http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60607
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.0 |4.9.1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60902
--- Comment #26 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Testing is good. Just trying to build a nice little testcase for the
regression suite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60924
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong constant folding |Wrong folding of -
|
gcc-4.10.0/
--with-gmp=/usr/local/gmp-5.1.1/ --with-mpfr=/usr/local/mpfr-3.1.2/
--with-mpc=/usr/local/mpc-1.0.2/ --disable-multilib
--disable-nls --enable-languages=c
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140422 (experimental) (GCC)
The status of the other versions are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60929
Bug ID: 60929
Summary: [4.8/4.9/4.10 regression] ICE in get_ref_die_offset,
at dwarf2out.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #2 from cycle ---
Thank you for you reply.
The code file plib8b.f90 is in the attachment.
2014-04-21 21:02 GMT+08:00 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org>:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
>
> Domi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60928
Bug ID: 60928
Summary: gfortran issue with allocatable components and OpenMP
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Apr 22 23:33:14 2014
New Revision: 209664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-21 Michael Meissner
PR target/60735
* confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60927
Maurice Bos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbos at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60926
--- Comment #5 from gidici61 at gmail dot com ---
Please see also:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22941372/gcc-4-7-2-in-debian-wheezy-doesnt-always-properly-align-stack-pointer-is-this/23055211#23055211
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56019
--- Comment #5 from Jobst.Ziebell at mailbox dot tu-dresden.de ---
I would propose adding something like
#ifdef _GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T
...
#endif
around the 'using' declaration.
(Though I really have no idea whatsoever off gcc internals...)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60926
--- Comment #4 from gidici61 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to gidici61 from comment #2)
> > Register rsp is correctly aligned before "call g1"; let's assume rsp=0xB0.
> > "call g1" pushes rip (8 bytes)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55817
Jobst.Ziebell at mailbox dot tu-dresden.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60926
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to gidici61 from comment #2)
> Register rsp is correctly aligned before "call g1"; let's assume rsp=0xB0.
> "call g1" pushes rip (8 bytes) on the stack. Now rsp=0xA8.
> Then "pushq %rbp" subtracts 8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60927
Bug ID: 60927
Summary: Ambiguity not caught when name introduced through
using-directive conflicts with previously declared
entity
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60926
--- Comment #2 from gidici61 at gmail dot com ---
Register rsp is correctly aligned before "call g1"; let's assume rsp=0xB0.
"call g1" pushes rip (8 bytes) on the stack. Now rsp=0xA8.
Then "pushq %rbp" subtracts 8. Now rsp=0xA0.
"subq $8, %rsp" s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56019
Jobst.Ziebell at mailbox dot tu-dresden.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Jobst.Ziebell
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59507
ctice at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ctice at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60914
--- Comment #2 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Running your tests, I get a different ICE:
gcc-fsf-root/usr/local/bin/gcc -O -flto -fvtable-verify=preinit pr59437.C
pr59437.C: In function ‘_GLOBAL__sub_I.00099_cout’:
pr59437.C:24:1: internal com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 22 21:12:46 2014
New Revision: 209662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Tobias Burnus
Backport from mainline
2014-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 22 21:12:46 2014
New Revision: 209662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Tobias Burnus
Backport from mainline
2014-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60926
Bug ID: 60926
Summary: Compiler doesn't properly align stack pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60850
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson
---
Thanks Manuel.
1) I didn't see a warning regarding the old use of -pedantic rather than
-Wpedantic
2) I'll change that, after the C++ FE maintainer sees the patch in order to not
pollute the thread with mor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60924
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I think we should disallow __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) at
>declarations because:
> 1) it's more consistent
More consistent with what, it would be very inconsistent with the rest of GCC's
attributes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60924
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60925
--- Comment #2 from Aaro Koskinen ---
GLIVC 2.19 compiles fine with GCC 4.8.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60925
--- Comment #1 from Aaro Koskinen ---
Created attachment 32655
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32655&action=edit
Pre-processed source.
Steps to reproduce:
hppa-linux-gnu-gcc gethstbyad.i -c -std=gnu99 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -Wal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60881
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60925
Bug ID: 60925
Summary: [4.9 Regression] hppa: can't find a register in class
'R1_REGS' while reloading 'asm'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60881
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 22 19:28:43 2014
New Revision: 209657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/60881
* trans-expr.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
--- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk ---
Oh, based on the existing error for
void f();
void f() __attribute__((regparm(3)));
which is accepted on x86-64, but fails on x86-32 with
test.cc:2:36: error: new declaration ‘void f()’
void f() __attrib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
--- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> GCC has like 60 or 70 target independent attributes plus sometimes various
> target dependent attributes. Figuring out which are ABI changing and must
> be erro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC has like 60 or 70 target independent attributes plus sometimes various
target dependent attributes. Figuring out which are ABI changing and must be
errored out on mismatch, which are safe to ignore, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
--- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Sriraman Tallam from comment #4)
> I do not understand why the default function's attributes should be applied
> to all declarations?
The alternative is to not apply them to all declarations, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 32654
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32654&action=edit
potential export fix
I am currently testing the attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60924
Timur Iskhodzhanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #16)
> Should I revert right away?
If it doesn't break bootstrap for the ldbl targets (only causes test failures)
then I would say reverting it is not necessary if you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
--- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk ---
Speaking only as a user, the behaviour I personally naïvely expected would be
to push the default function's attributes into each target-specific function's
attributes, and use the already existing rules for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Apr 22 16:44:46 2014
New Revision: 209652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209652&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/43622
gcc/c-family/
* c-comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60868
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60868
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Apr 22 16:34:54 2014
New Revision: 209651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use counter_mode on count_exp to get mode
gcc/
Backport from ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60868
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Apr 22 16:31:41 2014
New Revision: 209648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use counter_mode on count_exp to get mode
gcc/
PR target/60868
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59073
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 22 16:25:59 2014
New Revision: 209647
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59073
c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_parallel): If c_parser_omp_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59073
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 22 16:22:22 2014
New Revision: 209646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59073
c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_parallel): If c_parser_omp_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60923
Bug ID: 60923
Summary: Building of gcc fails on sparc solaris 9, In function
'__muldi3' internal compiler error: Segmentation Fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNC
GNU/mpc
--with-cloog=/usr/local/travel/GNU/cloog --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto
--no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140422 (experimental) (GCC)
[sfilippo@epsilon IMAGING]$ gfortran -o test_leak_410 -O3 test_leak.f90
[sfilippo@epsilon IMAGING]$ valgrind ./test_l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60921
Bug 60921 depends on bug 51365, which changed state.
Bug 51365 Summary: cannot use final empty class in std::tuple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51365
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60921
Bug ID: 60921
Summary: 'final' allocators are incompatible with the Empty
Base-class Optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: reje
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|4.9.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60920
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #45 from Denis Excoffier ---
(In reply to Denis Excoffier from comment #44)
> shouldn't it be possible to make it available to 4.9.0, instead of 4.9.1?
No because 4.9.0 is out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60156
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:33:37 2014
New Revision: 209633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209633&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60846
Jiri Svoboda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60849
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:31:41 2014
New Revision: 209632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209632&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:29:32 2014
New Revision: 209631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209631&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60836
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:27:33 2014
New Revision: 209630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60819
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:26:02 2014
New Revision: 209629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60453
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:22:32 2014
New Revision: 209628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59817
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:22:32 2014
New Revision: 209628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-22 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-04-14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60920
--- Comment #2 from a71104 at gmail dot com ---
Additional: I'm using the `-Wall` and `--std=c++11` compiler options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60920
--- Comment #1 from a71104 at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, I formatted the code like I was posting to GitHub in Markdown. :P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60920
Bug ID: 60920
Summary: Crash on double template header due to default
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60823
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:16:31 2014
New Revision: 209626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60823
* omp-low.c (ipa_simd_modify_function_bod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60281
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:15:24 2014
New Revision: 209625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60281
* asan.c (asan_emit_stack_protection): Force the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60844
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 22 13:06:55 2014
New Revision: 209624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2014-04-16 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60901
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
I'm on Easter vacation this week, will take a look after that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60897
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Right. IPA-SRA however uses ipa_modify_formal_parameters in ipa-prop
to manipulate parameters which des not reset DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC. And
it probably should because this means it can currently probably
trigg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60895
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We copy TREE_ADDRESSABLE improperly in declare_return_variable with
return_slot not being a decl. I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51424
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> GCC 4.9.0 has been released
Well, shouldn't this bug be closed, then? The patch Paolo wrote was applied and
shipped in 4.9.0, so this is already in, no need t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced (whether the function is virtual or not is irrelevant):
struct B
{
struct S {};
};
struct D : B
{
using B::S;
void doIt(struct S&);
};
void D::doIt(struct S&)
{
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60891
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
loop_optimizer_init (AVOID_CFG_MODIFICATIONS); ends up adding a basic-block.
Oops. I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
aehm...
actually this issue is already fixed,
but I can't set the status to FIXED.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59823
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Target Milestone|4.9.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55440
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60577
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57925
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
