https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, can the reporter or anyone else still reproduce a problem in this area or
can it be considered fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 25 06:46:22 2015
New Revision: 220958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/64374
* target.def (target_option_stream_in): New target h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64145
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64236
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34865
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34865&action=edit
Patch that tests the desired functionality for both 32-bit and 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Index: config/i386/i386.h
> ===
> --- config/i386/i386.h(revision 220946)
> +++ config/i386/i386.h(working copy)
> @@ -1606,7 +1606,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Feb 25 01:00:29 2015
New Revision: 220957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65153
Backport from mainline: [SH] Fix PR target/65153 with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
Updated version to apply after Jakub's patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #10 from mrs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
I went in detail through the icf's merge functions and found quite few corner
cases where it may
lead to wrong code and some confussion. This is my current patch I am testing.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is caused by:
--- ChangeLog (revision 203170)
+++ ChangeLog (revision 203171)
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2013-10-03 Jan Hubicka
+
+ * i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Do not enable
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
if I understood the conversation in irc correctly, Honza you were suggesting
the following modification (to use alias->can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p() as
the criterion for deciding on eligibility for removal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64703
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65117
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65117
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 24 23:17:49 2015
New Revision: 220953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65117
* config/xtensa/xtensa.md (zero_cost_loop_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65199
Bug ID: 65199
Summary: Linker failure with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #28 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I'm not concerned about the inline case. The user could build without inlining
if it was important.
To me it seems like you don't want libbacktrace to decrement the pc when it is
being called by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #26 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I had failed to measure peak memory use. It went down from more than 4.8G to
less than 460M (vs 380MB without debug info). Wheee!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #27 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The runtime.Callers function (and friends) are somewhat broken for gccgo no
matter what we do. The problem is that we can't represent full file/line
information using a single PC value, because a single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65198
Bug ID: 65198
Summary: [4.9 regression] User-defined literal template inside
generic lambda segfaults GCC 5.0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65197
Bug ID: 65197
Summary: static initialization via intel intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65010
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|aldyh at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65154
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #26 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #25)
> To which code in libgcc are you referring? I don't see it.
>
Here is the code I was referring to, but I was wrong when I thought it fixed
the pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Would you prefer RESOLVED/NOTABUG? Always happy to do that! Your call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
--- Comment #10 from Michael Meissner ---
However, before I made the changes that finished the implementation of upper
regs support, the option was not functional for anything other than
power8-ldst.c. It could not be used for any real program t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5.0 Regression] internal |[5.0 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65148
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65196
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65196
Bug ID: 65196
Summary: avr_adjust_insn_length uses recog_memoized on invalid
insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65192
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61142
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34839|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65058
--- Comment #6 from haubi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: haubi
Date: Tue Feb 24 20:19:54 2015
New Revision: 220947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65058: Drop unused variable.
PR target/65058
* config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50385
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64407
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64408
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner ---
I added the lp64 test when I added the -mupper-regs support and rewrote the
test.
The rationale is I was using a long bit vector to make sure that each floating
point variable got used (in_mask and out_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65127
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is really Honza's field, so I'd strongly prefer if Honza approved this
instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #16 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My take, Jakub should review/approve it. The the people with darwin boxes can
check any proposed patch to ensure the testcases in question pass and ensure
the bootstrap works and there are no regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 34859
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34859&action=edit
Proposed patch.
I may be missing something but, AFAICS, simply changing the type of the
constants to long long a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> I see another issue. When we stream in
> OPTIMIZATION_NODE/TARGET_OPTIONS_NODE, we don't use
> build_optimization_node/build_target_option_node and thus we don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
It wasn't that way when reported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65123
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Feb 24 18:11:38 2015
New Revision: 220946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220946&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/65123
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65195
Bug ID: 65195
Summary: [5.0][C++14]Variable template cannot be used as a
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One possibility is just not to warn at all about loops with multiple exits,
because for those you have no guarantee the iteration that triggers undefined
behavior will be ever encountered.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65134
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
No, I believe the problem is different. The gccgo build process stores objects
in an archive, and relies on the system linker to pull in those objects.
However, at least on ELF-based systems like GNU/Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #25 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
To which code in libgcc are you referring? I don't see it.
Our goal has to be for runtime.Callers to return the same sort of values in
gccgo as it does in gc. That means that your change to
go/runtime/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64625
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Feb 24 17:00:36 2015
New Revision: 220944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/64625] Remove __OFFLOAD_TABLE__ variable/formal paramet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65149
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.lapshin at oracle dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #23)
> Absolutely, _all_ of them are different for that matter. I think what
> Richi was saying was that we could do a DSE type pass but take
> intervening stores
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 02/24/2015 07:53 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
>
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
>> Le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65171
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Stubbs ---
The compiler has constructed the loop such that it reads like this:
f = 0;
tmp = 0;
do {
B[f] = tmp | A[f + 1];
if (f + 1 == 8)
break;
if (f + 1 > 0)
tmp = A[f];
if (f + 1 == 7) {
B[f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65194
Bug ID: 65194
Summary: Compiler warns of maybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
> Let me see if I understood this correctly. We need a DSE/DCE pass right
> before var-tracking that would eliminate the redundant `this' statements
> right b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 02/24/2015 12:39 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> But yes, we have multiple such assignments to 'this' at the (possible
> assembler) location of a single statement which of course doesn't help.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
--- Comment #16 from Mircea Namolaru ---
Right, the NULL check fixed this for previous versions of GCC.
For the current version, it works without these NULL checks (the NULL paths are
not followed). The relevant scop fields are always initialize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 63844, which changed state.
Bug 63844 Summary: [4.8 Regression] open mp parallelization prevents
vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 15:09:00 2015
New Revision: 220941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-11-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65161
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 34856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34856&action=edit
possible patch
Add check on selective scheduling to not perform instruction reordering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-21 1:56 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The current code now uses the libcall, _U_Qfsqrt, in libm.
The change from sqrtl to _U_Qfsqrt occurred in r214211:
2014-08-20 Joost V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65161
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65134
--- Comment #5 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tatsushi Inagaki from comment #0)
> Created attachment 34813 [details]
> Example to reproduce the constructor problem
>
> Gccgo ignores a C-function with the "constructor" attribute in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34855
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34855&action=edit
gcc5-pr64374.patch
Untested fix.
Unfortunately I really can't reproduce it now, so can't verify the patch.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #15 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> FWIW, LGTM (with suitable guards added to the tests for the target alias
> support).
> (I cannot officially approve of course ;) )
> ... if we
nimized the testcase maybe more than appropriate, it was in fact:
class D { public: int a; } d;
class C { public: D &f() { return d; } } c;
int main() { return c.f.a; }
g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150224 (experimental)
---
10.C: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65193
Bug ID: 65193
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with -g -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65193
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.4, 5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65149
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshin ---
The similar test case for C does not fail. gcc aligns this 8-bytes structure at
8-bytes so inlined lock-free code is working correctly.
Another thing is that this bug exist on x86 also. lock free code on x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65192
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65188
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65192
Bug ID: 65192
Summary: [avr-tiny] ICE in
tiny_valid_direct_memory_access_range
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
Mircea Namolaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64493
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 14:05:46 2015
New Revision: 220940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64495
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 14:05:46 2015
New Revision: 220940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 14:05:46 2015
New Revision: 220940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
