https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64248
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to theubik from comment #2)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> > Probably more outfall from r217241.
>
> it's not a bug?
Sure it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64248
--- Comment #2 from theubik at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Probably more outfall from r217241.
it's not a bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59592
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64248
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu|
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64248
Bug ID: 64248
Summary: Error: declarator-id missing; using reserved word
‘__FUNCTION__’
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247
Bug ID: 64247
Summary: program result depends on environment ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64129
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64129
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 10 02:51:03 2014
New Revision: 218557
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218557&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64129
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Recover from variable temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 10 02:50:54 2014
New Revision: 218556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64222
* parser.c (cp_parser_unqualified_id): Don't declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Weigand ---
The ususal test in such scenarios involves reg_overlap_mentioned_p:
/* Nonzero if modifying X will affect IN. [...] */
int
reg_overlap_mentioned_p (const_rtx x, const_rtx in)
which also handles cases lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61307
--- Comment #1 from Chris Manghane ---
I'm unable to reproduce this on gcc version 5.0.0 20141210 (experimental)
(GCC).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61322
--- Comment #1 from Chris Manghane ---
I'm unable to reproduce this on gcc version 5.0.0 20141210 (experimental)
(GCC).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64246
Bug ID: 64246
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE building libada for Windows due to
NULL loop header
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55298
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
Alternatively, split the options such as -m4-single, -m4-nofpu into e.g. -mcpu
and -mfpu and implement the 'target' function attribute. This would also allow
controlling other target specific options on a per-fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #42 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Dec 10 00:21:36 2014
New Revision: 218551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/53513
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_sh_get_fpscr, __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64146
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Actually, I think you want decl_binds_to_current_def_p rather than
binds_local_p.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64146
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Right, the problem is
.set_Z8test_barv.localalias.0,_Z8test_barv
or really, using that alias here (-O2 -fpic)
.globl _Z8test_foov
.type _Z8test_foov, @function
_Z8test_foov:
.LFB5:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
--- Comment #3 from Peter A. Bigot ---
Comment on attachment 34232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34232
Proposed patch
I don't trust that the term nonsubreg is being used correctly in that predicate
since the operand does h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64245
Bug ID: 64245
Summary: libgcc for msp430 depends on unreleased binutils
feature
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Dec 9 23:02:06 2014
New Revision: 218546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218546&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-09 Bill Schmidt
PR middle-end/64225
* tree-ssa-reas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64232
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Not just GCC, but clang/libc++ gives the same results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60289
Ondřej Čertík changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ondrej.certik at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55351
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55351
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Dec 9 22:51:32 2014
New Revision: 218545
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218545&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-11-30 Oleg Endo
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55351
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Dec 9 22:45:26 2014
New Revision: 218544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-11-30 Oleg Endo
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> Created attachment 34213 [details]
> Combine patterns for matching fipr
>
> An updated patch for trunk. As for the redundant fp moves and/or ferries
> through fpul, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
Bug ID: 64244
Summary: internal compiler error at class.c:236 when using
non_overridable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64232
--- Comment #2 from Michael Mehlich ---
My expectation was that the compiler declares the copy assignment operator of Y
as deleted as its base class X is not assignable; std::is_assignable would then
just have to look at the copy constructor for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #7 from Sandra Loosemore ---
H. I'm not sure why there's trouble in reproducing the failure, but
looking at this some more, it seems like we have a problem with this code
fragment from force_const_mem in varasm.c:
/* If we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63205
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33995|0 |1
is obso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52075
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52075
--- Comment #4 from Bill Long ---
With this version:
> gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.9.1 20140716 (Cray Inc.)
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
I see the following:
> gfortran -fopenmp -fbounds-check test.f90
> ./a.ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #28 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Dec 9 20:46:33 2014
New Revision: 218538
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218538&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/63854: Document how to run the jit testsuite under valgrind
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64217
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54724
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63870
--- Comment #3 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Tue Dec 9 20:23:36 2014
New Revision: 218536
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218536&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64]Remove be_checked_get_lane, check bounds with
__b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54822
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63640
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Is this PR INVALID?
seems more like an enhancement request to free allocatables at the end of main.
I guess this is not mandated by the standard, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52075
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> Created attachment 34233 [details]
> Updated patch
I've introduced a gcc::jit::tempdir class in r218533 (which appears to be a
reasonable simplification in itsel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34219|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63413
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63413
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
s/This should reported/This should be reported/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Dec 9 20:00:07 2014
New Revision: 218533
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218533&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add jit-tempdir.{c|h}
gcc/jit/ChangeLog:
PR jit/64206
* Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #7 from Fritz Reese ---
FWIW I have the patches ready against the gcc-5.0.0 dev trunk, I'm just waiting
on my employer's lawyer, who has been on vacation for several weeks, to sort
out the legal issues.
The wheels of justice spin awf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63640
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63922
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64173
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61931
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64209
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62021
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63822
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Regression or documentation skew?
>
> Per 4.4.5 documentation, viz.,
This has been changed starting at 4.5.4 up to trunk (5.0):
ARRAYShall be an array of type INTEGER or REAL.
Note that I did
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
Bil Kleb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Bil.Kleb at NASA dot gov
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47445
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64127
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64129
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64222
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #6 from Sandra Loosemore ---
This reproduces it for me; my build is at r217852.
$ aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc argp-help.i -c -O2
argp-help.c: In function '_help':
argp-help.c:1684:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x874f9b0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Dup of PR 59039?
No that talks about not using __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp within the
same function. I only used longjmp. Or are they so broken you need to put both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Bug ID: 64243
Summary: Passing and returning structures with single member of
floating type via SSE registers is wrong on Windows
x86-64 ABI
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Dup of PR 59039?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64151
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
See PR rtl-optimization/64242 for the longjmp issue on i386.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
Bug ID: 64242
Summary: Longjmp expansion incorrect on i386
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimizatio
.set_Z8test_barv.localalias.0,_Z8test_barv
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 5.0.0 20141209 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
But it's probably not enough, what exactly means binds_local_p ?
Thanks,
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
Bug 64020 depends on bug 64166, which changed state.
Bug 64166 Summary: JIT does not provide a way for verifying dumpfiles from
testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #10)
> Agreed. I will test the fix Richard suggested. Assuming no regressions,
> does pre-approval include backports to 4.8 and 4.9?
Thanks for taking t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Dec 9 15:35:39 2014
New Revision: 218521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/64166: Add API entrypoint gcc_jit_context_enable_dump
gcc/jit/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Dec 9 15:35:39 2014
New Revision: 218521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/64166: Add API entrypoint gcc_jit_context_enable_dump
gcc/jit/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48443
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |MOVED
--- Comment #13 from Markus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48375
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64225
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Agreed. I will test the fix Richard suggested. Assuming no regressions, does
pre-approval include backports to 4.8 and 4.9?
Thanks,
Bill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64241
Bug ID: 64241
Summary: make_exception_ptr returns garbage with
-fno-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48304
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Dec 9 15:25:11 2014
New Revision: 218520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/64166: Add methods to gcc::dump_manager needed by JIT testing
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> > > > > Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34147
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> > > > Adding -fuse-ld=gold to the crtn.o link command posted above,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> > > Adding -fuse-ld=gold to the crtn.o link command posted above, also fixes
> > > the
> > > issue.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> > Adding -fuse-ld=gold to the crtn.o link command posted above, also fixes the
> > issue.
>
> It should read: "nscd link command"
Do you use the same ld to buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5.0 Regression][AArch64] |[5.0 Regression][AArch64]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61822
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
> Adding -fuse-ld=gold to the crtn.o link command posted above, also fixes the
> issue.
It should read: "nscd link command"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64237
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
> > > > trippe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #22 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Dec 9 14:44:06 2014
New Revision: 218518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/64213
Revert:
2014-11-28 H.J. Lu
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
