http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
Summary: [4.7 Regression] bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
Summary: [4.7 Regression] --enable-languages=c doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18046
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-07-13 10:29:57 |2011-07-19 10:29:57
--- Comment #16 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-20
00:40:39 UTC ---
Anyone working on this? I have found this happens internally a bit (after
expanding of bitfields accesses).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-20 01:25:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you think it is more correct to implicitly build C++ when using
> --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx (which is now the default), or do you think
> it is more co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49788
Summary: Extra Load immediate with zero
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-20 01:40:09
UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01574.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49789
Summary: Bootstrap failure with SMS flags on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #13 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques
2011-07-20 06:07:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 24794 [details]
> the preprocessed source of Salsa20 from Crypto++, with gcc 4.6.0, option -O2
I just discovered that the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49790
Summary: ICE in partition_view_bitmap, at tree-ssa-live.c:369
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
--- Comment #4 from bagnara at cs dot unipr.it 2011-07-20 06:44:25 UTC ---
Well... do you agree that the condition of a while loop has to be
evaluated at each iteration? If so, then we agree that the condition
is inside the while loop, not outsid
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo