https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69040
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2016-03-07
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I cannot repeat this with the gcc-5 branch at r233997 neither with trunk (gcc6)
at r234014 both built for cris-elf and using "./xgcc -v -B./ -Os -march=v10",
nor
for trunk with "./xgcc -B./ -Os -march=v10 -g -Os -Wall -Wundef
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -Werror=implicit-function-declaration
-Wno-format-security -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wframe-larger-than=1024
-Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign
-Werror=implicit-int -Werror=strict-prototypes -Werror=date-time -std=gnu90
-fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
-fno-reorder-blocks -fno-ipa-cp-clone -fno-partial-inlining
-fno-stack-protector -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
-fno-var-tracking-assignments -fno-inline-functions-called-once
-fno-strict-overflow -fconserve-stack --param allow-store-data-races=0".
I do see it at the above gcc-5 branch revision using the latter options.
