http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47338
Summary: [4.5 Regression][C++] cc1plus returns exist code 5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46856
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-01-18
08:29:42 UTC ---
If I hack reload_combine_recognize_const_pattern to bail out early if HAVE_cc0,
then the test case doesn't ICE a cross to m68k-linux, and native bootstrap on
m68k-linux also succee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47291
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47339
Summary: Fortran 95: Reject namelist objects of non-constant
size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47337
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-18
09:58:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 23016
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23016
gcc46-pr47337.patch
Untested fix. Thanks for the report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47067
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47329
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-18
10:31:32 UTC ---
How about
Index: tree-eh.c
===
--- tree-eh.c (revision 168906)
+++ tree-eh.c (working copy)
@@ -3710,6 +3710,9 @
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47340
Summary: [trans-mem] problem with declaration of new operator
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47341
Summary: unnecessary versioning in the vectorizer.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47341
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47338
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.3
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47341
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46170
--- Comment #25 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-01-18
12:44:28 UTC ---
> Hi again, any chance Dodji's patches could be pushed to the 4.5 and/or 4.4
> branches, before it gets too close to release time again? Thanks.
It's in my TODO list. I'll get to i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin 2011-01-18
12:48:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> One way would be to keep for data types all the time the two versions around:
> One with restrict and one without restrict;
makes sense
> thus, if one does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47339
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|Fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47342
Summary: misleading diagnostic for member of undeclared class
template partial specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-18
12:57:11 UTC ---
Related: PR 47339
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47339
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-18
12:57:20 UTC ---
Related: PR 43062
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47343
Summary: incorrect location for declaration of class template
partial specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47342
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-18
13:00:26 UTC ---
Oops, the g++ diagnostics I showed were from 4.4 not 4.6, but they're the same
except 4.6 adds column numbers
I've created PR 47343 for the incorrect line number in the case where t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-18
13:07:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 23017
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23017
gcc46-pr47290.patch
Another possible untested patch that should handle any number of bbs in empty
in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-18
13:10:19 UTC ---
We could also limit the number of iterations:
int i;
- for (i = 1; VEC_iterate (eh_landing_pad, cfun->eh->lp_array, i, lp); ++i)
+ int len = VEC_length (eh_landing_pad, cfun->eh-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #20 from Xavier 2011-01-18 13:14:38 UTC
---
Hi,
so, I am bit lost, "bug" is resolved or not ?
Correction available with next version of gcc ?
Thanks,
Xavier
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle 2011-01-18
13:27:48 UTC ---
It is not resolved because we are waiting for an interpretation from the
Fortran standards committee on whether the test case is valid or invalid
Fortran. If invalid, then we need to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47339
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-18
13:31:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 23018
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23018
Draft patch
Draft patch; handles most of the items - except that ALLOCATABLEs/POINTERs are
still rej
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-01-18 13:37:42 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin 2011-01-18
> 12:48:41 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-18
13:39:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> We could also limit the number of iterations:
>int i;
>
> - for (i = 1; VEC_iterate (eh_landing_pad, cfun->eh->lp_array, i, lp); ++i)
> + int len =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47230
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46878
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47340
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier
2011-01-18 13:47:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 23019
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23019
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-18
13:49:18 UTC ---
cleanup_all_empty_eh is called just once per ehcleanup pass, doesn't iterate.
