[Bug c/51309] New: -Wstrict-overflow false alarm when overflow impossible in loop body

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51309 Bug #: 51309 Summary: -Wstrict-overflow false alarm when overflow impossible in loop body Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/51308] New: PARAMETER attribute conflicts with SAVE attribute

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51308 Bug #: 51308 Summary: PARAMETER attribute conflicts with SAVE attribute Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/51250] [4.7 Regression] Bug with SUM(,dim,mask)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51250 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/51250] [4.7 Regression] Bug with SUM(,dim,mask)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51250 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2011-11-25 20:18:32 UTC --- Author: mikael Date: Fri Nov 25 20:18:21 2011 New Revision: 181730 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181730 Log: fortran/ PR fortran/51250 PR fortran/43829

[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829 --- Comment #52 from Mikael Morin 2011-11-25 20:18:35 UTC --- Author: mikael Date: Fri Nov 25 20:18:21 2011 New Revision: 181730 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181730 Log: fortran/ PR fortran/51250 PR fortran/43829

[Bug ada/51307] New: [4.7 Regression] s-taprop.adb:676:25: "CLOCK_RT_Ada" not declared in "OS_Constants"

g=no --disable-nls --disable-lto --without-cloog --without-ppl --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,java,ada,obj-c++ Thread model: posix gcc version 4.7.0 2025 (experimental) [trunk revision 181706] (GCC)

[Bug middle-end/47602] Permit inline asm to clobber PIC register

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pcpa at mandriva dot com.

[Bug c++/51305] [C++11][constexpr] noexcept-specifier overconstraints constexpr functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51305 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/51258] 64-bit gcc.dg/atomic-compare-exchange-5.c link failure on 32-bit Solaris/x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258 --- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25 19:31:02 UTC --- Author: uros Date: Fri Nov 25 19:30:58 2011 New Revision: 181728 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181728 Log: PR testsuite/51258 * lib/target-sup

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #126 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-25 19:22:06 UTC --- "201103" of course.

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 --- Comment #125 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-25 19:21:10 UTC --- Something is wrong on your system. The normal output, which I can of course reproduce in mainline, is "199711" or "201193" depending on the -std.

[Bug middle-end/49806] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp47.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49806 --- Comment #7 from Sean McGovern 2011-11-25 18:48:05 UTC --- Still fails on i386-pc-solaris2.10, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/msg02204.html

[Bug libstdc++/1773] __cplusplus defined to 1, should be 199711L

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773 Bruce Adams changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tortoise_74 at yahoo dot |

[Bug fortran/40958] module files too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blomqvist.janne at gmail

[Bug fortran/51218] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug due to implicit_pure?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 --- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-25 17:44:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > > Thanks for the bugreport and the (valid) > > testcase. > > To be pedantic, the test case was not valid Can you tell me what's wrong with the test case

[Bug testsuite/51258] 64-bit gcc.dg/atomic-compare-exchange-5.c link failure on 32-bit Solaris/x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258 --- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25 17:41:49 UTC --- Author: uros Date: Fri Nov 25 17:41:44 2011 New Revision: 181727 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181727 Log: PR testsuite/51258 * lib/target-sup

[Bug fortran/51306] New: MOVE_ALLOC: Make more middle end friendlier

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51306 Bug #: 51306 Summary: MOVE_ALLOC: Make more middle end friendlier Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug c++/51305] New: [C++11][constexpr] noexcept-specifier overconstraints constexpr functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51305 Bug #: 51305 Summary: [C++11][constexpr] noexcept-specifier overconstraints constexpr functions Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCON

[Bug fortran/51218] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Potential optimization bug due to implicit_pure?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218 --- Comment #24 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-11-25 17:24:19 UTC --- Am 24.11.2011 21:51, schrieb burnus at gcc dot gnu.org: > Thanks for the bugreport and the (valid) > testcase. > To be pedantic, the test case was not valid; however, a

[Bug fortran/50408] [4.6/4.7 regression] ICE in transfer_expr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/50408] [4.6/4.7 regression] ICE in transfer_expr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408 --- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-25 17:18:10 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Fri Nov 25 17:18:05 2011 New Revision: 181726 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181726 Log: 2011-11-25 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/50

[Bug target/40411] -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris C library

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411 --- Comment #26 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-11-25 17:15:31 UTC --- All the various options equivalent to -std=c99 now map to -std=c99 using Alias in the .opt file, so specs only need to handle that one spelling. The same applies wi

[Bug testsuite/51258] 64-bit gcc.dg/atomic-compare-exchange-5.c link failure on 32-bit Solaris/x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258 --- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 16:35:43 UTC --- > --- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-25 > 16:26:41 UTC --- > I have additional patch that checks cpuid bit_CMPXCHG16B (and bit_CMPXCHG8B > fwiw) for runtim

[Bug target/40411] -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris C library

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411 --- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 16:34:03 UTC --- No progress yet: an attempt to handle this via specs some time ago failed since there was some of Joseph's option work missing. Rainer

[Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827 Uros Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED URL|

[Bug lto/46502] collect2 LTO marker detection is fragile wrt. to nm output format

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46502 --- Comment #2 from Sean McGovern 2011-11-25 16:32:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > When investigating why some users of GCC mainline on Solaris 2 saw more > LTO-related testsuite failures than I, it turned out that collect2 calls some > ver

[Bug fortran/50408] [4.6/4.7 regression] ICE in transfer_expr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408 --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-25 16:27:01 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Fri Nov 25 16:26:47 2011 New Revision: 181725 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181725 Log: 2011-11-25 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/50

[Bug testsuite/51258] 64-bit gcc.dg/atomic-compare-exchange-5.c link failure on 32-bit Solaris/x86

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258 --- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-25 16:26:41 UTC --- I have additional patch that checks cpuid bit_CMPXCHG16B (and bit_CMPXCHG8B fwiw) for runtime support.

[Bug target/40411] -std=c99 does not enable c99 mode in Solaris C library

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411 --- Comment #24 from Sean McGovern 2011-11-25 16:25:02 UTC --- Ping^2.

[Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827 --- Comment #19 from Sean McGovern 2011-11-25 16:17:03 UTC --- Was this patch ever committed? If so, can this PR be closed now?

[Bug fortran/51267] loop optimization error using LOC function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl 2011-11-25 15:58:34 UTC --- On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 09:37:15AM +, priv123 at hotmail dot fr wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 > > --- Comment #7 from Mathieu 2011-11-25 09:37:15 > UT

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 15:55:36 UTC --- > --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-25 > 15:17:09 UTC --- > ah so the scan-assembler test is finding the stabs info, not actually a call > to > the c

[Bug c++/51304] New: gcc segfaults for large -ftemplate-depth values (if depth is reached)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51304 Bug #: 51304 Summary: gcc segfaults for large -ftemplate-depth values (if depth is reached) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRM

[Bug fortran/51302] ICE with VOLATILE loop variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/51302] ICE with VOLATILE loop variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-25 15:18:10 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Fri Nov 25 15:18:06 2011 New Revision: 181724 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181724 Log: 2011-11-25 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/51

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-25 15:17:09 UTC --- ah so the scan-assembler test is finding the stabs info, not actually a call to the constructor

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:57:24 UTC --- > --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-25 > 14:46:07 UTC --- > Thanks for the info - that error implies the mutex was not correctly > initialized. > > What

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-25 14:46:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT > __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT sorry, ignore the double-paste ;)

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-25 14:46:07 UTC --- Thanks for the info - that error implies the mutex was not correctly initialized. What are these macros defined to (if defined)? __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT __GTHREAD

[Bug preprocessor/51303] -Wmissing-include-dirs warnings reported as [enabled by default]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51303 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCON

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:12:25 UTC --- > --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-11-25 14:06:10 UTC --- >> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-24 >> 20:30

[Bug middle-end/51285] [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-11-25 14:08:23 UTC --- > ... Is this still triggered by the same range ? Yes.

