http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47796
--- Comment #2 from qihua.dai at intel dot com 2011-02-18 07:54:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You are violating C/C++ aliasing rules:
> pData = (unsigned int *)pTmp;
> data = *pData;
> printf("data = 0x%x\n", data);
> You ac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47718
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47718
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47796
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47796
Summary: The code to write to a bit_field data strucuture will
be removed unexpectedly with gcc 4.5.1 -O2 option
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: cr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47784
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47795
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have
error_mark in finish_non_static_data_member, at
cp/semantics.c:1513
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin 2011-02-18
02:50:28 UTC ---
Correcting the typo fixes the error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47794
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-02-18 02:24:58 UTC ---
This commit should not affect anything not using -Ofast, and I get
identical before/after code with -m32 when I tested vla-1.c. Could you
give example source and cc1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-18
02:23:39 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Feb 18 02:23:35 2011
New Revision: 170267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170267
Log:
Always use legitimized plus const symbol ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47794
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New debug failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47793
Summary: Relative path in fprofile-use turns into absolute path
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 01:00:35 UTC ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I suppose the safe thing to would be add the right signature and leave that
> there, but I can't imagine anyone's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 00:38:54 UTC ---
> Aha! :)
>
> There's a typo in gthr-dce.h
>
> __gthread_mutx_destroy (__gthread_mutex_t *__mutex)
>
> s/mutx/mutex/
Good catch! I wonder how many years it has been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-18
00:32:04 UTC ---
Aha! :)
There's a typo in gthr-dce.h
__gthread_mutx_destroy (__gthread_mutex_t *__mutex)
s/mutx/mutex/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin 2011-02-18
00:29:38 UTC ---
504 (hiauly1)dave> ./xgcc -B./ -v -threads
Reading specs from ./specs
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=./lto-wrapper
Target: hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20
Configured with: ../gcc/conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-18
00:23:32 UTC ---
why is __GTHREADS defined for thread model 'single' - is that normal?
and why isn't __gthread_mutex_destroy in gthr-single.h in scope?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-18
00:16:20 UTC ---
probably caused by my fix for PR 46455
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
Summary: [4.6 Regression] concurrence.h:292:9: error:
'__gthread_mutex_destroy' was not declared in this
scope
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47791
Summary: finish function is using absolute value instead of the
#defined one
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47790
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47790
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] optimize_bitfield_assignment_op
no longer works in 4.5.x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47775
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47775
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-02-17
23:45:14 UTC ---
If one looks closer at "se->direct_byref" in gfc_conv_procedure_call, one sees
that in the generic case "se->direct_byref" is 1 while in the specific-call
case it is 0. (Thus, in the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
--- Comment #16 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-02-17
23:24:45 UTC ---
I tested the patch from comment #12 on spu-elf with no regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47404
Janis Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janis at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47737
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rguenther at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #18 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-17 22:10:40 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Feb 17 22:10:37 2011
New Revision: 170258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170258
Log:
PR target/43653
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47620
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23317|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-17 21:22:05 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Feb 17 21:22:02 2011
New Revision: 170256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170256
Log:
PR target/43653
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2011-02-17 21:05:11
UTC ---
The assembly from -O1 -ftree-vectorize -msse3 shows another opportunity for
enhancement PR19398 (secondary reloads don't consider "m" alternatives):
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
subq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47737
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-02-17 20:40:52 |
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46472
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-17
20:44:16 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 17 20:44:14 2011
New Revision: 170255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170255
Log:
PR c++/47783
* cvt.c (convert_from_referenc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47737
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46472
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47718
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-17
19:49:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Email sent to the wrong email_in.pl script, it looks like.
Except there is no way for the svn to know which email to sent it to. The
script is very simple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47718
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-02-17
19:46:43 UTC ---
Email sent to the wrong email_in.pl script, it looks like.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||42632
Target Milestone|4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-02-17 19:39:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 23389
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23389
potential fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47667
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-17
19:30:47 UTC ---
Disregard comment #15, typo in PR number
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47667
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-17
19:28:53 UTC ---
Manually pasted here, typo on PR number.
