Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Mark Cuss
16:29	Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Markus Trippelsdorf
16:17	Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Mark Cuss
16:12	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Jakub Jelinek
16:00	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Christian Joensson
15:26	Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Jakub Jelinek
15:05	[gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative	Christian Joensson
15:04	Re: BROKEN: pthreads and c++ statically linked	Lee Dixon
14:38	Re: BROKEN: pthreads and c++ statically linked	Jakub Jelinek
14:33	BROKEN: pthreads and c++ statically linked	Dixon, Lee L.
13:50	Cross compile, no grmic/grmiregistry	Rui Wang
12:25	Re: __gcc_cpu_feature	Paolo Carlini
12:16	Re: __gcc_cpu_feature	Richard Guenther
11:16	__gcc_cpu_feature	Paolo Carlini
10:41	Re: svn feature request: print URL in diff output	Giovanni Bajo
10:22	Re: svn feature request: print URL in diff output	Paolo Bonzini
10:20	Re: svn feature request: print URL in diff output	Uros Bizjak
09:51	Re: weird installation problem on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Martin Reinecke
08:16	svn feature request: print URL in diff output	Paolo Bonzini
07:39	Re: copyright assignement	Pierre-Matthieu anglade
07:39	Re: Unwinding through signal handlers on IA-64/Linux	Eric Botcazou
03:14	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Albert Chin
02:27	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Jim Wilson
01:17	Re: Copies of the GCC repository	Daniel Jacobowitz
00:28	Re: Unwinding through signal handlers on IA-64/Linux	Jim Wilson
00:22	Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Eric Botcazou

November 07, 2005

23:52	Re: Question on target specifications for a SPARC machine	Eric Botcazou
23:46	Question on target specifications for a SPARC machine	Mark Cuss
23:46	Re: copyright assignement	Mike Stump
23:40	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Albert Chin
23:19	Re: copyright assignement	Jim Wilson
23:13	Re: Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Jim Wilson
22:43	Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Mark Cuss
22:25	Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile	Mark Cuss
20:16	Anonymous class closures in g++	Joel Dice
20:09	Re: \n to \r\n in stdout	Mike Stump
19:53	Re: [RFC] What should be the semantics of a zero-bit bit-field withpragma pack?	Mark Mitchell
19:34	[RFC] What should be the semantics of a zero-bit bit-field with pragma pack?	Steven Bosscher
16:33	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
16:25	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Ulrich Drepper
16:03	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Andrew Pinski
15:59	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Ulrich Drepper
15:58	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
15:48	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Andrew Pinski
15:45	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Daniel Jacobowitz
15:42	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Ulrich Drepper
15:27	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Daniel Jacobowitz
15:20	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Ulrich Drepper
14:39	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Gabriel Dos Reis
12:04	Subscribing the mailing list	thales
11:39	\n to \r\n in stdout	thales
11:19	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
11:15	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
10:45	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:41	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:40	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
10:29	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:24	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
10:14	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:10	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:08	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:03	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
09:50	Re: no warning being displayed.	Richard Guenther
09:00	Re: no warning being displayed.	Inder
08:50	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
08:47	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
08:46	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
08:06	Re: no warning being displayed.	Richard Guenther
08:03	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
06:14	no warning being displayed.	Inder
04:01	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Gabriel Dos Reis
02:45	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
01:35	Does gcc-3.4.3 for HP-UX 11.23/IA-64 work?	Albert Chin
01:33	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
01:24	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
01:11	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
00:35	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini

