http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
06:31:50 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 2 21:09:38 2013
New Revision: 197375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/34949
* decl.c (begin_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
06:31:13 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:27:45 2013
New Revision: 197370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/34949
* tree-ssa-alias.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
06:31:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:25:36 2013
New Revision: 197369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/34949
* tree-cfg.c (ver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56745
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56745
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
06:30:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:31:37 2013
New Revision: 197372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/56745
* ifc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56745
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-03
06:29:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 2 18:29:18 2013
New Revision: 197371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/56745
* ifc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #5 from __vic 2013-04-03 06:24:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> From gcc manpage, the option '-std=' specifies base standard and
> accept some GNU extensions that do not contradict it.
>
> If you would like to issue warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #29 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-04-03
05:59:53 UTC ---
Ported to 4.7 and 4.6, though no bugzilla commit made. Do I close the bug or
do we want to fix the front-end to produce the proper volatile bits?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56822
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*darwin*
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56822
Bug #: 56822
Summary: std::promise seems broken on 10.8 lion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
--- Comment #6 from Vincent 2013-04-02 23:48:41 UTC
---
bash-4.1$ cat test.res
3
test.o 4
459 b27d8a298c16d07e PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY_EXP check_vpx_codec_dec_init_ver
475 b27d8a298c16d07e PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY_EXP main
463 b27d8a298c16d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56799
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-04-02 22:18:39
UTC ---
The test to verify we were doing a widening conversion was lost when I made the
tweaks Richi suggested. I'll have a fix in the tree tomorrow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56821
Bug #: 56821
Summary: Unable to overload with references to 'this'.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
--- Comment #5 from Jan Smets 2013-04-02
21:28:37 UTC ---
-gstrict-dwarf does not disable type sections in GCC 4.6, the result is
unchanged. With 4.8 the behaviour is what you described.
Is it really that much trouble to add a DW_TAG_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50243
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-02
21:19:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29782
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29782
possible patch
The patches we checked in today for 34949 almost fix this bug as well, but n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56820
Bug #: 56820
Summary: elaborated-type-specifier friend incorrectly looked up
beyond innermost enclosing namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56819
Bug #: 56819
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in int_cst_value
(tree.h:4013) with -fcompare-debug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
--- Comment #4 from Cary Coutant 2013-04-02
20:34:57 UTC ---
In GCC 4.6, type sections were the default for -gdwarf-4, but -gdwarf-2 was
still the default for 4.6, I think. If you explicitly ask for -gdwarf-4, you
can also add -gstrict-dwa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #18 from incrediball 2013-04-02 20:21:06
UTC ---
Not sure if I can agree with (or understand) this comment. If we use my example
of the address of an int in a packed structure being assigned to an int* then
one could argue that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
--- Comment #2 from Dominique Pelletier
2013-04-02 19:04:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 29779
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29779
modules from metcalf's modern fortran explainde
DP@P-DP /cygdrive/c/users/dp/Desktop/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Dominique Pelletier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominique.pelletier at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
--- Comment #4 from Dominique Pelletier
2013-04-02 19:02:36 UTC ---
DP@P-DP /cygdrive/c/users/dp/Desktop/metcalf
$ gfortran -v -c bug_report.f03
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=C:\Program Files (x86)\gfortran\bin\gfortran.exe
Target: m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Dominique Pelletier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29777|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Bug #: 56818
Summary: [meta-bug] fortran-dev bugs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56817
Bug #: 56817
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in
hide_evolution_in_other_loops_than_loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
--- Comment #3 from Jan Smets 2013-04-02
18:11:41 UTC ---
For me it's very important. To briefly describe what we do: we have structures
that are sent to different platforms with configuration information for fail
over/redundancy/etc. Fir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Dominique Pelletier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56816
Bug #: 56816
Summary: f951.exe internal compiler error. segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56805
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-02
17:25:18 UTC ---
The check is in interface.c's check_result_characteristics:
/* Check PROCEDURE POINTER attribute. */
if (r1 != s1 && r1->attr.proc_pointer != r2->attr.proc_pointer)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #3 from __vic 2013-04-02 17:10:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> void* arithmetic is a GCC extension.
