http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52995
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2012-04-19 06:00:59 UTC ---
This just got discussed on the clang list. In the end we implemented what gcc
does. The winning argument was that it is not just the class that is templated,
but its members
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 00:33:55
UTC ---
We need to add another field to tree_type_common and tree_decl_common to
store the warn_if_not_aligned value.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #94 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-19 00:14:01
UTC ---
It is misleading to think that the linker accumulates code in translation unit
order for a C++ program. E.g., that is not what happens for template code or
string constants. And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27102|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
Bug #: 53037
Summary: warn_if_not_aligned(X)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-18
22:50:42 UTC ---
I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #6 from Mike Stump 2012-04-18
22:42:55 UTC ---
So, do you have a pointer to where a maintainer said that they require 3
duplicates for a piece of work? For all similar future work? They usually
say, please include a testcase, meanin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
Bug #: 53036
Summary: [c++11] trivial class fails std::is_trivial test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-18
21:47:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> So, to recap, ripping out all but one solve the duplication problem you point
> out, it solves the duplication of creation effort you point out, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-18 21:42:39
UTC ---
One approach is to provide masks.opt to provide those masks without
switch. masks.opt should be used when long-double-switch.opt isn't
used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-18
21:17:47 UTC ---
> For a target which doesn't use long-double-switch.opt, will
> TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 be a fixed value? If no, how is its
> value determined? If yes, what is the fixed value?
Yes, a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-18 21:04:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
> > should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
>
> It should be:
>
> option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-18
20:59:16 UTC ---
> If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
> should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
It should be:
options.h:#define MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
Bug #: 53035
Summary: Internal Compiler Error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-18
20:25:45 UTC ---
The gimple switch conversion pass is much too aggressive, worse code is
generated for the examples that were used to introduce the implementation of
switch statements with bit tests.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Bug #: 53034
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] tree-switch-conversion is
too aggressive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-18
20:07:43 UTC ---
Until the issue is fixed you can use the command option -mstrict-X as a
work-around.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #4 from Mike Stump 2012-04-18
20:01:23 UTC ---
You explained yourself properly. Just because there are hundreds that do this,
doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with them. Personally, I'd rip out all
but one of them that either t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-18
20:00:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> We can see this bug on avr target too.
Thanks for the test case.
It's a bug, but completely unrelated to this one. See PR53033.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
Bug #: 53033
Summary: [avr]: Wrong register number for 3-byte loads via X
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 19:38:10 UTC ---
To implement this, we'll presumably need to modify 'gfc_compare_interfaces' in
interface.c (for the case of generic_flag=1 and strict_flag=0). Possibly the
changes should go d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-18
18:25:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a
> regression suite. For a regression, there is just one bit of code tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
--- Comment #2 from Will Benfold 2012-04-18 18:08:16
UTC ---
Another test case; this one doesn't need any headers and also cuts out the
loop. The exit status should always be 1, but in fact it's 0 if no
command-line args are supplied and 1 other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #1 from Dave Boutcher 2012-04-18
17:46:17 UTC ---
The problem seems to be that functions referenced only by function pointers are
not put in the tmclone table. I can work around the problem by making a bogus
call to the function anyw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #2 from Mike Stump 2012-04-18
17:35:23 UTC ---
I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a
regression suite. For a regression, there is just one bit of code that you're
testing, with one set of opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-18 17:32:38
UTC ---
If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-04-18
17:23:24 UTC ---
> I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it restores bootstrap
> on sparc64-linux.
But it probably breaks SPARC/Solaris, as TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 must be
non-zero fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
17:04:25 UTC ---
... That's not an argument against improving the warning though. GCC's uses
occur in system headers so warnings are suppressed, and could be worked around
anyway with further extens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
17:01:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> First, I think the C++ standard forbids a function from having a null
> address:
But GCC extensions allow it, see the weakref attribute:
http://gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33715
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
16:53:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I would like to have a warning in C++ that warns about local variables
> assigned
> via operator new or operator new[], but then are not freed in an excep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42689
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44600
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34455
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-04-18
16:38:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27183
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27183
combined patch
I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it restores bootstrap
on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|i686-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33715
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33443
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32960
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43833
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
--- Comment #3 from brainschrat at gmx dot de 2012-04-18 15:22:01 UTC ---
Maybe this is related to using both -I and -J to the same directory.
As I wanted to use delta, I tried to simplify my folder layout for the test
case:
project
- src
- lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-18
15:14:58 UTC ---
std::is_assignable uses SFINAE, so it should always act pedantic, and the
assert should fail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
14:59:02 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Daniel. Therefore the situation is becoming more clear.
Then - assuming this interpretation is correct - I'm not sure what we want to
do from a practical point of view: sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
Bug #: 53032
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53031
Bug #: 53031
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp54.c
scan-tree-dump-not vrp1 "link_error"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2012-04-18 14:41:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Daniel, can you have a look to snippet in Comment #5? Should it compile or
> not?
It needed a while until I recognized that the second operator= overload
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53030
Bug #: 53030
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
14:16:20 UTC ---
Entirely feasible, and probably safe enough for the 4.6 and 4.7 branches too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
14:24:47 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Jon, that may indeed explain it!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
14:14:37 UTC ---
To be clear: for some reason, on my Linux machine, I badly need
-static-libstdc++, what suggested by Jon in Comment #17 doesn't change much. If
code compiles and links then runs fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
13:10:59 UTC ---
At the moment I'm using an x86_64-linux machine using glibc 2.14.1, not a RH,
really no problem with this specific testcase, no Seg fault, no valgrind
errors, with 4.7.1 too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
13:29:10 UTC ---
Oh, and isn't really a run-time issue:
#include
struct proxy
{
void operator=(int const&);
void operator=(int &&) const;
};
static_assert( std::is_assignable::value, "" );
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
14:02:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> now it worked for Paolo without it :-(
Some distros rebuild libpthread.a to make it work automatically.
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-bugs/2010-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681
--- Comment #5 from Matt Kline 2012-04-18 14:04:37
UTC ---
That, if feasible, would be perfect.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darren at kulp dot ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30006
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #20 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 13:32:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> does it help if you link to libpthread using --whole-archive ?
>
> g++ deallocate_global_thread-1.cc -static -Wl,--whole-archive -lpthread
> -Wl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darren at kulp dot ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
12:57:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> by the way, (not the bug), I'm wondering if there is another way than
> using pthread_key_create to hold the thread's freelist ? like using TLS in the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
13:01:37 UTC ---
And this is enough to see the inconsistency vs -pedantic:
#include
#include
struct proxy
{
void operator=(int const&);
void operator=(int &&) const;
};
int main()
{
assert(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47772
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-18
12:43:00 UTC ---
does it help if you link to libpthread using --whole-archive ?
g++ deallocate_global_thread-1.cc -static -Wl,--whole-archive -lpthread
-Wl,--no-whole-archive -lrt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52693
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51646
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47772
Marty changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vadmium+gc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Marty changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vadmium+gc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
Bug #: 53029
Summary: missed optimization in internal read (without
implied-do-loop)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
12:52:04 UTC ---
Interestingly, removing the const from the move assignment avoids the issue
with -pedantic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #17 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-18 12:29:39 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 18 12:29:23 2012
New Revision: 186568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186568
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-18 Bill Schmidt
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #8 from Michal Hlavinka 2012-04-18
12:22:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 27182
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27182
pre-processed reproducer (avr)
(In reply to comment #7)
> Would you please post a complete test ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #16 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 12:37:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time
> problem.
> Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs Ok for me.
Interes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe 2012-04-18 12:31:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time
> problem.
> Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs Ok for me.
OK.
Just for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51646
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-18 12:25:30 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 18 12:25:17 2012
New Revision: 186567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186567
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-18 Bill Schmidt
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30006
Marty changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vadmium+gc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
12:19:04 UTC ---
But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time problem.
Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs Ok for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe 2012-04-18 12:08:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Of course I meant it doesn't *link*. I guess I have never noticed this error
> before:
>
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lm
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpthread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
12:01:27 UTC ---
Of course I meant it doesn't *link*. I guess I have never noticed this error
before:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lm
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpthread
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44688
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-18
11:34:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 18 11:33:51 2012
New Revision: 186566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186566
Log:
2012-04-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50478
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-18
10:35:59 UTC ---
Seems fixed in mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52108
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52422
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