November 06, 2005

23:37	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
21:17	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Mark Mitchell
21:13	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Ulrich Drepper
21:11	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
21:07	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Florian Weimer
20:47	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
20:34	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Florian Weimer
20:32	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Peter Dimov
20:32	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Florian Weimer
20:14	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
20:10	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Ian Lance Taylor
19:54	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
19:46	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
19:40	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Mark Mitchell
19:34	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
19:32	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
19:26	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Mark Mitchell
19:19	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
19:16	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
19:02	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Mark Mitchell
18:56	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
18:52	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Henderson
18:42	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
18:39	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Mark Mitchell
17:59	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Howard Hinnant
17:58	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	René Rebe
15:32	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Mattias Engdegård
14:20	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
14:18	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
14:18	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
14:16	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
14:12	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
13:50	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
12:40	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Jakub Jelinek
12:32	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
12:25	Re: Is -fvisibility patch possible on GCC 3.3.x	Gabriel Dos Reis
12:24	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Gabriel Dos Reis
11:43	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
11:03	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
10:52	Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Richard Guenther
10:43	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Richard Guenther
10:34	Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3	Paolo Carlini
08:48	Re: Problem with commas in macro parameters	Ralf Wildenhues
06:28	successful 3.3.6 bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Érsek László
06:22	Problem with commas in macro parameters	Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov
02:59	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
02:57	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
02:41	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
01:13	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Steven Bosscher
00:25	Re: GCC-generated code and i386 condition codes behavior	Robert Dewar
00:12	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar

November 05, 2005

21:26	Is -fvisibility patch possible on GCC 3.3.x	Gary M Mann
19:46	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Steven Bosscher
19:27	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
19:11	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Andrew Pinski
19:09	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
19:04	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Richard Guenther
18:49	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
18:41	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Richard Guenther
18:35	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Andrew Pinski
18:30	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
18:29	copyright assignement	Pierre-Matthieu anglade
18:28	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Steven Bosscher
18:13	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
18:11	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
18:03	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Eric Botcazou
18:02	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Steven Bosscher
17:58	Re: [libgfortran] Patch to handle statically linked libgfortran	Eric Botcazou
17:57	Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Robert Dewar
17:54	[RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?	Giovanni Bajo
17:51	gcc-4.1-20051105 is now available	gccadmin
13:43	Language and academic programs from around the world	International School Guide
13:43	Language and academic programs from around the world	International School Guide
01:15	Re: The new gcc_release script hasn't been pushed to production	Daniel Berlin
01:07	Re: The new gcc_release script hasn't been pushed to production	Joseph S. Myers
00:30	Re: The new gcc_release script hasn't been pushed to production	Daniel Berlin

November 04, 2005

23:30	The new gcc_release script hasn't been pushed to production	Kelley Cook
19:33	Unwinding through signal handlers on IA-64/Linux	Eric Botcazou
19:11	Re: GCC-generated code and i386 condition codes behavior	Robert Dewar
19:08	Re: GCC-generated code and i386 condition codes behavior	Paolo Bonzini
18:40	Re: GCC-generated code and i386 condition codes behavior	Andi Kleen
17:32	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Vincent Lefevre
17:29	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Tobias . Schlueter
17:28	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Vincent Lefevre
17:27	Re: GCC-generated code and i386 condition codes behavior	Robert Dewar
17:26	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Janne Blomqvist
17:22	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Steve Kargl
17:17	Re: *-rtems status on head was Re: cross newlib builds on svn head	Andreas Schwab
17:16	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Diego Novillo
17:10	arm-rtems4.7 Ada update	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
16:43	*-rtems status on head was Re: cross newlib builds on svn head	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
16:37	RE: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Dave Korn
16:34	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Guenther
16:26	RE: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Daniel Berlin
16:23	RE: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Dave Korn
16:06	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern RENNECKE
16:01	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Daniel Berlin
15:38	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Berlin
15:37	Re: F77 code under gcc	Richard Guenther
15:24	F77 code under gcc	Alex Tzanov
15:21	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
15:17	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Diego Novillo
15:16	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Guenther
15:08	RE: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Dave Korn
15:07	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Steve Kargl
15:05	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern RENNECKE
15:03	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Kenner
14:59	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Diego Novillo
14:53	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Daniel Berlin
14:46	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Guenther
14:45	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Guenther
14:29	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Kenner
13:41	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Diego Novillo
13:41	Re: [PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Kenner
13:34	[PATCH] Re: ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Guenther
12:46	Re: svn url shortcuts	Vincent Lefevre
12:34	Re: timezone of svn server for -r?	Vincent Lefevre
12:32	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
12:21	Re: Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	Albert Chin
11:31	ref_contains_indirect_ref always false?	Richard Guenther
11:15	Re: GCC-generated code and i386 condition codes behavior	Bryan Ford
11:11	RE: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Dave Korn
09:10	Build using --with-gmp and shared libraries	François-Xavier Coudert
08:20	Re: toplevel Makefile.tpl hacking	François-Xavier Coudert
07:52	Re: toplevel Makefile.tpl hacking	Paolo Bonzini
03:24	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Berlin
01:32	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	amylaar
01:29	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern Rennecke
00:56	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Branko Äibej
00:38	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Kevin Puetz
00:18	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Berlin
00:14	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Berlin
00:12	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Berlin
00:09	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Berlin
00:05	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Phil Edwards

November 03, 2005

23:58	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Giovanni Bajo
23:55	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
23:53	Re: svn repository incorrectly converted or corrupted	Daniel Berlin
23:49	Re: svn repository incorrectly converted or corrupted	Joern RENNECKE
23:47	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
23:44	Re: svn url shortcuts	DJ Delorie
23:29	Re: svn repository incorrectly converted or corrupted	Daniel Berlin
23:28	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Branko Äibej
23:15	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Andreas Schwab
23:09	Re: toplevel Makefile.tpl hacking	Andreas Schwab
22:55	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Andreas Schwab
22:45	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Branko Äibej
22:32	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Branko Äibej
22:15	Re: toplevel Makefile.tpl hacking	François-Xavier Coudert
22:02	Re: weird installation problem on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Martin Reinecke
21:58	Re: timezone of svn server for -r?	Andreas Schwab
21:33	Re: weird installation problem on i686-pc-linux-gnu	James E Wilson
21:27	svn repository incorrectly converted or corrupted	Joern RENNECKE
20:37	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern RENNECKE
20:18	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern RENNECKE
20:13	Re: bug 24599	Doug Evans
20:11	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Jacobowitz
20:08	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern RENNECKE
20:04	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Daniel Jacobowitz
20:03	Re: diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Mike Stump
20:01	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Daniel Berlin
19:59	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	David Taylor
19:24	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Mike Stump
19:15	diffing directories with merged-as-deleted files?	Joern RENNECKE
19:10	timezone of svn server for -r?	Joern RENNECKE
18:53	GCC mainline now open for bug fixes under normal Stage 3 rules	Mark Mitchell
18:37	Re: bug 24599	Doug Evans
17:53	Re: interesting anecdote on gcc speed	Karel Gardas
17:43	interesting anecdote on gcc speed	Joe Buck
16:52	[gfortran] Problem parsing hexadecimal constants?	Ioannis E. Venetis
16:42	Re: cross newlib builds on svn head	Paolo Bonzini
16:31	Re: Howto Cross Compile GCC to run on PPC Platform	Kai Ruottu
16:30	cross newlib builds on svn head	Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp
16:09	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
15:16	Re: Howto Cross Compile GCC to run on PPC Platform	Jeff Stevens
14:38	Re: Howto Cross Compile GCC to run on PPC Platform	Kai Ruottu
13:13	Re: Howto Cross Compile GCC to run on PPC Platform	Jeff Stevens
12:14	Re: Patch reviews for 4.1	Paolo Bonzini
12:09	Re: toplevel Makefile.tpl hacking	Paolo Bonzini
12:00	RE: Patch reviews for 4.1	Dave Korn
10:55	toplevel Makefile.tpl hacking	FX Coudert
10:44	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Paolo Bonzini
08:11	Re: Patch reviews for 4.1	Ian Lance Taylor
07:28	Re: Patch reviews for 4.1	Per Bothner
07:14	Patch reviews for 4.1	Mark Mitchell
05:22	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Kaz Kojima
04:49	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	DJ Delorie
04:28	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Daniel Jacobowitz
04:20	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Ian Lance Taylor
03:56	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Richard Kenner
03:43	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Branko Äibej
03:27	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Daniel Jacobowitz
03:26	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Daniel Jacobowitz
03:22	Successful build of gcc 3.3.4	Craig N. Scott
02:18	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
02:10	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Kaz Kojima
02:02	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Mark Mitchell
01:55	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Andrew Pinski
01:54	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
01:53	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Joe Buck
01:52	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Ian Lance Taylor
01:48	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
01:46	Re: [cft] aligning main's stack frame	Richard Henderson
01:45	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Daniel Jacobowitz
01:39	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Ian Lance Taylor
01:35	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Kaveh R. Ghazi
01:32	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Joe Buck
01:31	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Kaveh R. Ghazi
01:13	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Gabriel Dos Reis
00:58	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joe Buck
00:54	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Andrew Pinski
00:43	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Mark Mitchell
00:40	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Kaz Kojima
00:30	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Diego Novillo
00:27	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	DJ Delorie
00:26	Re: [libgfortran] Patch to handle statically linked libgfortran	Janis Johnson
00:24	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Paul Brook
00:21	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
00:09	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Richard Henderson
00:04	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Kaveh R. Ghazi