But why my examples are treated differently?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-02
17:04:31 UTC ---
Use -pedantic-errors if you want to have rejected invalid standard C++ code.
void* arithmetic is a GCC extension.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #1 from __vic 2013-04-02 17:00:23 UTC ---
Slightly modified:
int main()
{
void *p = 0;
p++;
}
$ gcc -std=c++98 source.cpp
source.cpp:4:6: error: arithmetic on a pointer to void
p++;
~^
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Bug #: 56815
Summary: void pointer arithmetic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50789
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-02
16:31:25 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 2 16:30:26 2013
New Revision: 197361
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgfortran/
2013-04-02 Tobias Burnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
Host|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
Bug #: 56814
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus Interface mismatch in dummy
procedure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-02
15:43:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:42:31 2013
New Revision: 197359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgfortran/
2013-04-02 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56813
Bug #: 56813
Summary: [4.9 regression] invalid assembly code for
libiberty/cp-demangle.c on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22488
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-02 14:36:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> No, get_addr_base_and_unit_offset_1 only is supposed to return the
> addressable offset into an object - it doesn't care about access sizes.
It is al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-02 14:21:56 UTC ---
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
>
> --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-02
> 14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-02 14:08:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'd re-organize it like
Ok, I'll try something like that.
> it avoids building a tree just to feed it into get_addr_base_and_unit_offset
The ide
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
14:06:12 UTC ---
The BB vectorization case ran into
/* When vectorizing a basic block unknown depnedence can still mean
grouped access. */
if (vect_check_interleaving (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50269
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-02
13:28:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Are we sure? When running the code example given in comment #1, I get a
> > segfault.
> Yes, something seems to be stil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-04-02
13:27:15 UTC ---
Yes, the test-case is correct. If we delete your changes we got thee following
(with -ftree-vectorizer-verbose-3):
t.cc:12: note: vectorizing stmts using SLP.BASIC BLOCK VEC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
13:25:12 UTC ---
Works for me. Are you sure -lvpx doesn't contain LTO bytecode? Can you
reproduce it with -r -nostdlib? Please provide the output of appending
-v to the link line - also look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56810
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
--- Comment #4 from peter.hans.froehlich at gmail dot com 2013-04-02 13:10:22
UTC ---
I am fine with your decision to declare this INVALID, I'd just like to
understand the reasoning. You're saying that it's okay for code injected by gcc
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56799
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-02 12:11:12
UTC ---
See the discussion at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00692.html
which continues at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00049.html
for why we won
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-04-02
11:41:23 UTC ---
Sorry, i did a typo in -march option - it must be -march=corei7 -mavx.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
11:27:09 UTC ---
I have a fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-04-02
11:22:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29775
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29775
testcase
Need to compile with -O3 -funroll-loops options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56812
Bug #: 56812
Summary: Simple loop is not SLP-vectorized after r196872
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
11:19:35 UTC ---
The issue is that gimple_seq_add_seq updates stmts added. But we update SSA
form _before_ adding the sequence into the IL stream:
/* End loop-exit-fixes after versioning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Bug #: 56811
Summary: gcc build fails: Unsatisfied symbol
"_Unwind_GetIPInfo"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi, |arm-none-eabi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56771
--- Comment #6 from Chris Johns 2013-04-02
11:04:29 UTC ---
It looks to me like libcpp/configure.ac is not setting 'need_64bit_hwint' to
'yes'. It looks like the RTEMS ptch to change arm-rtems*eabi to arm-rtems*
needs to have this added.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56810
Bug #: 56810
Summary: record-repeat fails kind check on complex read
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
--- Comment #4 from Vincent 2013-04-02 09:45:29 UTC
---
After rebuild all LTO objects the same happened.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-02 09:43:57 UTC ---
Similar problem on aarch64-none-elf. The testcase produces this ICE with
aarch64-none-elf-gcc ice.c -S
ice.c:28:1: internal compiler error: in aarch64_output_cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56804
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56786
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|ICE on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56775
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56769
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
08:58:24 UTC ---
*** Bug 56769 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28315
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
08:30:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I believe the discussion here is missing the point. Currently (at least with
> version 4.5 and ARM, which I am currently using) the situation is th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener 2013-04-02
08:30:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > What Ada does looks just like a workaround for what should be done properly
> > in
> > the expander. So no, IMHO we shouldn't be changing all o
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
