http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57211
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47226
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57364
Bug ID: 57364
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression][OOP] ICE
gfc_enforce_clean_symbol_state
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44402
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57352
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 from P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37108
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57352
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
--- Comment #9 from Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
--- Comment #8 from Bud Davis ---
The compiler generates code for min and max that checks if an argument is NaN.
(floating point numbers only, of course).
This is different than the example you posted, as it would not give the correct
answer whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57345
--- Comment #6 from signupnathan at gmail dot com ---
OK. Noted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57363
Bug ID: 57363
Summary: IBM long double: adding NaN and number raises inexact
exception
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #1 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com ---
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/rdrive/ref/gcc/4.8.0/rhel60/efi2/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/site/spt/rdrive/ref/gcc/4.8.0/rhel60/efi2/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/lto-w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
Bug ID: 57362
Summary: unsupported __attribute__((target())) values appear to
cause loop and/or pathological behavior
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57361
Bug ID: 57361
Summary: Remove self memory assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Bug ID: 57360
Summary: Implement a warning for implied save
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think this testcase is invalid.
C/C++ just disallow type punning through unions altogether (only one union
member can be active at each point), while GCC allows it as an extension, it
requires the accesses b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
outputs '1' instead of '0'. This behavior does not
occur on 4.7.
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 4.9.0 20130521 (experimental) [trunk revision 199148] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 wrong.c
$ ./a.out
0
$ gcc-4.7 -O3 wrong.c
$ ./a.out
0
$ gcc-trunk -O3 w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
--- Comment #7 from Brian Taylor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> But vectorization reorders the loop iterations, thus say if some value is
> sNaN, you'd get exceptions in different order. So, I'm afraid without
> -ffast-math you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57338
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57035
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57035
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue May 21 17:27:04 2013
New Revision: 199158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-05-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/57035
* intrinsic.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57357
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Dup of PR 55185 which asks for the error to be delayed until the problematic
function is really called?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57357
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to thutt from comment #2)
> Can you please explain why it's invalid to return a double if SSE is
> disabled?
> SSE is an x86-specific hardware implementation and has nothing to do with
> language val
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57357
--- Comment #2 from thutt at vmware dot com ---
Can you please explain why it's invalid to return a double if SSE is disabled?
SSE is an x86-specific hardware implementation and has nothing to do with
language validity from my standpoint.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
>
>--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
>> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199140&root=gcc&view=rev
>> Log:
>> 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #14)
> > In that post (comment 6) I was citing the patch you attached to this report,
> > which says:
> >
>
> OK that's clear. Wrong attachment
>
> > like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57340
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I'll take a look.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57356
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #14 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> In that post (comment 6) I was citing the patch you attached to this report,
> which says:
>
OK that's clear. Wrong attachment
> like you said. Presumably that attached part should have b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #13 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 30156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156
patch
ndex: arm.c
===
--- arm.c(revision 19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #12 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 30156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156
patch
Index: arm.c
===
--- arm.c (revisio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
Bug ID: 57358
Summary: segmentation fault with attribute(optimize(O0))
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> In any case, if you have
Err... stray line. Ignor that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #9)
> no, in fact, you confused me. The patch was committed correctly :-)
>
> > On a side note, in your patch you say:
> > - t = one_reg_loc_descriptor (REG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #9 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
no, in fact, you confused me. The patch was committed correctly :-)
> On a side note, in your patch you say:
> - t = one_reg_loc_descriptor (REGNO (XVECEXP (regs, 0, i)),
> + reg = REGNO (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #7)
> thanks for catching it.
No problem, thanks for fixing :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> (In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
> > > If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272
> > > which
> > > seem to me like it could b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Dvorak ---
I will have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57354
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
> > If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272 which
> > seem to me like it could be reg number in DWARF numbering?
>
> yes it is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199140&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2013-05-21 Richard Biener
>
> PR tree-optimization/57318
> * tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (tree_estimate_loop_size): Do not
> es
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272 which
> seem to me like it could be reg number in DWARF numbering?
yes it is. strange, I can't see this new failure, with a f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53991
--- Comment #7 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A piece of code is tm_pure if, roughly, it doesn't need any instrumentation
(e.g., in contrast to memory loads/stores). In the test case, I suppose that
the compiler detects that it is tm_pure, bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Mon, 20 May 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > +/* Remove *p = *p. */
> > +if (!inplace && TREE_CODE_CLASS (subcode) == tcc_reference
> > +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57349
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Reduced testcase, fails with -O -fbranch-probabilities
struct __jmp_buf_tag { };
typedef struct __jmp_buf_tag jmp_buf[1];
typedef struct cop COP;
typedef struct gv GV;
struct cop {
GV * cop_filegv;
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
hmmm...
now I'm getting a different ICE:
internal compiler error: in arm_dbx_register_number, at config/arm/arm.c:25834
a gcc_unreachable () is reached.
If I print out the regno argument to arm_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57289
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57347
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57357
Bug ID: 57357
Summary: Error with '-mno-sse' and include wchar.h
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Under test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156&action=edit
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57356
Bug ID: 57356
Summary: gcc-4.8: SSE2 instructions generated with '-mno-sse2'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57352
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
Most likely related to PR51908
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57355
--- Comment #3 from croutch ---
Created attachment 30155
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30155&action=edit
gcc-native-ivy-detect
This patch is not from me and not tested by me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57355
--- Comment #2 from croutch ---
I have a.
Intel Core i5 3570K 3,4Ghz (Ivy Bridge)
I use gentoo linux with gcc 4.7.3 and those settings.
CFLAGS="-march=native -O2 -pipe"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
MAKEOPTS="-j4"
>From manual.
core-avx-i = for ivy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57355
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|plugins |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56754
--- Comment #6 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Duncan Sands from comment #5)
> Was there any feedback on this patch?
sadly, no response so far (this bug is still UNCONFIRMED even), so it's
probably not going to make 4.8.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57355
Bug ID: 57355
Summary: -march=native ivy bridge i5 shows tuning for sandy
bridge
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57354
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Fuka ---
valgrind ./a.out
==17600== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==17600== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==17600== Using Valgrind-3.8.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57354
Bug ID: 57354
Summary: Wrong run-time assignment of allocatable array of
derived type with allocatable component
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57353
Bug ID: 57353
Summary: unrecognizable insn in decLibrary.c, ICE in
extract_insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 May 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Fixed
Thanks. Is the slowness of the sched2 pass tracked elsewhere? Or is that a
normal speed for many volatile ops?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57347
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (revision 199137)
> +++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57352
Bug ID: 57352
Summary: internal compiler error in
cp_parser_abort_tentative_parse at cp/parser.c:22878
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57289
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #6 from Mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
Bug ID: 57351
Summary: ICE: internal compiler error: in dbx_reg_number, at
dwarf2out.c:10507 on arm-none-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Krauss from comment #0)
> C++11 §20.6.5 [ptr.align] remains unimplemented.
>
> Several years ago I published what now appears to be a compliant
> implementation, but it was under the MIT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Yes, you generally need -ffast-math here (or -ffinite-math-only at least).
SSE2 has an unord comparison instruction (aka isnan) though, so vectorizing the
full ver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57330
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I have a simple patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57330
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
Summary|[4.8 regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57319
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57322
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57328
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, you generally need -ffast-math here (or -ffinite-math-only at least).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57344
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, the problem is definitely in store_split_bit_field.
One possible fix is:
--- gcc/expmed.c.jj2013-05-14 10:54:58.0 +0200
+++ gcc/expmed.c2013-05-21 10:54:59.707793889 +0200
@@ -1094,10 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|416.gamess ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Target Mileston
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57344
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
Known to work|
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
