--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 06:30 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Andrew, can you identify whatever portion of this patch has not yet been
> applied to 4.2?
This portion which was part of my original submitial (though Roger found it
when he was fixing a
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 06:32 ---
I made a note of it when Roger submitted the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg00704.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30222
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 06:43 ---
Subject: Bug 30222
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Apr 25 06:43:32 2007
New Revision: 124140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124140
Log:
2007-04-24 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ro
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 06:44
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #18 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:45 ---
Lowering priority of suspended PR.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:48 ---
Adding SH maintainer to CC. Lowering priority for non-primary target.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ian at airs dot com 2007-04-25 06:49 ---
Adding SH maintainer to CC.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #5 from mtrudel at gmx dot ch 2007-04-25 07:17 ---
You write "it needs a host version of gcj",
your host is "i686-pc-linux-gnu" and
configure looks for "i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcj"?
Seems correct to me? What gcj should be searched for? The only problem I'm
currently aware of is t
--- Comment #2 from aesok at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 07:18 ---
Subject: Bug 18989
Author: aesok
Date: Wed Apr 25 07:18:33 2007
New Revision: 124141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124141
Log:
PR target/18989
* config/avr/avr.h (ASM_OUTPUT_AL
In the attached testcase, gcc assigns the same register to several inline asm
named operands resulting in incorrect code generated. Seems like names of
operands do matter ('c' and 'count' are assigned the same register but renaming
'c' operand to 'xxc' for example makes this bug disappear).
--
--- Comment #1 from siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com 2007-04-25
07:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=13436)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13436&action=view)
testcase for this bug
Testcase attached
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31693
--- Comment #2 from siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com 2007-04-25
07:28 ---
This may be related to #31386
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31693
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 07:38 ---
foo1 (__result, n)
{
bar1 ((int4 *) n, foo1);
goto __return_foo1;
__return_foo1:;
looks strange. Shouldn't this be:
bar1 ((int4 *) n, __result)
In addition, the warning
g.f90:8: warning: Function does not
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
