k dated 20140509 and it said
mm/slub.c: In function ‘slab_order’:
mm/slub.c:2774:3: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
return get_order(size * MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE) - 1;
^
0x98391f crash_signal
../../src/trunk/gcc/toplev.c:337
0xb68634 tree_nop_conversion
../../src/trunk/gcc/tree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
Halo9Pan03 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||halo9pan03 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
--- Comment #2 from MamoruOKAMOTO ---
Created attachment 32772
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32772&action=edit
Test code using report
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
--- Comment #1 from MamoruOKAMOTO ---
g++-4.9.0 returned same message.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
Bug ID: 61135
Summary: It seems to be not able to call virtual method of
literal object in lambda expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think that if the order in which the handlers are executed matters,
something is too fragile in those handlers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> This builds gfortran and fixes the testcase, but I haven't tested it beyond
> that.
Together with the patch in comment #10, of course.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61134
Bug ID: 61134
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression][C++11] bogus "no
matching function for call..."
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This builds gfortran and fixes the testcase, but I haven't tested it beyond
that.
Index: lang.opt
===
--- lang.opt(revision 210292)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f -O (test for warnings, line 4)
PR61126
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61125
Stanislav Lorents changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61133
Bug ID: 61133
Summary: g++ doesn't implement DR1760
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60887
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
Ozkan Sezer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61132
Bug ID: 61132
Summary: bad DWARF for VLA in the middle of a struct
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60755
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 20:07:45 2014
New Revision: 210292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210292&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60463
PR c++/60755
* lambda.c (lambda_expr_this_capture):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60463
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 20:07:45 2014
New Revision: 210292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210292&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60463
PR c++/60755
* lambda.c (lambda_expr_this_capture):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61131
Bug ID: 61131
Summary: [4.8 regression] ARM -Os: incorrect code generation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab ---
FAIL: gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f -O (test for warnings, line 4)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60981
Tony Theodore changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-w64-mingw32
Host|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It could be far earlier than this, look for previous *** in the build log.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
--- Comment #2 from Ozkan Sezer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> That is a warning, not the reason for bootstrap failure.
Well it eventually results in an error:
In file included from
../../../../gcc49.r210278/libsanitizer/ubsan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
template struct A {
unsigned _width, _height, _depth, _spectrum;
template A(t p1) {
int a = p1.size();
if (a) {
_width = p1._width;
_depth = _height = _spectrum = p1._spectrum;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61130
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is a warning, not the reason for bootstrap failure.
-threads
--with-local-prefix=/usr --prefix=/home/myname/opt/gcc480 --program-suffix=48
--bindir=/home/myname/bin --disable-nls --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.3 20140509 (prerelease) (GCC)
The host i686-Linux using an old fedora9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32019
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |diagnostic
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22434
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:15:46 2014
New Revision: 210281
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210281&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/22434
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Don't try to pool
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32019
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:15:57 2014
New Revision: 210282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/32019
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Improve ambiguity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:16:05 2014
New Revision: 210283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210283&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58714
* tree.c (stabilize_expr): A stabilized prvalue is an x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:15:57 2014
New Revision: 210282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/32019
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Improve ambiguity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60019
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:16:11 2014
New Revision: 210284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 5
PR c++/60019
* call.c (build_user_type_conversion_1): The c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 9 18:16:18 2014
New Revision: 210285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 587
PR c++/51317
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1, conditio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61129
Bug ID: 61129
Summary: Feature request: integer-overflow-detecting arithmetic
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61096
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61096
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 9 17:50:25 2014
New Revision: 210280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61096
* c-parser.c (c_parser_braced_init): Pass brace_loc to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Paul, it is. I'd be surprised if both threading fixes aren't in by Monday.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #14 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #13)
> Thanks for the fix!
Indeed.
> Confirming that it does indeed fix the application
> issues we hit.
I will add that we've had at least two separate miscompi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson ---
Jeff,
Thanks for the fix! Confirming that it does indeed fix the application
issues we hit.
Teresa
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:54 PM, law at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #12 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Fri May 9 16:59:56 2014
New Revision: 210279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r210254 from trunk for Google b/14380607.
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Note that the above code is broken in other ways:
-Wno-unused-parameter -Wextra will enable -Wunused-parameter, which is not what
should happen.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #2 from npl at chello dot at ---
I cant easily make a simple reproducible testcase as this is a custom realtime
OS for a very specific CPU. And I can only test this example next week at work
where I have hardware to run it.
And I certa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57494
YaoZhenGuo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yaozhen_guo at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
> > The gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f test case assumes that -Wextra enables
> > -Wununused-parameter, but this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, I'm attaching the patchlet. I can submit it when stage #1 opens.
