http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53721
Bug #: 53721
Summary: "this" not allowed in trailing return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53720
Bug #: 53720
Summary: 4.2.1 is still the current version of G++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #13 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-19 03:01:16 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Tue Jun 19 03:01:10 2012
New Revision: 188766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188766
Log:
2012-06-18 Joey Ye
Backported from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51205
Michael Bruck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Bemmel 2012-06-19
00:08:01 UTC ---
There are more SSE4.2 instruction which allow an unaligned memory operand:
* pcmpistri
* pcmpistrm
* pcmpestri
* pcmpestrm
* crc32
(and maybe others?)
Did you catch them all?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2, 4.8.0
Known to fail|4.7.0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-19
00:00:11 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 18 23:59:59 2012
New Revision: 188760
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188760
Log:
2012-06-19 Jörg Sonnenberger
Jonathan Wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-18
21:44:08 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 18 21:43:58 2012
New Revision: 188755
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188755
Log:
2012-06-18 Jörg Sonnenberger
Jonathan Wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-18
20:45:18 UTC ---
Could it be revision 181505?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-18
20:35:51 UTC ---
Revision 181425 (2011-11-16) is OK,
revision 181881 (2011-12-01) is not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53675
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe 2012-06-18 20:11:01
UTC ---
Thanks,
works for me, i686-darwin9 all langs bootstrap & check, fixes the ObjC fails.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 20:04:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> just as a side note: most of my bugreports come from compiling babel's
> regression test suite. Babel is a language interoperability tool that (also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53719
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-18
19:56:13 UTC ---
I think you might need a newer version of gdb to work correctly with GCC 4.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8743
Christian Häggström changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at kalvdans dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53719
Bug #: 53719
Summary: can't display x87 stack information
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #2 from Adrian Prantl 2012-06-18 18:55:11
UTC ---
just as a side note: most of my bugreports come from compiling babel's
regression test suite. Babel is a language interoperability tool that (also)
generates bindings for Fortran 2003.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 18:41:31 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:41:25 2012
New Revision: 188753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188753
Log:
PR target/53712
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53692
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53700
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-06-18
18:34:12 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:34:01 2012
New Revision: 188750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188750
Log:
2012-06-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53692
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-18
18:32:05 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:31:54 2012
New Revision: 188749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188749
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-18
18:15:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:15:51 2012
New Revision: 188748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188748
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-18
18:14:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:14:06 2012
New Revision: 188747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188747
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
Bug #: 53718
Summary: gfortran generates asm label twice in the same output
file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-06-18 17:42:36
UTC ---
BTW: I am testing attached patch with following lex.c patch:
--cut here--
Index: libcpp/lex.c
===
--- libcpp/lex.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53675
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-netbsd5.1|
Host|x86_64-unknown-netb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-06-18
16:56:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> We know the instantiations that are needed, but I don't want to define them
> for
> all platforms if they're not needed elsewhere. I also have no way
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53303
Aurelien Buhrig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Reload/RA issue on |Reload/RA issue on word
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-18
15:47:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > I don't think we support --with-multilib-list yet for arm -
> If not, what is the proper way to sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-18
15:26:03 UTC ---
We know the instantiations that are needed, but I don't want to define them for
all platforms if they're not needed elsewhere. I also have no way of testing on
AIX, so someone needs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53716
Bug #: 53716
Summary: Intentional or bug? Inconsistencies in error
diagnostics in function redeclaration involving
stdcall attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52908
--- Comment #9 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 15:10:51 UTC ---
Author: vekumar
Date: Mon Jun 18 15:10:45 2012
New Revision: 188736
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188736
Log:
Back port Fix PR 52908 - xop-mul-1:f9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario-baumann at web dot de
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53715
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-18
14:22:05 UTC ---
Please don't just use this PR for "me too" comments about interoperability
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Target Milestone|4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
--- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Blot 2012-06-18
14:06:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think we support --with-multilib-list yet for arm -
If not, what is the proper way to specify the libraries to build for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
14:05:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 18 14:05:27 2012
New Revision: 188733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188733
Log:
2012-06-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53688
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
13:50:28 UTC ---
NEW_PAGE seems to be miscompiled - we fail to output JOB_ID_RECORD%VERSION
('SPEC CPU'), the comparison difference is lots of
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@
43255/31.1579E+03 -8.1233