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Feb 17 05:19:50 2011
New Revision: 170239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170239
Log:
2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47778
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-17
19:22:31 UTC ---
I will try to look at this one this weekend.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47788
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47789
Summary: derived type with no components
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47788
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New LTO failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47390
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47390
--- Comment #8 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-02-17
18:35:44 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Thu Feb 17 18:35:41 2011
New Revision: 170253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170253
Log:
PR driver/47390
* common.opt (export-dyna
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-02-17 18:24:25 UTC ---
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, mark-gcc at glines dot org wrote:
> I'd like to request a finer grained means of control. A syntactical element
> (builtin/pragma/attribute/whate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47786
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-02-17 17:55:42 UTC ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47787
Summary: GCC with -flto combines preprocessed C sources
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47786
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46639
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-02-17 17:02:20 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this bug now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47786
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-02-17 16:57:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 23386
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23386
backtrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47786
Summary: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal'
structure, have 'tree_list' in c_type_hash, at
c-family/c-common.c:4066
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|-fcompare-debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
Summary: GCC with -flto does not pass options to the assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
--- Comment #6 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-02-17
16:23:47 UTC ---
Thanks Paolo, I will take a look at those patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-17
16:18:34 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Feb 17 16:18:24 2011
New Revision: 170249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170249
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* cfgex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-17
16:18:34 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Feb 17 16:18:24 2011
New Revision: 170249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170249
Log:
PR debug/47106
PR debug/47402
* cfgex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
--- Comment #4 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-02-17
16:04:36 UTC ---
Thanks Andy, was that documented anywhere? It would be interesting for me to
know which other stuff became compulsory to implement in the backend.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-17
16:01:49 UTC ---
I think cbranch is required in 4.5 where the cleanup happened. And yes we
broke backwards compatibility to cleanup the backends.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #15 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #50 from Jan Hubicka 2011-02-17 15:16:19
UTC ---
> Thanks, that resolved these issues. However, now my 8GB machine runs
> out of memory when linking libxul.so.
That is expected. With richard's -g fixes memory usage is slightly over
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47784
Christopher Lloyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47784
Summary: Internal compiler error in dot notation assignment of
const value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
--- Comment #2 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-02-17
14:56:45 UTC ---
Just a note to this... this bug assumes that cbranch4 is _not_
implemented. If cbranch4 is not an optional standard name to implement
then this bug is invalid, but we should document
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-17 14:31:59
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-33 ilp32-23]$ cat x.i
struct gomp_team_state
{
struct gomp_team_state *prev_ts;
unsigned team_id;
unsigned level;
};
struct gomp_thread
{
void *data;
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47783
Summary: Warning 'set but not used'
[-Wunused-but-set-parameter] incorrectly issued for
update through reference wrapper
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47642
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-17
13:42:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 23382
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23382
tst-strtod.c
Testcase for strtoflt128 (adapted from glibc/stdlib/tst-strtod.c).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47642
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-17
13:41:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23381
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23381
gcc46-strtoflt128.patch
To shorten up the agony of gdtoa, here is a patch to yank it and replace ev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #49 from Martin Jambor 2011-02-17
13:15:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> Updated mozilla patch fixing the undefined symbols Martin reported.
> Sorry, had it in tree for a while, but didn't noticed PR is out of date.
Thanks, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47694
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-02-17
12:54:58 UTC ---
In reply to comment #13: Well, I was thinking fbuf_seek. I came to the
conclusion that I do not want to change the API for read_sf for the reasons you
state.
I am now focusing on re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47719
--- Comment #2 from Mans Rullgard 2011-02-17 12:46:24
UTC ---
I can confirm this patch makes the file build without error. I have not tested
the compiled code for correctness.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47774
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-17
12:14:17 UTC ---
I think this is a dup of bug 46472
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47694
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-02-17
12:13:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> the "file" is not seekable so the position eturne by seek always returns
> zero.
If you mean sseek(), don't count on that; the unix.c:raw_*() function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #3 from Mark Glines 2011-02-17
12:00:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think a patch that adds -Wno-format-unknown-specifier would be accepted if
> properly submitted:
Okay, I'll take a look at putting together a patch. Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #2 from Mark Glines 2011-02-17
11:58:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 23380
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23380
47781.c
Here's a rather silly test case that demonstrates the problem with a simple
"bool" type.
$ gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-02-17
11:55:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 23379
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23379
source code to reproduce bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47782
Summary: Infinite cycle generates segmentation fault in targets
without cbranch support
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
Summary: warnings from custom printf format specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47780
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure with -O -fgcse -fgcse-las
-fstack-protector-all
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47774
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
See Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47778
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47779
Summary: Problem cross-compiling trunk for bfin
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47768
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-17 10:35:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Here is a patch for rejecting PPCs:
This patch regtests cleanly. Will commit as obvious.
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