I obviously missed one stage #1, but this is now done:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00573.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
Am 09.05.2014 18:02, schrieb manu at gcc dot gnu.org:
> I don't understand how it was working before. What is exactly the
> command-line passed to that testcase?
the test passes just -Wextra, adding either a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
> Thus, in GCC - whether Fortran or C - it is enabled with -Wextra, but only
> if also -Wunused is used. The latter is implied by -Wall.
This is not necessari
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #0)
> The gfortran.dg/wextra_1.f test case assumes that -Wextra enables
> -Wununused-parameter, but this does not happen. No warning is printed on
> line 4, lead
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
> (In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
> > -Wunused-parameter is enabled by -Wall. I'm surprised that -Wextra is used
> > without -Wall, but it happens in t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #21 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 32770
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32770&action=edit
full cgraph dump gzipped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #20 from David Edelsohn ---
(gdb) print debug_cgraph_node(node)
__builtin_unreachable/1630 (void __builtin_unreachable()) @700099c0
Type: function
Visibility: external public visibility_specified artificial
References:
Referrin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is there any documentation on the arguments -Wa,-q ?
-Wa,* is documented somewhere in the manual as the way to tell the assembler to
use the option *. AFAIR 'as -q' is documented (otherwise I won't h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
"-Wunused-parameter is not included in -Wall but is implied by -Wall -Wextra"
would mean that the test case assumes that it it is implied by -Wextra only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
> -Wunused-parameter is enabled by -Wall. I'm surprised that -Wextra is used
> without -Wall, but it happens in the testsuite in more places.
This is not what the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61092
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri May 9 15:02:09 2014
New Revision: 210278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-08 Uros Bizjak
PR ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
--- Comment #6 from Barry McInnes ---
Is there any documentation on the arguments -Wa,-q ?
With a link from Macports to /usr/bin/clang one program works without -Wa,-q,
but others still need those parameters to get rid of the zero fill error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61099
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-apple-darwin*
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60973
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Before tunks we never bothered to compute [tailcall] before inlining
> completed, but now explicitely setting the flag for thunks (and not letting
> it be computed - why wouldn't that work?) breaks this.
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61128
Bug ID: 61128
Summary: [cr16] Incorrect code generated for udivmodsi4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61109
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61109
--- Comment #2 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Fri May 9 14:06:15 2014
New Revision: 210277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/61109
* trans-array.c (gfc_conv_array_initiali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60953
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61028
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61073
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58614
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61109
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61115
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32768
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32768&action=edit
partly reduced
I stopped reducing, it's very slow (because compiling the testcase is so slow).
Attached what I h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61127
Bug ID: 61127
Summary: GNAT incorrectly accepts <> as a second association of
a generic formal package
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Tejas Belagod from comment #5)
> > So, does that mean the folded value 120 is in the wrong place? The fix that
> > I'm testing swaps the first and l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
--- Comment #3 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
The OP's suspicion/analysis was right. Here's a "trivial" patch that fixes the
problem.
diff --git gcc/config/avr/avr.c gcc/config/avr/avr.c
index 2edc78a..e96691e 100644
--- gcc/config/avr/avr.c
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tejas Belagod from comment #5)
> So, does that mean the folded value 120 is in the wrong place? The fix that
> I'm testing swaps the first and last elements of the const vector {120, 0,
> 0, 0}.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60991
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61126
Bug ID: 61126
Summary: gfortran does not enable -Wununused-parameter with
-Wextra
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #5 from Tejas Belagod ---
So, does that mean the folded value 120 is in the wrong place? The fix that I'm
testing swaps the first and last elements of the const vector {120, 0, 0, 0}.
PS: Sorry, my statement "The final folded value is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
>
> --- Comment #3 from Tejas Belagod ---
> Thanks for the clarification. In that case, w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Tricky case, but fold also handles REALPART / IMAGPART of +, - and conjugate
> and of a cexpi call. Of course that may not matter in the end, as
> "easily decompos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Kenneth Zadeck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61114
--- Comment #3 from Tejas Belagod ---
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, what element does bit positions
96..127 correspond to in { 120, 0, 0, 0 }?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: zadeck
Date: Fri May 9 12:21:23 2014
New Revision: 210274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-06 Kenneth Zadeck
PR middle-end/6
* fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:34:46 2014
New Revision: 210270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2014-05-09 trunk r210267
PR target/61055
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
>
> Kenneth Zadeck changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:29:58 2014
New Revision: 210269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from 2014-05-09 trunk r210267
PR target/61055
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Kenneth Zadeck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:25:11 2014
New Revision: 210268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/config/avr
Backport from 2014-05-09 trunk r210267
PR target/610
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61055
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri May 9 11:20:43 2014
New Revision: 210267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/config/avr
PR target/61055
* config/avr/avr.md (cc): Add new at
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
