http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543
--- Comment #5 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-09-28
07:30:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I have no problem with
>
> /export/gnu/import/git/gcc-release/configure --enable-clocale=gnu
> --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --enable-languages=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-28
08:21:46 UTC ---
Built via
#4 0x00696c37 in build_nop (type=0x2ab4a498, expr=0x2cef96c0)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/cp/typeck.c:4686
#5 0x00590d07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50485
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 08:48:05 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Sep 28 08:48:00 2011
New Revision: 179309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179309
Log:
2011-09-28 Tom de Vries
PR testsui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50485
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50546
Bug #: 50546
Summary: gfortran should not accept missing operator (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
Bug #: 50547
Summary: dummy procedure argument of PURE shall be PURE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50548
Bug #: 50548
Summary: gfortran -fcheck=all run time would be nice to detect
different shapes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50549
Bug #: 50549
Summary: should detect different type parameters in structure
constructors (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
Bug #: 50550
Summary: does not recognize pointer variable at initialization
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50551
Bug #: 50551
Summary: Argumentless NULL() cannot be used with assumed-length
dummy (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
Bug #: 50552
Summary: type name cannot be statement function dummy argument
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
Bug #: 50553
Summary: statement function cannot be target (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Bug #: 50554
Summary: INQUIRE cannot redefine DO index(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Bug #: 50555
Summary: synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument
not allowed (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
Bug #: 50556
Summary: cannot save namelist group name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-28
09:20:40 UTC ---
I meant checking static expressions at compilation time, as in my example.
This has no cost at run time.
You proposed a run time check that still should be done if requested with a
ki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
Bug #: 50557
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Register pressure increase after
reassociation (x86, 32 bits)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 11:14:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This one is trivial:
Unfortunately this causes one testsuite regression:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_derived_4.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
Red
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin 2011-09-28
11:52:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 25373
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25373
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2011-09-28
12:13:50 UTC ---
The fix for 49749 is intended to remove dependencies between loop iterations.
One possibility would be to condition the changes on the presence of
-funroll-loops. Another would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Ruben Van Boxem changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #7 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #118 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
12:21:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #117)
> Any chance of this being backported to older branches? Seems quite useful for
> the future.
I don't think this (very good, but quite major) change qual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #119 from Paolo Carlini
2011-09-28 12:23:51 UTC ---
If you ask me, no way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-28
12:38:29 UTC ---
Thanks for gold support. GCC support is now posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01818.html
We miss the GNU LD variant
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
Bug #: 50558
Summary: Illegal program not detected (record component with no
supplied value) and invalid access to atomic variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
--- Comment #1 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov 2011-09-28
13:08:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 25375
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25375
Invalid program correctly detected
This is test program with definition of Data_Register mov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #112 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-28
13:33:03 UTC ---
OK, the problem turns out to be configure issue. Configure script greps asm
output and with slim LTO it does not find there what it expects disabling
hidden visibilities. No surprise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-28
13:47:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 28 13:47:12 2011
New Revision: 179313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179313
Log:
2011-09-28 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
--- Comment #2 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov 2011-09-28
13:51:43 UTC ---
Output with -gnatG looks different for two programs.
For good.ada:
with pkg;
procedure test is
begin
T1b : pkg__data_record := (
data => 255);
pkg.pkg__data_regi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #120 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-09-28 13:58:03 UTC ---
OK, somewhat understandable to keep evil legacy code compiling.
Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct define
if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #121 from Marc Glisse
2011-09-28 14:20:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
> Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct
> define
> if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping the old behavior for -std=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #122 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
15:34:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #120)
> Last plea for Standards conformance: What about only setting the correct
> define
> if -std=c++89/03/0x/11 is passed and keeping the old behavior for -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
15:35:22 UTC ---
First blush, I would say this is malformed code, even if we produce "only" a
warning with -Wreturn-type. And after all we produce only a warning also for
false substituted to flag in t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
15:41:27 UTC ---
Yep, [stmt.return]/2 "Flowing off the end of a function is equivalent to a
return with no value; this results in undefined behavior in a value-returning
function."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-28 15:54:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> With the -O2 flag and in a very specialized circumstance, the product of a
> complex and a double has the wrong sign.
>
> The problem arises when the blitz++ arra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50558
--- Comment #3 from Eugeniy Meshcheryakov 2011-09-28
15:58:00 UTC ---
After reading Ada 2005 rationale I think that the program in attachment 25374
is valid (components with no default values should be left undefined) and the
other one is invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
16:01:45 UTC ---
FWIW, the reflector thread starting with c++std-core-12400 has lots of
rationale why a diagnostic isn't required. One reason is C compatibility as
it's only undefined in C if the r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
16:02:05 UTC ---
HJ, I think the correct output, showing that we are *not* miscompiling or
something is:
(-0.0,-1.0)x100.0=(-0.0,-100.0)
exactly what you are seeing. The problem is, with 4.6 we get:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
16:05:21 UTC ---
To answer your specific question, flowing isn't defined, neither is "the flow
of control", but my reading is it means at runtime, for the reasons in my
previous comment. If the comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
16:13:33 UTC ---
Ok, thanks Jonathan. Thus, let's see first if somebody can actually reproduce
the issue!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47749
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
16:23:40 UTC ---
Of course if Davide could try something more recent than 4.4.4, it would be
useful. Note that on Linux even current 4.4 branch is Ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49126
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
Bug #: 50559
Summary: g++ bails out after seeing overflow in an enumeration
value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #1 from dnetserrspam at gmail dot com 2011-09-28 17:24:18 UTC ---
When g++ compiles the attached code it complains (correctly) that the value for
GREEN overflows. Then it reports that it is confused by earlier errors and
bails out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-28
17:27:25 UTC ---
Hmm, it does not ICE on the trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-28
17:27:41 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef enum ColorTag { RED = 2147483647, GREEN, BLUE } Color;
int main()
{
Color x = GREEN;
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
17:34:44 UTC ---
So far have been able to figure out that diagnostic_classify_diagnostic
apparently sets correctly context->n_classification_history to 1 when the
pragma is parsed, but then is found ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-28
17:56:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Reduced testcase:
>
> Just to be sure: Is this testcase rejected? If so, this seems in violation to
> the C++(03) standard base
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-28 18:03:50
UTC ---
It is fixed by revision 172430:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00625.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
18:21:52 UTC ---
probably related to PR 48536
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
Bug #: 50560
Summary: g++ optimization -O3 is removing symbols from
templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50559
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48536
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnetserrspam at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-09-28
18:28:31 UTC ---
I just enabled Bugzilla debug mode, and the relevant error is:
undef error - Insecure dependency in parameter 3 of
DBI::db=HASH(0xb097df4)->selectrow_hashref method call while runni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-28
18:37:37 UTC ---
your hack to allow "separately compiled template components" isn't valid C++,
but you can make the code valid by putting an explicit instantiation
declaration in the header:
extern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-09-28
19:19:28 UTC ---
This is totally crazy. Perl complains that the attachment ID is tainted if you
are logged out, but not if you are logged in. And the error comes right *after*
a call to detaint_natur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50560
--- Comment #3 from Mark 2011-09-28 19:38:05
UTC ---
Thanks for the quick response. Your solution works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bugzilla suffers an |Bugzilla suffers a taint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543
--- Comment #7 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-09-28
19:42:52 UTC ---
Anybody but me and Evgeny can confirm that?
I've tried really general path of build it and got fail to compare different
stages...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-28 19:45:48 UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:20:40AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
>
> --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-28
> 09:20:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
20:05:32 UTC ---
Oops, sorry, got confused, in C++0x it's an hard error. Uhmmm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
Bug #: 50561
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE when compiling zlib with -O2
-floop-flatten -floop-strip-mine
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2011-09-28 20:59:07 UTC
---
Created attachment 25378
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25378
pre-processed source of the file that triggers the ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27527
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
21:09:59 UTC ---
Thanks, the "usual" misinterpretation, in other terms (honestly, in this
specific case I didn't look at the actual code closely enough to even try to
figure out myself).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50562
Bug #: 50562
Summary: configure: --without-newlib does not disable libgloss
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:28:59 UTC ---
The patch regtests cleanly. I'm going to commit as obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2011-09-28 21:36:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> What happened to issue Core/983?
It was originally accepted but later found out to be the wrong solution,
therefore it became fixed again by CWG 1121.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50547
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-28 21:40:30 UTC ---
This patch causes one testsuite failure on elemental_args_check_2.f90, due to a
slightly changed error message.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49486
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-09-28
21:43:06 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Sep 28 21:43:01 2011
New Revision: 179320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179320
Log:
PR target/49486
* config/sh/sh.md (negd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41796
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-28
21:48:08 UTC ---
Excellent, then could you possibly comment on the implication for this PR? (for
you it's easy, I'm sure)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40056
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-28 22:04:51 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 28 22:04:48 2011
New Revision: 179321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179321
Log:
/cp
2011-09-28 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45278
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