Linux ahsoka.intec.dom 2.6.32-220.17.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Apr 26 13:37:13
EDT 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> rpm -qa "glibc*" | grep -e 'glibc-[0-9]' | sort -u
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6_2.12.i686
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6_2.12.x86_64
> g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53698
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-18
12:42:12 UTC ---
A clean bootstrap of revision 188725 with the patch in comment #2 just finished
without any problem. In addition the patch fixed the following failures in the
tests of obj-c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43581
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-06-18 12:29:44 UTC ---
I get a segfault if I add -Wl,--icf=all (for gold)
c++ -Wl,-v -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer -pthread -O2 lib.cpp -flto
-ffunction-sections -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -shared
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-06-18
12:22:40 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jun 18 12:22:37 2012
New Revision: 188731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188731
Log:
gcc:
2012-06-18 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43759
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-18
11:47:57 UTC ---
Using dg-require-weak does not fix the failures, but the test is skipped with
the following patch:
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr52634_0.c2012-04-10
08:58:02.000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #10 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-18 11:13:20
UTC ---
Now, for an interesting note:
if instead of 'string test(n);' I put 'printf("%d\n", n);', not only the bug
*still* happens, but the result if funny:
first a '0' gets printed, but after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
10:56:23 UTC ---
Fact is we detect
D.2215_20 = (int) gh_18;
D.2216_21 = D.2215_20 << 5;
D.2217_22 = (signed short) D.2216_21;
but do not see the use
D._27 = D.2211_15 - D.2215_20;
fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #9 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-18 10:43:50
UTC ---
The code is not mine and it's about as convoluted (if not more) as freeciv was
(that was the *initial* part of bug 39333 - the upstream workaround was
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
10:22:24 UTC ---
Reduced testcase, it seems we are getting conflicts between two patterns.
void
filter_scanlines (void *src_buffer, void *dst_buffer, int dst_pitch, int width)
{
int x;
unsigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
10:04:36 UTC ---
Btw, when removing the 'string test(n)' line the function gets inlined and
eliminated, so that is not of much help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-06-18 10:03:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> the testcase works as expected. Still with the "redundant"(?) instruction
> though. Thus your source is invalid but the missed-optimization looks
> odd (tho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
--- Comment #10 from Niall Douglas
2012-06-18 10:01:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I'm ambivalent.
Ok then. Well, thanks for all your help and very useful input. As we have
something now which is very close to a code patch, I suppose we l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-18
09:59:55 UTC ---
> ok if it passes bootstrap & regtesting for you.
Clean bootstrap®testing scheduled for tonight. Meanwhile with a simple
update of revision 188723 and objc testing only, the pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672
--- Comment #9 from John Forrest 2012-06-18
09:59:11 UTC ---
Balaji,
That works and on a few other cases I have altered back.
Hopefully that is that.
Thanks
John
On 18/06/12 03:08, bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
09:58:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
> > (regarding freeciv, IIRC) of a similar case f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-18
09:58:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
> (regarding freeciv, IIRC) of a similar case for an older gcc version.
>
> A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-18
09:50:01 UTC ---
It's a bit surprising, but I guess it makes sense. I'd reorder the
initializers too, so that we release stuff in the reverse order of allocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #5 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-18 09:46:17
UTC ---
The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
(regarding freeciv, IIRC) of a similar case for an older gcc version.
As for gcc 4.6.4, when will it be rele
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #10 from joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de 2012-06-18 09:44:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 27649
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27649
Fix for undefined references
Patch for 4.7.1 with the two missing instantiations.
Works for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53713
--- Comment #2 from joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de 2012-06-18 09:39:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> probably related to PR 52887
Yes, seems to be the same bug. But I've used --disable-bootstrap.
I am testing the proposed fixes for PR 52887 and wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53714
Bug #: 53714
Summary: false positive for -Wuninitialized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53698
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-18 09:32:56 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jun 18 09:32:51 2012
New Revision: 188725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188725
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/53698
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53700
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53713
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-18
08:31:12 UTC ---
probably related to PR 52887
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-18 08:24:51 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
>
> --- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-18
> 07:09:04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53713
Bug #: 53713
Summary: undefined reference with -brtl
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-18
07:50:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27648
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27648
gcc48-pr53706.patch
The attached patch fixes the problem for me. Alex, what do you think about it?
Nobody have the answer ?
I'm desperate ... :(
miloutch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a small problem. I am making a new pass for my gcc, and some of my
> adds are deleted by optimization passes.
> here is the code i add :
>
> t = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_ACC_SETUPARGUMENT);
> g = gimple_bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-18
07:09:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I don't see how r187965 could cause this, but I do see the problem.
> mark_sym_for_renaming (called via the s390 va_arg_expr expander) is called
> during,
87 matches
Mail list logo