If we don't want to iterate on the new pads, we could just use len = VEC_length
too, but IMHO some iterati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #32 from Michael Matz 2011-01-18 13:56:01
UTC ---
Yes, but it's possible I was going up the wrong tree. My idea was to
build the no-restrict variants of types on demand, as necessary, basically
from gfc_sym_type(), whenever sym->attr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47326
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47289
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression][meta-bug] GCC gets slower
and uses more memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-18 14:20:40
UTC ---
Please note that valgrind also complaints search_line_acc_char
which doesn't use SSE2/SSE4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.6 |---
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.6 |---
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-18
14:23:32 UTC ---
That's because even that routines operates on (aligned) word_type sized chunks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||47344
Target Milestone|4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47345
Summary: [4.6 Regression] LTO failed to bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47345
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36861
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #122
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
--- Comment #43 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-18
14:53:46 UTC ---
Now at -O2 the main inliner seems to degenerate ;(
168767 78.4974 cc1 cgraph_edge_badness
9426 4.3842 cc1 update_edge_key
3529 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #123 from Daniel Berlin 2011-01-18
14:54:33 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:49 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
>
> Jan Hubicka changed:
>
> What |Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
--- Comment #44 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-18
14:58:04 UTC ---
and later IRA
samples %app name symbol name
2582656.8667 cc1 allocno_spill_priority_compare
6812 14.9994 cc1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40901
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #3 from Jon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40901
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-18
15:11:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> access control isn't done for a nested-name-specifier
sorry, should be "... for arguments in a template-id in a
nested-name-specifier"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Summary: access control for nested type is ignored in class
template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #124 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-18 15:15:01
UTC ---
>
> This looks suspiciously like it's not using the DFS numbers
It seems that they are used, just we do a lot of queries from
register_new_assert_for
according to my ^C GDB profiling.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #125 from Daniel Berlin 2011-01-18
15:18:25 UTC ---
>
> --- Comment #124 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-18 15:15:01
> UTC ---
>>
>> This looks suspiciously like it's not using the DFS numbers
> It seems that they are used, just we do a lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36861
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47345
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47216
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-18
15:50:59 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 18 15:50:55 2011
New Revision: 168951
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168951
Log:
2011-01-18 Richard Guenther
PR rtl-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47216
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.6.0/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10.6.0
Configured with: ../gcc-4.6-20110118/configure --prefix=/sw
--prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.6 --mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.6/info
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --enable-stage1-languages=c,lto
--enable-lan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson 2011-01-18
16:45:09 UTC ---
Jakub, I'm fine with your second patch to detect infinite loops, with
the proviso that you break out the test into a separate function.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47347
Summary: "pragma GCC diagnostic ignored" has no effect
sometimes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46886
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-18
17:20:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 23020
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23020
gcc46-pr47290.patch
Like this (still untested but on this testcase)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #33 from Mikael Morin 2011-01-18
17:21:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Yes, but it's possible I was going up the wrong tree. My idea was to
> build the no-restrict variants of types on demand, as necessary, basically
> from gf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47338
--- Comment #2 from daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de 2011-01-18 17:30:54 UTC
---
What do you mean by debug? I can't even compile it because cc1plus exists half
the way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47347
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-18
17:32:39 UTC ---
reduced:
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-parameter"
template
struct KeyValue
{
virtual void serialize(int a) const
{
}
};
void f()
{
KeyValue values;
}
#pragma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47338
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-18
17:35:34 UTC ---
debug cc1plus to see where/why it exits, not debug your application
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46911
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47318
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
Summary: substring with len_trim in array constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson 2011-01-18
18:20:49 UTC ---
Looks good. Ok if it passes tests.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47349
Summary: missing warning: Actual argument contains too few
elements
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 18:45:27
UTC ---
In this loop:
for (i=0, nops=0 ; i= 90) ? 3 : 1))
{
addrmap[i] = i - nops;
if (codestr[i] == 9)
nops++;
}
it looks like this part: i += ((codestr[i] >= 90)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36104
--- Comment #11 from Benjamin Kosnik 2011-01-18
19:01:01 UTC ---
yes. debug mode + versioning still in progress. expect to wrap that up asap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47349
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-18 19:08:00 UTC ---
Here's a first patch, not regtested yet:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36861
--- Comment #38 from Ion Gaztañaga 2011-01-18
19:15:22 UTC ---
Thanks Richard for the detailed report. The fact is that the next standard is
trying to support relative pointers for container implementations (much like
Boost.Interprocess does), to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||47065
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41146
--- Comment #4 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-18
20:06:17 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:06:13 2011
New Revision: 168960
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168960
Log:
2011-01-18 Dominique d'Humieres
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47179
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-01-18
20:13:59 UTC ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:13:56 2011
New Revision: 168961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168961
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47179
* config/spu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47179
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47350
Summary: Deferred string length: ALLOCATE should allow MOLD=
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43567
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:47:10
UTC ---
*** Bug 43568 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43568
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47338
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Starke
2011-01-18 20:48:34 UTC ---
Here is the debugging output. I can attach the whole back-trace if needed.
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.2
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or lat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43567
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:54:23
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:54:18 2011
New Revision: 168962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168962
Log:
Add testcase for PR43567.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29832
--- Comment #8 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:54:30
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:54:26 2011
New Revision: 168963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168963
Log:
Add testcase for PR29832.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43657
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:54:38
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:54:34 2011
New Revision: 168964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168964
Log:
Add testcase for PR43657.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46168
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:54:43
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:54:40 2011
New Revision: 168965
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168965
Log:
Add testcase for PR46168.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46215
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:54:50
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:54:46 2011
New Revision: 168966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168966
Log:
Add testcase for PR46215.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop 2011-01-18 20:54:55
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Tue Jan 18 20:54:52 2011
New Revision: 168967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168967
Log:
Add testcase for PR46970.
2011-01-18 Sebastian Pop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43657
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
