http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-12-08 07:48:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28899
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28899
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
Bug #: 55619
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Chromium build fails with: error:
memory input is not directly addressable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-12-08
03:32:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 8 03:31:56 2012
New Revision: 194319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194319
Log:
PR c++/55419
* tree.c (build_ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-12-08
03:31:43 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 8 03:31:37 2012
New Revision: 194318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194318
Log:
PR c++/55127
* search.c (access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-12-08
03:31:33 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Dec 8 03:31:25 2012
New Revision: 194317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194317
Log:
PR c++/55419
* tree.c (build_ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-08
03:14:29 UTC ---
The failing testcase in gdb appears as...
gdb ./covariant3.exe
...
(gdb) br _GLOBAL__sub_I_covariant3.C
Breakpoint 1 at 0x11ce2: file covariant3.C, line 85.
(gdb) displa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-12-08
01:20:33 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Sat Dec 8 01:19:13 2012
New Revision: 194316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194316
Log:
PR c++/55513
* semantics.c (c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-12-07
23:29:28 UTC ---
I don't understand how this sort of unaligned access that modifies unrelated
objects can fit in with any reasonable threaded memory model, but I guess
that's beyond the scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-07
22:02:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> R0 is a fixed register, it should not be used for spilling or be allocated by
> IRA.
But apparently RA believes it has to, to satisfy some constr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-12-07
21:13:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28898
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28898
Test case (still depends on the iso_varying_string module)
Slightly reduced test case - sti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf 2012-12-07 21:09:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> * With the patch and the warning activated, the compiler crashes in
> gcc/incpath.c's remove_duplicates for cur->name == "/no/such/dir".
Yes, I get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55141
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-07
21:06:49 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 7 21:06:38 2012
New Revision: 194308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194308
Log:
2012-12-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
Bug #: 55618
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Failures with
ISO_Varying_String test suite
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-12-07 18:49:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> This patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/lto-symtab.c b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
> index 0b0cdac..295fd37 100644
> --- a/gcc/lto-symtab.c
> +++ b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55610
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
18:03:05 UTC ---
It appears that the change in Comment 4 only works if dragonegg is built with
clang. Using the patch from
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-December/056882.html to allow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55610
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
17:35:00 UTC ---
--- gcc-4.7.2/gcc/config/host-darwin.c.orig 2012-12-07 11:30:48.0
-0500
+++ gcc-4.7.2/gcc/config/host-darwin.c 2012-12-07 11:39:21.0 -0500
@@ -57,8 +57,8 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54401
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54401
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-12-07
17:05:40 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Dec 7 17:05:19 2012
New Revision: 194306
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194306
Log:
PR c++/54401 - Confusing diagnostics about type-a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab 2012-12-07 16:45:49
UTC ---
The failure disappeared somewhere between r190830 and r191055.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
16:27:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> If you want me to revert that patchlet of mine don't be afraid to ask, after
> all was just an ice on invalid, no big deal. Can do that immediately an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-12-07
16:20:35 UTC ---
If you want me to revert that patchlet of mine don't be afraid to ask, after
all was just an ice on invalid, no big deal. Can do that immediately and then
we have all the time t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55395
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
16:04:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 7 16:04:26 2012
New Revision: 194304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194304
Log:
PR fortran/55395
* varpool.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
15:44:16 UTC ---
This might be due to the code...
/* Startup code should go to startup subsection unless it is
unlikely executed (this happens especially with function splitting
wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55419
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-07
15:40:08 UTC ---
> That is what the memcpy folding folds it to. We could perhaps stop for
> 4.6/4.7
> doing such replacements in memcpy folding if it would try to decrease
> alignment
> of so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
15:28:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> How can a union have alignment 8 if it contains a field with alignment 128?
> That should only happen if the field is a bit-field...
That is what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
kpx1894 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kpx1894 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
14:59:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 28896
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28896
Untested patch
I'm bootstrapping and testing this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-07
14:57:28 UTC ---
> The difference from broken to working starts at the esra pass:
> :
> - MEM[(char * {ref-all})x_1].v = r$v_15;
> + MEM[(char * {ref-all})x_1] = r$v_15;
>x_8 = x_1 + 16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
14:56:15 UTC ---
As far as I can remember, my changes in revision 186501 depended on
previous work in expander and cannot be simply backported without
those prerequisites (or breaking strict-ali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #22 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu 2012-12-07 14:53:27 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:50:40PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
>
> --- Comment #21 from Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
14:50:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 28895
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28895
gdb log of stepi walk from 38th breakpoint of
__dyld__ZN16ImageLoaderMachO18doModInitFunctions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-07
14:48:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28894
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28894
assembly file for covariant3.C compiled with -fsanitize=address on
x86_64-apple-darwin12
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin 2012-12-07
14:47:55 UTC ---
Patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00042.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
Bug #: 55617
Summary: static constructors are not being instrumented
correctly on darwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55569
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #43 from Richard Biener 2012-12-07
14:28:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> > Re-adjust target milestone. Please somebody revisit the regression status
> > and fill in known-to-work/fail fields. ISTR it only fails on darw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
14:19:31 UTC ---
Please post patches to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-07
14:14:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 7 14:14:25 2012
New Revision: 194303
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194303
Log:
PR bootstrap/54926
* Makefile.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55616
Bug #: 55616
Summary: bogus warning about undefined overflow after overflow
check
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-12-07 13:50:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > Fixed?
>
> Note on x86_64-apple-darwin12 which uses a newer Objective C runtime. There
> are
> failures in...
It would probably be n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-12-07 13:40:17 UTC ---
> Re-adjust target milestone. Please somebody revisit the regression status
> and fill in known-to-work/fail fields. ISTR it only fails on darwin.
(1) doduc.f90 is c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
--- Comment #7 from Kenneth Zadeck 2012-12-07
13:39:10 UTC ---
alexandre,
when we did the dataflow stuff, my expertise was primarily in deciding which
problems could be applied to which of the passes and how and when to actually
(re)sol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-07
13:34:36 UTC ---
rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> spill in class 'R0_REG'
Spilling is a bug in the register allocator, or am I missing something.
Besides that, I am getting this mail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-12-07 13:33:16 UTC ---
On 6-Dec-12, at 1:39 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-12-07
13:16:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 7 13:16:28 2012
New Revision: 194302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194302
Log:
2012-12-07 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55590
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
13:05:57 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 7 13:05:52 2012
New Revision: 194301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194301
Log:
2012-12-07 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55466
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-12-07 13:02:12
UTC ---
I am testing this patch:
---
diff --git a/gcc/lto-symtab.c b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
index 0b0cdac..295fd37 100644
--- a/gcc/lto-symtab.c
+++ b/gcc/lto-symtab.c
@@ -443,10 +443,6 @@ lt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #10 from Richar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55590
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
12:50:46 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 7 12:50:43 2012
New Revision: 194300
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194300
Log:
2012-12-07 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55615
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53475
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55615
Bug #: 55615
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Failed to bootstrap with
--with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=atom
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[4.8 Regre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
Bug #: 55614
Summary: vector extensions cause movdqa to be generated for
memcpy on unaligned buffer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-12-07
12:06:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > -Og -g0 doesn't produce debug info, so it should fail all debugger tests.
> > -Og -g should work.
>
> -Og -g0 is nee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
--- Comment #14 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-07
11:59:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Please hold on with that, seems BB_END is BARRIER, which is wrong.
> Starting with distilling a testcase...
Perhaps Alex' is right that the rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55613
Bug #: 55613
Summary: Better warning for reference to struct type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54783
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54781
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55273
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-07
11:40:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Douglas, can you help investigate the mmap error?
>
> Run "gcc -v". It will show a line executing the program cc1. Run gdb
> on cc1 with the ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54731
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo