http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Just to be sure, what version of the trunk are both of you using?
202346 for me. Configured with --prefix=... --with-system-zlib --disable-nls
--enable-libstdcxx-t
/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:20:5: internal compiler error: Floating point exception
int main ()
^
0x924b2f crash_signal
--with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O1 small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
small.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
--- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su ---
I wasn't able to reproduce the ICE using the given testcase (pt.ii) with trunk
revision 202308, but I encountered an ICE (at -O2 and -O3 with -g) in the same
source location. It's reported as 58342 with the foll
trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O2 -g -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -g -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:8:5: internal compiler erro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
Bug ID: 58340
Summary: [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler
error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at
tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58341
Bug ID: 58341
Summary: Doc conflicts with standard on forbidden range of
`result` in copy_backward()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
If the actual topic is warning for self-initialization, or something like that,
we have one or even two bugs already in Bugzilla ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Also, clang gives a warning:
struct A {
int f() const { return 1000; }
A(int arg) : member(arg) { }
int member;
};
namespace {
int func(const A &a)
{
return a.f();
}
}
int main() {
A a(func(a));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-mingw*
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Bur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58341
--- Comment #1 from Kristian Spangsege ---
Important related information here:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/Talk:cpp/algorithm/copy_backward
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Untested patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/interface.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/interface.c
@@ -2135 +2135,2 @@ compare_parameter (gfc_symbol *formal, gfc_expr *actual,
- || (actual->rank != 0 && !(is_elemental || forma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58341
--- Comment #2 from Kristian Spangsege ---
And more importantly, here:
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#1206
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 30754
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30754&action=edit
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Mike Stump from comment #18)
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:43 AM, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
> wrote:
> >* i386.c (ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok): AVX modes are valid only when
> >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58339
Bug ID: 58339
Summary: ASSOCIATE construct to arrays: Wrong results (pointer
to array/array descriptor issue?)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
--- Comment #1 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
Created attachment 30757
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30757&action=edit
Assembly file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58186
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #20 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
The full commit where this was added to llvm is at
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/153081 and references
http://software.intel.com/en-us/int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> Yes and, although x86 is the dominant architecture, it shouldn't be allowed
> to penalize all the others. I think we should restrict the effect of
> r191928, in particu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Hey Jonathan, here is a simpler and more natural way to rewrite your example:
struct A {
static int f() { return 0; }
A(int) { }
};
int main() {
A a(A::f()); // it is static!
}
So, do you happ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 30755
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30755&action=edit
Assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #21 from Mike Stump ---
Don't know… I'd assume there exists a paper somewhere that says it. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
FYI, I don't think installing texinfo may have done the trick. More likely, you
had a tree with temporary glitches, can happen, when many changes are
committed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
... patches welcome!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #18 from Mike Stump ---
On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:43 AM, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
wrote:
>* i386.c (ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok): AVX modes are valid only when
>
>AVX is enabled.
llvm has:
// The first 8 512-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #16)
> Trunk still ICEs on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
>
> /sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/gcc-4.9-20130906/libobjc/sendmsg.c:848:1:
> internal compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58337
Bug ID: 58337
Summary: Mangling of nullptr_t values do not follow ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58298
Yufeng Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yufeng at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
Bug ID: 58338
Summary: Add noexcept to functions with a narrow contract
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54452
Harsha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harsha.patankar at gmail dot
com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
Without adding an attribute, can we identify those operator new that may not
return 0? Is DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW && !TREE_NOTHROW good enough, or completely
wrong? I am basing this on:
"If the request succeeds,
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth ---
Trunk still ICEs on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/gcc-4.9-20130906/libobjc/sendmsg.c:848:1:
internal compiler error: in check_rtl, at lra.c:2034
}
^
using...
r202335 | hubicka | 2013-09-06 10:39:17 -0400 (Fri, 06 Sep 2013) | 3 lines
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
Harsha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 6 15:02:03 2013
New Revision: 202337
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58094
* ipa-inline.c (has_caller_p): New function.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58336
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
I can't reproduce this on x86_64 neither -m64 nor -m32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58336
Bug ID: 58336
Summary: internal compiler error when using a static int for
the size of a char array within a class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Therefore, we can conclude that the original case tried by the combiner is
> the best way to merge/reduce the redundant zero extension insn.
Yes and, although x86 is the dominant architecture, it shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> assuming that the patch above is applied to deal with pr58139,
Indeed!
> Are you saying that:
> - if (TARGET_MACHO)
> -{
> - if (SSE_REGNO_P (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> > Yes, confirmed that on x86_64-linux r202286 is the culprit.
>
> See pr58139 comments #6 to #11.
> @@ -34466,7 +34467,7 @@ ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok (int r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
Bug ID: 58335
Summary: S/390: reload vs lra regression - testcase
builtin-in-setjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #4 from Ling-hua Tseng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> So perhaps you should just look at combiner dump and see what insns it tried
> and failed to match and see if you couldn't add some of them into the
> affected ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The PA-RISC HP-UX linker interposes import and export stubs in dynamic
> libraries.
> Whether there is a working notion of alias is somewhat unclear and
> involves digging
> into the linker code. The HP a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Yes, confirmed that on x86_64-linux r202286 is the culprit.
See pr58139 comments #6 to #11.
I have successfully bootstrapped r202312 on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with the
following patch:
--- /opt/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Better terminate if the region indeed did throw (usually it's just
> not optimized good enough).
I tihnk that is difference in between throw() and nothrow attribute.
The first produce must not throw region a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 6-Sep-13, at 3:54 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> I hoped that the targets
> either do not have runtime interposition in dynamic libraries or
> they do
> have working notion of alias.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yes, confirmed that on x86_64-linux r202286 is the culprit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10)
> My x86_64-linux builds too are broken in libobj/sendmsg.c. Thus the issue
> isn't limited to *-darwin.
hmm there appears to be a second issue - also showing on Da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
My x86_64-linux builds too are broken in libobj/sendmsg.c. Thus the issue isn't
limited to *-darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> > Well, must_not_throw would work, too.
> It will wind up in producing EH receiver with terminate, probably not what
> we want.
I think it is. Because if you hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
patch for the remainder of the fix posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00384.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Well, must_not_throw would work, too.
It will wind up in producing EH receiver with terminate, probably not what we
want.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> > The fix is to preserve this "nonthrowing". That's how I made it work
>
> Yes, this was my first tought, too.
>
> > for the abnormal edge case. Thus, wrap it i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58293
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
*** Bug 58293 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #8 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Sep 6 10:36:30 2013
New Revision: 202318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202318&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58269
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_conditional_register_usage):
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 6 10:33:48 2013
New Revision: 202317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202317&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58311
* ipa-devirt.c (gate_ipa_devirt): Only ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58199
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The fix is to preserve this "nonthrowing". That's how I made it work
Yes, this was my first tought, too.
> for the abnormal edge case. Thus, wrap it in a NOTHROW region?
I think we would have to invent it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> Thanks, I saw this problem too while compiling chromium but then it went
> away and we didn't really managed to simplify it to a testcase.
>
> The problem here i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58334
Bug ID: 58334
Summary: preprocessor behavior diffs under line continuation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 6 10:13:37 2013
New Revision: 202316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58094
* cgraph.h (symtab_semantically_equivalent_p): D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58333
Bug ID: 58333
Summary: "performance" regression when using -std=c++0x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58332
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58332
Bug ID: 58332
Summary: error: inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors
found
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
Most recent discussion about this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-07/msg00105.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I think the issue is latent - the bitmap with changed blocks fed to
rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa is the blocks scanned for _uses_, but as
far as I can see unloop sets the blocks that had a non-trivial update
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
Just adding a link to the latest message of the conversation, for future
reference:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00824.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
My point is that
> - mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (tem));
> - if (TREE_CODE (tem) == MEM_REF
> - && mode != BLKmode
> - && ((align = get_object_alignment (tem))
> - < GE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> I don't have assembler output or preprocessed source yet. There is
> some alias
> support in gas for HP-UX but I believe it may not work when we have a
> call using
> a funct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I wouldn't hold your breath unfortunately. There are at least two opposing
views on how to "fix" ADL within the standard committee and no consensus on
what (if anything) should be done.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #196 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #195)
> Today there was two fixes for bugs that produce undefined symbols like one
> you see.
> Does the problem still exist on current mainline? Are you using pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #32 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Ok, now I dared to propose my patch on the gcc-patches list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00363.html
as I can see now both tests fail even on gcc-4.6 (ubuntu 12.04)
93 matches
Mail list logo
