http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46087
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2010-10-20
07:26:30 UTC ---
> The versions of the libraries mentioned on my box are
> above the minimum recommended:
>
> mpfr-3.0.0
> gmp-5.0.1
> binutils-2.20.1_3
>
> or did I miss something else?
Yes, to rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2010-10-20 08:28:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 22089 [details]
> sh script to test sqrtf
>
> Similar problems can also be found with:
>
> printf ("%.60f\n%.60f\n%.60f\n", sqrtf(x), sq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45860
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
--- Comment #6 from Rodrigo Rivas
2010-10-20 08:56:30 UTC ---
Ok, thank you for the report...
It looks like the range-for temporary completely ignore destructors.
Also, if the range is a temporary it gets destructed quite early, instead of
being
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23709
--- Comment #11 from Nicola Pero 2010-10-20
09:03:10 UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Wed Oct 20 09:03:06 2010
New Revision: 165713
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165713
Log:
In gcc/testsuite/:
2010-10-20 Nicola Pero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46092
Summary: Improve constant handling of thumb2 instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #5 from Paul Zimmermann 2010-10-20
09:54:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> You should use -ffloat-store to remove excess precision.
the main issue is not the excess of precision, but the fact that identical
calls
to printf with i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45860
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Richard G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
--- Comment #7 from Rodrigo Rivas
2010-10-20 10:06:39 UTC ---
I've just sent a patch to gcc-patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01699.html
In the testcase I added a lot of other destructor checks, just to be sure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46083
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-20
10:46:14 UTC ---
That depends on the register allocation, whether the result of fsqrt needs to
be flushed into memory or can stay in the i387 register stack. In the former
case it gets rounded from lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46093
Summary: code compiled with -fsplit-stack crashes when passing
large struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45860
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-20
11:09:57 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 20 11:09:54 2010
New Revision: 165718
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165718
Log:
2010-10-20 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
11:21:22 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Oct 20 11:21:19 2010
New Revision: 165719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165719
Log:
Correct reduc_splus_v8sf and reduc_splus_v4d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46094
Summary: -fsplit-stack doesn't honour x86_64 ABI wrt. stack
alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45860
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45954
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
12:38:33 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Oct 20 12:38:22 2010
New Revision: 165721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165721
Log:
Add LTO to boot language if it is enabled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45954
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46095
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr,
at dwarf2out.c:2341 with -fstack-protector
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46090
--- Comment #2 from Kamo Shakhnazaryan 2010-10-20
13:30:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> input * 0x0101 is really ((int)input) * 0x0101. So this behavior is correct.
input is declared as uint16_t.
Why input * 0x0101 is really ((int)input)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46090
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
13:34:31 UTC ---
Because that's what the C standard says, under the rules for integer promotions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #88 from John David Anglin 2010-10-20
13:41:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Created attachment 22079 [details]
> patch
> I haven't yet tested this on a cross-compiler, but it bootstrapped and
> regtested fine on x86_64-pc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45062
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Summary: Code produces two different outputs when optimized
respectively with -O2 and without it.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20
13:51:37 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 20 13:51:31 2010
New Revision: 165722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165722
Log:
2010-10-20 Vladimir Makarov
PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20
14:05:25 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 20 14:05:21 2010
New Revision: 165723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165723
Log:
2010-10-20 Vladimir Makarov
PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-10-20
14:06:11 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 20 14:06:08 2010
New Revision: 165724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165724
Log:
2010-10-20 Vladimir Makarov
PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #2 from Danilo 2010-10-20 14:07:45 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> There is no memory synchronisation, so there is no guarantee that the write to
> alpha1->number ever becomes visible to other threads.
According to http://wiki.lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #89 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-10-20 14:09:33
UTC ---
The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation. Is it caused by Bernd's patch
too? Or by fwprop?
According to comment 22, previously it was not bootstrapping but the failure
was else
PR lto/45667
* lto-streamer-out.c (output_gimple_stmt): Fix typo.
* tree-cfg.c (verify_gimple_call): Properly get the call fndecl.
(verify_gimple_assign_single): Disable ADDR_EXPR type check
when in LTO.
* g++.dg/lto/20101020-1_0.h: New testcase.
* g++.dg/lto/20101020-1_0.C:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-20
14:13:44 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Oct 20 14:13:38 2010
New Revision: 165726
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165726
Log:
PR c++/46056
* parser.c (cp_convert_range_f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45667
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Danilo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
Alexander Klimov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22086|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
14:29:09 UTC ---
Using a mutex around the reads and writes of shared data will make it work as
expected, the compiler won't optimise away the read and will re-read the value
every time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
Summary: Switch to warn of global variables in a C++ shared
object
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #90 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-20 14:39:26 UTC ---
> The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation. Is it caused by Bernd's patch
> too? Or by fwprop?
Actually, the ICE I saw this morning was in stage3. This box is o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
14:40:21 UTC ---
I don't recommend people use volatile to avoid multithreading races, it only
prevents compiler optimisations, not hardware reordering. Using proper atomics,
memory barriers or other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #9 from Danilo 2010-10-20 14:43:18 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Using a mutex around the reads and writes of shared data will make it work
> > as
> > expected, the compiler won't optimise away the read and will re-read the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
Danilo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #10 from Danilo 2010-10-20 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-20
14:46:24 UTC ---
Busy waiting is rarely a good idea, so it depends on what are you exactly
waiting for and whether say pthread_barrier_wait, or mutex, or condvar etc.
wouldn't be more appropriate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38153
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.2
--- Comment #1 from Zd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45983
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-20
15:05:28 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Oct 20 15:05:22 2010
New Revision: 165728
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165728
Log:
PR c++/45983
* tree.c (cp_build_qualified_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2100 with -msse3 -ffloat-store and
__builtin_ia32_loadupd()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
15:52:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> When a module meets the above compile and runtime requirements, a crash can
> occur in global objects with destructors when more than one process loads and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46099
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: in replace_ssa_name, at
tree-cfg.c:5643 with -ftree-parallelize-loops -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
Summary: Non-variable pointer expression as actual argument to
INTENT(OUT) non-pointer dummy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43721
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #12 from Danilo 2010-10-20 16:53:53 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Busy waiting is rarely a good idea, so it depends on what are you exactly
> waiting for and whether say pthread_barrier_wait, or mutex, or condvar etc.
> wouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in build_abbrev_table, at
dwarf2out.c:10333 with -feliminate-dwarf2-dups -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
16:57:45 UTC ---
If the value changes because of IO (rather than being set by another thread, as
in your testcase) then volatile might be the right option. Condvars could also
work and allow you to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46098
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46096
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou 2010-10-20
17:18:33 UTC ---
> Maybe just always compiling without optimizations will do?
Adding "volatile" is exactly saying "do not optimize this loop", i.e. you get
at -O2 what you do at -O0, nothing more, no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-20
17:21:30 UTC ---
Forgot to add: In the current ISO Fortran standard (Fortran 2008), one finds:
"If a nonpointer dummy argument without the VALUE attribute corresponds
to a pointer actual argument that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-20
17:33:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > When a module meets the above compile and runtime requirements, a crash can
> > occur in global objects with destructors when m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2010-10-20 17:36:24 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Oct 20 17:36:15 2010
New Revision: 165731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165731
Log:
fixincludes:
PR c++/46024
* inclhack.def (so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-10-20
17:38:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > When a module meets the above compile and runtime requirements, a crash
> > > can
> > > occur i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Non-variable pointer|[Fortran 2008] Non-variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46102
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in dwarf2out_finish (dwarf2out.c:8490)
with -feliminate-dwarf2-dups when using precompiled
headers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46099
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46100
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-10-20
18:01:54 UTC ---
Untested patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
index 5711634..ef516a4 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
@@ -4316,7 +4316,18 @@ gfc_check_v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45946
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40054
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Summary: [c++0x] moving from std::array copies the elements
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: u
> two() = 7
I don't see how it is possible to distinguish between a statement function and
an assignment here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46095
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46099
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
21:10:27 UTC ---
so this would demonstrate the problem?
struct MoveOnly {
MoveOnly(const MoveOnly&) = delete;
MoveOnly(MoveOnly&&) { }
MoveOnly() = default;
};
struct A {
MoveOnly mo[1];
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46104
Summary: Linker error "cannot find -liberty"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
Summary: Ordering failure among partial specializations with
non-deduced context
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
--- Comment #1 from David Krauss 2010-10-20 21:15:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 22098
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22098
small example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-20
21:15:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 20 21:15:49 2010
New Revision: 165739
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165739
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46066
* tree-parloops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46105
David Krauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22098|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45919
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-20
21:17:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 20 21:17:30 2010
New Revision: 165740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165740
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45919
* tree-ssa-ccp.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45907
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46106
Summary: Error in Manpage? -fstack-protection =>
-fstack-protector(-all)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
