--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 08:03
---
Does not appear in the recent published testresults (eg
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01392.html).
Is this regression still there?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
W
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-01 08:05 ---
Subject: Re: Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
> > --- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 00:49
> > ---
> > access_can_touch_variable determines that fde_13->dw_
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last recon
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 08:16
---
Using gfortran-4.1.1, I tried to reproduce your bug by adding a file foo.f90,
but can't:
$ cat foo.f90
use ackland
use ackland_zbl
use alloys
use bcc
use constants
use filter
use inifile
use materials
use predic
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 10:17 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|
--- Comment #2 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-11-01
11:37 ---
no, closing.
Matthias
--
debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 12:11 ---
Eric, what I usually do is:
cd $build/libstdc++-v3/testsuite;
make testsuite_files
Then, edit out the file "testsuite_files" to the actual file or files that you
want to test.
Then, just type 'make check."
This wil
* loop.c (loop_giv_reduce_benefit): Take the max of the addition
cost on all the increments of the BIV.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20061101-1.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/loop.c
branches
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 12:14
---
> cd $build/libstdc++-v3/testsuite;
> make testsuite_files
>
> Then, edit out the file "testsuite_files" to the actual file or files that you
> want to test.
>
> Then, just type 'make check."
Neat. Thanks!
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 12:16
---
More of a kludge than a fix...
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 12:27
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 13:21 ---
sccp destroys dominators, unswitching only enables the sccp opportunity. The
destroying happens in cleanup_tree_cfg calling cleanup_control_flow calling
tree_purge_dead_eh_edges which we don't record the true return
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 13:25 ---
This problem is latent on the mainline as well.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #21 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-11-01
14:00 ---
This bug is rather confusing. It appears that the actual macros for isfinite on
Darwin PPC look like...
static __inline__ int __inline_isinff( float __x ) { return
__builtin_fabsf(__x) == __builtin_inff
--- Comment #4 from tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-11-01 14:01 ---
This has been fixed in the meanwhile.
(Don't forget, gfortran is not that old.)
Possibilities:
- Use a GCC 4.1 branch build (newer than 4.1.1)
- Use a GCC 4.2 branch build
- Use a GCC 4.3 trunk bu
problem observed in: gcc-4.1.1
problem not observed in: gcc-3.2.3
--- gcc 4.1.1 -v
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with:
../crosstool-0.42/build/i686-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc-4.1.1-glibc-2.3.6/gcc-4.1.1/configure
--prefix=/users/johnm/opt/g
--- Comment #1 from johnm at wmi dot com 2006-11-01 14:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=12526)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12526&action=view)
single file example
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29681
--- Comment #2 from johnm at wmi dot com 2006-11-01 14:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=12527)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12527&action=view)
gnatchop -able multifile example
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29681
This happens on 4.2 and 4.3. The option is new in 4.2.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c -O3 rpm-rpmpgp.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c -O3 -msched-control-spec
rpm-rpmpgp.c
rpm-rpmpgp.c: In function 'pgpReadPkts':
rpm-rpmpgp.c:49: internal compiler err
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-11-01 14:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12528)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12528&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29682
--- Comment #5 from vprus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 14:40 ---
Subject: Bug 28400
Author: vprus
Date: Wed Nov 1 14:40:44 2006
New Revision: 118381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118381
Log:
2006-11-01 Chris Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR bootstrap
--- Comment #6 from vprus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 15:31 ---
Subject: Bug 28400
Author: vprus
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:31:43 2006
New Revision: 118383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118383
Log:
2006-11-01 Chris Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR bootstrap
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 17:53 ---
Subject: Re: Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
> > >
> > > and for_clobber is only true on call operands, we do not insert SMT. The
> > > lists
> > > of virtual operands thus become disjoint.
> > We should not inse
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25514
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:01
---
This is a nasty usability issue; can we backport the patch to 4.1?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26866
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27822
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27826
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-01 18:05 ---
If I change the code from
dw_fde_ref fde = &fde_table[fde_table_in_use - 1];
to
dw_fde_node *fde = fde_table + fde_table_in_use - 1;
I got the same problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29680
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27881
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27891
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27962
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28088
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28116
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:11
---
P2, rather than P1, due to use of relatively obscure command-line option.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28326
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28376
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28411
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28460
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28545
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:16
---
Can the original submitter still reproduce this problem?
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:18 ---
This is more reason why we need a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:20 ---
I do not think we can do much with such report.
I'd suggest isolating one of the failure and investigating a little, and
send additional info.
Also, I'd suggest checking with 4.2 and 4.3
Arno
--
charlet at gcc
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28573
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28622
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28770
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29042
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29054
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:28
---
Egads, that's awful.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
P
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29250
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29329
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29472
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29474
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29518
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29535
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29565
--- Comment #4 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:32 ---
Is it still happening with GCC 4.2 or GCC 4.3 ?
Arno
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29570
--- Comment #4 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:40 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #2 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:49 ---
Maximum length increased, so closing this PR.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from vprus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:01 ---
Subject: Bug 28400
Author: vprus
Date: Wed Nov 1 19:01:36 2006
New Revision: 118392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118392
Log:
2006-11-01 Chris Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR bootstrap
On targets which allow a function argument to be split between registers and
the stack, values can be corrupted by later function calls.
Specifically - this code:
~~
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-Os -fno-inline-functions" } */
void abort (void);
typedef struct {
int x[7];
} a
--- Comment #1 from jconner at apple dot com 2006-11-01 19:11 ---
What's happening is that TER is inserting the call to GetConst in place of
'result' in the call to VerifyValues, as such:
(pre-TER)
result_4 = GetConst (filler, a);
VerifyValues (filler, 0, a$mbr1_5, result_4);
(post
--- Comment #3 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:29 ---
Yes, from the looks it will also fix pr29634.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29539
--- Comment #14 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:30 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #8 from vprus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:32 ---
Fixed
--
vprus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:33 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The following gives an ICE:
>
> type foo
> integer :: i
> end type foo
>
> interface fun_interface
> type(foo) function fun()
> end function fun
> end interface
>
> con
ratch.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.3.0 20061101 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:708|
| Error detected around scrat
With this configure and make command
make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] objdir]$ cat ../build-gcc
#!/bin/tcsh
/bin/rm -rf *; ../configure --prefix=/pkgs/gcc-4.2.0 ; make -j 3 bootstrap >&
build.log && (make -k -j 6 check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board 'unix{,-m64}'"
>& check.log ; make
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:53 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 19:59 ---
Reduced test case now produce a clean error as expected, and full
test case compiles with no error on trunk.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 20:00 ---
Right, fixed.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NE
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 20:02
---
> this bug is still present in trunk:
Right. It may already be fixed in our internal tree though.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-01 20:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=12529)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12529&action=view)
A run-time testcase
Here is a run-time testcase:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yyy]$ /usr/gcc-bad/bin/gcc -O2 bad.c
[EMAIL PROTECTE
--- Comment #2 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 20:15 ---
Fixed on trunk:
main.adb:5:33: in a constraint the current instance can only be used with an
access attribute
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 20:20 ---
Both fixed on trunk.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #10 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-01 20:26 ---
Subject: Re: Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
> > > I will work around this problem by teaching PTA about casts from
> > > nonpointers to pointers, which will cause it to end up with a nonloca
--- Comment #11 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-01 21:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12530)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12530&action=view)
An updates run-time testcase
This is smaller.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 21:44 ---
For your initial testcase, Lahey talks about
Compiling program unit main at line 1:
Interface body name(fun)
1173-S: "SOURCE.F90", line 6: Derived type definition for 'foo' missing.
Internal subprogram name()
20
--- Comment #22 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-11-01 22:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=12531)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12531&action=view)
All the functions working on a set of _Safe_iterators fixed
In my present understanding *all* the functions belonging
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-01 22:57 ---
You don't need a cast when converting to pointer, but the data
type of "0" is still int. When determining the type of a template
parameter, it therefore tries to to make the template parameter 'int'.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #14 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-11-01 23:33 ---
So swallowing a cancel-exception (in C++) is sometimes the right thing to do.
Imagine a thread pool executing a queue of tasks. These tasks can well have
handles so that clients can wait/join with results in the future
,.,. C910002 ACATS 2.5 06-11-01 00:36:44
C910002 Check that selected_component notation can be used to
access task discriminants.
/home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/run_all.sh: line 15: 20294
Killed
$*
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-4.2/objdir/gcc/testsu
--- Comment #22 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-11-02
02:51 ---
A couple other observations. The latest Xcode 2.4.1 release doesn't fix this
problem. Also, shorter version of the testcase...
implicit none
character*40 l
character*12 fmt
rea
--- Comment #23 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-11-02
03:16 ---
One more observation. If I change...
Index: write.c
===
--- write.c (revision 118343)
+++ write.c (working copy)
@@ -893,7 +893,7 @@
--- Comment #24 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-11-02
03:19 ---
The previous comment should indicate the crash in nan_inf_fmt disappears when n
is a double.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29302
--- Comment #29 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 03:21 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Nov 2 03:20:49 2006
New Revision: 118409
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118409
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c (do_mpfr_sincos
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 06:37 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yes, from the looks it will also fix pr29634.
>
I submitted half of the patch already to fix PR29565; I will submit the rest
this morning or this evening, depending on how long I take to fix
when cross-compiling the kernel for ARM with gcc-4.1.1, we hit an ICE:
include/asm/arch/io.h: In function 'imu_dev_init':
include/asm/arch/io.h:43: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
checked on a Gentoo ppc/x86_64 host for the arm target with gcc-3.4.6 and
gcc-4.1.1 and gcc-4.1-20061027
--- Comment #1 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2006-11-02 06:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=12532)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12532&action=view)
PR29686-reduced-O1-only.i
this is a reduced test case that only fails with -O1 :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0 ~ $ arm-unknow
--- Comment #2 from vapier at gentoo dot org 2006-11-02 06:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=12533)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12533&action=view)
PR29686-original.i
this is the original testcase that fails at -O[123] but not -O0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0 ~ $ arm-unkno
--- Comment #9 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2006-11-02 07:37 ---
Does this fix also fixes PR bootstrap/10626?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28400
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:42 ---
Subject: Bug 29377
Author: uros
Date: Thu Nov 2 07:42:05 2006
New Revision: 118410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118410
Log:
PR target/29377
* config/h8300/h8300.c (h8300_emit_
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:42
---
Richard, I'm on another problem related to REG_NOTEs in the combiner (PR 29329)
present on the 4.1 branch so I think it's time to make a definitive decision on
this PR.
I'd be in favor of backporting all your ch
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:44
---
The combiner drops a REG_DEAD note without updating liveness info.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:55 ---
Subject: Bug 29377
Author: uros
Date: Thu Nov 2 07:55:35 2006
New Revision: 118411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118411
Log:
PR target/29377
* config/h8300/h8300.c (h8300_emit_
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:55
---
Ack that, thanks Eric. Roger and I did discuss this a bit
off-list, but I don't think we came to any conclusion.
(Tardiness on my part being the dominant problem, sorry.)
I think Roger is OK in principle with a
--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2006-11-02 07:57 ---
Fixed everywhere.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
100 matches
Mail list logo