November 02, 2005

23:56	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
23:47	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
23:39	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Daniel Berlin
23:32	Re: SH: PR target/24445	Joern RENNECKE
23:28	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Daniel Berlin
23:26	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Neil Booth
23:20	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Bobby McNulty
23:17	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
23:10	SH: PR target/24445	Kaz Kojima
23:10	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	DJ Delorie
22:33	Re: svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Mike Stump
22:19	svn diff branch woprking copy against mainline?	Joern RENNECKE
22:11	Re: [libgfortran] Patch to handle statically linked libgfortran	FX Coudert
21:59	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Chris Lattner
20:47	RE: What are the differences between 2.95.3 and 3.2.3?	Ryan Mansfield
20:44	What are the differences between 2.95.3 and 3.2.3?	Pascal Aschwanden
20:41	Re: weird installation problem on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Mike Stump
19:44	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Chris Lattner
19:31	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
19:31	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
19:29	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Bernhard R. Link
19:21	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Andrew Pinski
19:10	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
18:55	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Chris Lattner
18:50	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
18:01	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Chris Lattner
17:58	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Mark Mitchell
17:46	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
17:42	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
17:42	Re: [RFC] c++ template instantiation generates zero-sized array (pr19989)	Josh Conner
17:40	Re: [gfortran] fortran preprocessing, round 2	Richard Henderson
17:40	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Jeffrey A Law
17:11	Re: [RFC] c++ template instantiation generates zero-sized array (pr19989)	Mark Mitchell
17:07	Re: [RFC] c++ template instantiation generates zero-sized array (pr19989)	Josh Conner
16:24	Re: Library commits vs Bugzilla	Daniel Berlin
16:20	Re: Library commits vs Bugzilla	Paolo Carlini
16:17	Re: Library commits vs Bugzilla	Daniel Berlin
15:57	Library commits vs Bugzilla	Paolo Carlini
11:20	Re: [gfortran] fortran preprocessing, round 2	François-Xavier Coudert
10:35	Re: weird installation problem on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Martin Reinecke
09:56	RE: GCC 4.0.2 Canadian Cross Compile	Mark Fortescue
09:40	Re: weird installation problem on i686-pc-linux-gnu	Martin Reinecke
09:13	Re: Shared libraries	Hagen Paul Pfeifer
08:55	Re: A question about memcpy	Mike Stump
08:46	Re: Shared libraries	Mike Stump
08:31	Shared libraries	Softish soft
06:38	A question about memcpy	Eric Fisher
03:10	Re: -Wuninitialized issues	Kaveh R. Ghazi
02:38	Re: powerpc/rs6000 implicit FPU usage	David Edelsohn
01:12	Re: [RFC] c++ template instantiation generates zero-sized array (pr19989)	Mark Mitchell
00:49	powerpc/rs6000 implicit FPU usage	Till Straumann
00:29	Re: GCC 4.0.2 Canadian Cross Compile	Nathanael Nerode