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:06:10 UTC --- > --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-24 > 20:30:43 UTC --- > What does this program do, compiled with -std=c++11 -pthread ? I get Assertion failed: fal

[Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 14:04:26 UTC --- > --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-24 > 19:26:23 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #0) >> FAIL: 30_threads/thread/native_handle/typesizes.cc execution tes

[Bug fortran/51302] ICE with VOLATILE loop variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|rejects-valid |ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from Tob

[Bug other/51011] FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic-generic.c (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51011 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod 2011-11-25 13:35:19 UTC --- Author: amacleod Date: Fri Nov 25 13:35:13 2011 New Revision: 181721 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181721 Log: 2011-11-24 Andrew MacLeod PR other/51

[Bug preprocessor/51303] New: -Wmissing-include-dirs warnings reported as [enabled by default]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51303 Bug #: 51303 Summary: -Wmissing-include-dirs warnings reported as [enabled by default] Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/50074] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/sibcall-6.c execution test on x86_64 with -fPIC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #14

[Bug rtl-optimization/39077] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] GCSE-optimization causes enormous binary size increase (~20 times !)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39077 Robert Hinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oppiet35 at yahoo dot com --- Comment #23

[Bug c++/51203] [C++0x] Recursive alias template specialization causes compiler segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51203 Dodji Seketeli changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/51302] New: ICE with VOLATILE loop variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51302 Bug #: 51302 Summary: ICE with VOLATILE loop variable Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: n

[Bug tree-optimization/51301] New: Compiler ICE in vect_is_simple_use_1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51301 Bug #: 51301 Summary: Compiler ICE in vect_is_simple_use_1 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/51287] [4.7 regression] 252.eon compfail with -march=atom

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51287 Igor Zamyatin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug debug/48190] [regression?] Huge memory use while compiling qemu-0.4.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190 rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/50566] [avr]: Add support for better logging similar to -mdeb

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-11-25 10:46:15 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Fri Nov 25 10:46:10 2011 New Revision: 181718 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181718 Log: PR target/50566 * config/avr/avr-protos.h

[Bug debug/48190] [regression?] Huge memory use while compiling qemu-0.4.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190 --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25 10:44:01 UTC --- Author: rsandifo Date: Fri Nov 25 10:43:58 2011 New Revision: 181717 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181717 Log: gcc/ Backport from mainline:

[Bug debug/48190] [regression?] Huge memory use while compiling qemu-0.4.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190 --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-25 10:41:22 UTC --- Author: rsandifo Date: Fri Nov 25 10:41:17 2011 New Revision: 181716 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181716 Log: gcc/ Backport from mainline:

[Bug target/51287] [4.7 regression] 252.eon compfail with -march=atom

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51287 --- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin 2011-11-25 10:29:46 UTC --- Author: kyukhin Date: Fri Nov 25 10:29:42 2011 New Revision: 181714 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181714 Log: 2011-11-24 Enkovich Ilya PR target/512

[Bug gcov-profile/51297] [4.7 regression] Many gcov tests FAIL on Tru64, Solaris 8 and 9

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297 --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-25 10:20:28 UTC --- > The patch solves the problem for me. Same on i386-pc-solaris2.8 (all gcc.misc-tests/gcov and g++.dg/gcov tests) and alpha-dec-osf5.1b (with one exception: Exec

[Bug middle-end/49945] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/guality/vla-1.c FAILs with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49945 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-25 09:59:31 UTC --- This is a bug in lto-streamer-out.c. TYPE_MAXVAL of the ARRAY_TYPE's TYPE_DOMAIN e.g. in f1 is a VAR_DECL (DECL_NAME is NULL, DECL_ARTIFICIAL, but !DECL_IGNORED_P). It is first encou

[Bug target/51287] [4.7 regression] 252.eon compfail with -march=atom

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51287 --- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin 2011-11-25 09:46:31 UTC --- Author: kyukhin Date: Fri Nov 25 09:46:27 2011 New Revision: 181713 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181713 Log: PR target/51287 * i386.c (distance_

[Bug rtl-optimization/49912] [4.7 Regression] ICE from -freorder-blocks-and-partition : verify_flow_info failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at

[Bug fortran/51267] loop optimization error using LOC function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267 --- Comment #7 from Mathieu 2011-11-25 09:37:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > This does not "fix" the problem. (Note, I initialized > tab=42 and ius=1; otherwise, you reference an undefined > variables.) Steve, I can't reproduce that you o

[Bug debug/48150] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48150 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 201

[Bug rtl-optimization/49912] [4.7 Regression] ICE from -freorder-blocks-and-partition : verify_flow_info failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49912 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 f

[Bug tree-optimization/51245] [4.7 Regression] ICE in vn_reference_insert_pieces, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1983

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51245 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED