http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #5 from Mario Baumann 2012-05-08
06:48:38 UTC ---
I've finished the bi-section -> revision 187053 caused the problem.
I'm trying to produce a testcase ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2012-05-08 06:43:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 27340
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27340
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #7 from jimis 2012-05-08 06:38:45 UTC ---
Parallel compilation confused me, the error is for guard.cc, see the attached
log plus the preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #6 from jimis 2012-05-08 06:38:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27339
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27339
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
jimis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27335|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Bug #: 53273
Summary: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations
with no way to mark limits
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53268
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-05-08
02:22:13 UTC ---
Looks like PR53209. BTW, now PR53209 blocks my sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
build with the failure during compiling libstdc++v3. Alex's patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/ms
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-08
02:13:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> c++11 defines the lifetime of a temporary -- does it match C or g++'s
> semantics
> of compound literals or neither?
C++98 and C++11 define the lifetime o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2012-05-08
00:33:35 UTC ---
It's not a problem with the thread model.
I can't duplicate the problem. I believe that this is because
I have a more recent version of libc6 installed (2.13-32) than
that on gcc6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #9 from davidxl 2012-05-08 00:16:30
UTC ---
c++11 defines the lifetime of a temporary -- does it match C or g++'s semantics
of compound literals or neither?
Note that without your change, the original program may also be subject to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Bug #: 53272
Summary: wrong condition-codes for strict-low-part destination
and small-integer source
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #3 from jimis 2012-05-07 23:22:50 UTC ---
I used the gcc-4.8-20120429 snapshot and the only configure option (besides
prefix and libraries) was --disable-libstdcxx-pch. The host I compiled on was
gcc61. I didn't know about the --enable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48724
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-07 23:20:50 UTC
---
> No response and unclear bug.
It is still there. In lto-wrapper.c we do
new_argv[0] = getenv ("MAKE");
and when MAKE is set to something like "make -j" we try to execute it..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #9 from simon at pushface dot org 2012-05-07 21:13:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> $srcdir/configure CC="gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0”
Unfortunately doing this means that “gcc -v” with the built compiler contains
the ‘CC="gcc -D_FO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-07
21:09:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 27320 [details]
> diff of regenerated configure
Jonathan, thank you for the patch, and the regen.
I'm starting a new build to test t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
Bug #: 53271
Summary: powerpc-eabispe build fails with ice on unwind-dw2.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #37 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-07
20:50:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 27336
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27336
Supplementary patch
As of rev 187217, the pr51244-1.c target testcase fails at least for m4*.
The attac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont 2012-05-07
20:37:57 UTC ---
I see 2 possible modifications for this problem.
The first one would be to avoid the numerous calls to _M_can_advance. In
priority_queue each time an element is pushed there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #1 from jimis 2012-05-07 20:31:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 27335
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27335
hppa-gcc-bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
Bug #: 53270
Summary: Error when bootstrapping gcc on
hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-07
20:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > What are the array bounds for _dec->state.dequant_tables ?
>
> [64][3][2]
_dec->state.dequant_tables[qti][pli][qi][12]
Is oppo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-05-07 20:08:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What are the array bounds for _dec->state.dequant_tables ?
[64][3][2]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-07
20:05:25 UTC ---
What are the array bounds for _dec->state.dequant_tables ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-05-07 20:02:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 27334
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27334
preprocessed testfile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
Bug #: 53269
Summary: [4.8 Regression] firefox crashes in
/media/libtheora/lib/decode.c when compiled with -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53268
Bug #: 53268
Summary: [4.8 Regression] [SH] libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp
failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-07 19:04:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Has the situation improved?
current trunk LTO seems to fail on CP2K with:
/data/vjoost/clean/cp2k/cp2k/src/../src/rt_propagation_methods.F: In functio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-07
18:38:34 UTC ---
void foo();
void bar(int a, int b)
{
if (foo() && a < b)
;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53262
--- Comment #2 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com 2012-05-07 17:54:44 UTC ---
Unfortunately, this is no longer happening for me. I have made system changes
today but no changes to gcc at all. But now the test passes just fine. So
there is no long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-07
17:44:52 UTC ---
The thing is, C++11 introduces list-initialized temporaries; I could rewrite
the testcase in C++11 as
extern "C" int printf (const char *, ...);
int main()
{
typedef int AR[4];
f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-07
17:42:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> mulhwu is a powerpc but not rs6000 instruction.
When a file failed to compile, I noticed that specifying -mcpu=powerpc got
things going again. I'm not c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-07
17:27:53 UTC ---
mulhwu is a powerpc but not rs6000 instruction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #16 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-05-07
17:17:06 UTC ---
Reload inheritance generally gives up on handling subregs of pseudos, mostly
because there is no mechanism to track invalidation of parts of pseudos.
Now, in this particular case wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #7 from davidxl 2012-05-07 17:03:51
UTC ---
Yes, the array case should be warned or disallowed if 1 is the way to go.
I won't call it a lousy choice -- the C++ semantics of the compound literals
allow more agressive optimization and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #13 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-07
17:04:05 UTC ---
Here is the patch to do function multiversioning which is under review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00078.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #12 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-07
16:54:57 UTC ---
Will do, thanks.
-Sri.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #11 from vince
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #6 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-07
16:28:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> 1) to keep the current G++ semantics of compound literals, but change its
> behavior due to the implementation change (with clobber marker);
I would arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-07
16:25:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> In general, build_range_check can return NULL_TREE. Just matter of doing:
>
> if (tem && integer_zerop (tem))
> return;
>
> like a few line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #5 from davidxl 2012-05-07 16:18:13
UTC ---
So it is possible either
1) to keep the current G++ semantics of compound literals, but change its
behavior due to the implementation change (with clobber marker);
or
2) to change hte G++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46578
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53267
Bug #: 53267
Summary: Constant fold BUILT_IN_FMOD
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-07
15:11:54 UTC ---
In general, build_range_check can return NULL_TREE. Just matter of doing:
if (tem && integer_zerop (tem))
return;
like a few lines below?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-07 15:00:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Would
>
> DW_TAG_structure_type
> DW_AT_declaration
> DW_AT_signature
>
> be better?
I also think GDB read_structure_type should cope with it right.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-07
14:47:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes; I wanted to know first if this is an intended change.
It was.
> FYI it does not seem to be DWARF compliant:
> The typedef entry has a DW_AT_name att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-07
14:46:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Looking at your second patch it looks entirely reasonable, though not
> globbing MULT_EXPR together with PLUS/MINUS might be better for readability
I wonder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
14:40:43 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon May 7 14:40:33 2012
New Revision: 187248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187248
Log:
PR middle-end/53245
* gimplify.c (prepro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #42 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-07
14:34:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> I lost a bit the overview, but I think the following still needs to be done:
>
> - 4.4/4.5/4.6: Backporting the fix for nonpresent actuals to elemental pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-07 14:32:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The testcase is failing because of the change from "A*" to "struct A*"?
Yes.
> Is that an important distinction?
In other cases it even crashes GDB, orig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at redhat dot com |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
Bug #: 53266
Summary: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `mulhwu'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-07
14:21:30 UTC ---
<21e> is there as a local stub so that multiple references to the same
.debug_types type can use (smaller) local DIE references instead of all needing
to use DW_FORM_sig8.
The testcas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov 2012-05-07
14:07:58 UTC ---
I have opened PR 53265
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Bug #: 53265
Summary: Warn when undefined behavior implies smaller iteration
count
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #11 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:59:49
UTC ---
Also add -flto-partition=none to linker option can solve the issue.(In reply to
comment #10)
> These are all references to virtual tables taken local. Maybe Honza has an
> idea,
> but unfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53236
--- Comment #10 from Fernando Pelliccioni
2012-05-07 13:58:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> [..]
> > Here the corrected code with proper comments.
> [..]
> > auto yyy = d.get();// #ifndef WITH_USING_DECLARA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
13:57:49 UTC ---
Duh!
Index: gimplify.c
===
--- gimplify.c (revision 187219)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -1658,6 +1658,10 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-07
13:50:17 UTC ---
Looking at your second patch it looks entirely reasonable, though not
globbing MULT_EXPR together with PLUS/MINUS might be better for readability
(thus, in the end I'd like extract
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53236
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-07 13:50:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
[..]
> Here the corrected code with proper comments.
[..]
> auto yyy = d.get();// #ifndef WITH_USING_DECLARATION ->
> Compile-time error-> GCC is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
--- Comment #1 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-05-07 13:47:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 27333
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27333
Proposed fix (against 4.7.0 sources)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #9 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:46:30
UTC ---
Also add -flto-partition=none to linker option can solve the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
Bug #: 53264
Summary: gcc/gcov-io.c and gcc/libgcov.c fail to compile
(target vxWorks - gcc 4.7.0)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #8 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:44:47
UTC ---
GCC4.7 also has the problem now:
-
g++.exe -shared -Wl,--out-implib=devel\libwxpropgrid.a -Wl,--dll
-Lbase\tinyxm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-07
13:42:10 UTC ---
In fact, the main show-stopper for adding -Wlogical-op to -Wextra (or -Wall) is
PR40172, which was the reason it was moved out of -Wextra in the first place.
Someone would need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-05-07
13:37:05 UTC ---
> No, the system libstdc++ was compiled with gcc-4.6. How would I find out what
> they do differently? (Compiler debugging is rather far from my area of
> expertise.)
Do you know the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #5 from Pawel Sikora 2012-05-07 13:34:43
UTC ---
callgrind shows that n*10e3 of pq.push() generates m*10e6 (m>n)
_M_can_advance() calls and growing fast :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53255
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-07
13:33:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 7 13:33:27 2012
New Revision: 187241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187241
Log:
PR tree-optimization/53239
* tree-vrp.c (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
--- Comment #3 from Tom Callaway 2012-05-07
13:31:47 UTC ---
No, the system libstdc++ was compiled with gcc-4.6. How would I find out what
they do differently? (Compiler debugging is rather far from my area of
expertise.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
David Kastrup changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dak at gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-07
13:31:08 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 7 13:31:00 2012
New Revision: 187240
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187240
Log:
PR tree-optimization/53239
* tree-vrp.c (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49922
--- Comment #3 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:27:43
UTC ---
Using gcc4.7 can't reproduce the issue.
Mark it invalid or resolved?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53236
--- Comment #8 from Fernando Pelliccioni
2012-05-07 13:24:02 UTC ---
Sorry, the comments were wrong.
Here the corrected code with proper comments.
Tested with GCC 4.7.1 and GCC 4.6.3
// g++ -std=c++0x gcc_error_simple.cpp
// g++ -DWITH_USING_D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53239
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7 Regression] VRP vs |[4.7/4.8 Regression] VRP vs
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48423
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53195
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhezherun at yandex dot ru
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52778
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52776
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53250
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52322
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #24 from andi at firstfloor dot org 2012-05-07 13:08:08 UTC ---
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:54:10AM +, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
>
> --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-05-07 13:05:18 UTC ---
Please post on this PR when a version of 4.8 exists that supports the feature
(I saw several patches proposed and even committed)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53195
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48423
--- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-05-07 13:01:51 UTC ---
For what "we" are concerned it is obsolete.
1) things changed somehow between 4.6.0 and 4.6.1
2) is not there anymore in 4.7 and 4.8
in any case the original problem was most pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50620
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53195
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-07
13:00:44 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 7 13:00:39 2012
New Revision: 187237
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187237
Log:
2012-05-07 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50468
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53195
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-07
12:59:10 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 7 12:59:05 2012
New Revision: 187235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187235
Log:
2012-05-07 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
