http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-02 09:49:39 UTC ---
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-02
09:52:27 UTC ---
Probably a better place than phi-opt would be RTL expansion (thus, out-of-SSA
for the PHI nodes) where based on target cost those constants could be
materialized differently.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02
10:12:26 UTC ---
Francois, please take a look asap.
Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more memory
is used by these data structures, and that is largely unavoidable, t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02
10:13:02 UTC ---
Sure, agreed on that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51180
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-12-02 10:15:06 UTC ---
"jason at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> I'm surprised that it doesn't just work already; writing t2 already
> works, doing the substitution ought to work the same way.
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51385
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-02
10:36:14 UTC ---
Here's a version which isn't a compile-time-hog but demonstrates the
unnecessary instantiation with a static_assert (so needs -std=c++11)
template struct NTmpl;
template >
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51385
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-02
10:47:45 UTC ---
Interestingly G++ is happy to not instantiate the template when it's not
possible to, i.e. making this change and defining -DINCOMPLETE allows it to
compile:
template
struct FussyT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou 2011-12-02
10:54:45 UTC ---
> If the expressions only become invariant after unrolling then the issue
> is that without CCP LIM does not see they are invariant I suppose.
No, adding a CCP pass doesn't help (at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51375
--- Comment #2 from pjodrr at gmail dot com 2011-12-02 11:01:31 UTC ---
... and also with 4.7-2026
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-12-02
11:07:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more
> memory
> is used by these data structures, and that is largely unavoidable,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02
11:10:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more
> > memory
> > is used by these data structures, and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47259
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02
11:12:20 UTC ---
Note the huge slow down is entirely in the third block, for
max_load_factor(.3), we must do something about it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-12-02
11:15:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(My reply probably seems slightly odd due to the mid-air collision with comment
#2.)
> Oh, I see floating-point changes, has the patch perhaps increased
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47259
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|LTO and global reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #22 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-02
11:50:39 UTC ---
One thing I notice (and that's the only difference I can spot at the tree
level) is that we do not CSE the **2s of
a = sqrt((rect_inductor%v2%x - rect_inductor%v4%x)**2 +
(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47259
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51371
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50622
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-02
12:53:06 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 2 12:53:03 2011
New Revision: 181908
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181908
Log:
2011-12-02 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31709
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25130
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #51 from Michael Matz 2011-12-02 13:23:57
UTC ---
Nope, I don't have more than a couple hacks to try different approaches
as of right now. I should dust them off for next stage1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
Bug #: 51388
Summary: Configure failure to detect unsupported warning
options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross
builds)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
Bug #: 51389
Summary: GCC uses up to 75GB of virtual memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-02 14:31:27 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bur...@net-b.de |dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comment #25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-02
14:52:49 UTC ---
Since 4.4.0 we no longer warn for unrecognized -Wno- forms, thus the configure
check is broken as-is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51381
--- Comment #7 from eric.valette at free dot fr 2011-12-02 14:58:49 UTC ---
The line given in the error correspond to a gcc_unreachable call in the
fp_immediate_constant (rtx x) function???
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #3 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2011-12-02 14:59:37 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> I see
>
>> gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG
> cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-02 15:02:27 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47259
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-02
15:49:41 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 2 15:49:37 2011
New Revision: 181927
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181927
Log:
2011-12-02 Richard Guenther
PR lto/47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #27 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-02
16:02:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> The trivial example is (x + 2**52) - 2**52 which rounds x to
> an integer. Without parens we optimize away that rounding effect.
Corrected example. The r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-12-02 16:09:57 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Still the behavior of warning for -Wno- changed appearantly. Joseph?
The idea was that if an unknown -Wno- op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-02 16:13:25 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
>
> --- Comment #27 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-02
> 16:02:45 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-02
16:20:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> > I see
> >
> >> gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG
> > cc1: error: unrecogni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48887
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|[OOP] SELECT TYP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51313
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #30 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-02
16:29:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> And for the sake of completeness the evaluation of sub above and
> x = (x + 2.d0**52) - 2.d0**52
> should behave consistently if I read your Fortran s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-02 16:32:52 UTC ---
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
>
> --- Comment #30 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-02
> 16:29:46 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-12-02 16:37:37 UTC ---
> And for the sake of completeness the evaluation of sub above and
>
>subroutine sub2(x)
> real*8 x
> x = (x + 2.d0**52) - 2.d0**52
>end subroutine sub2
>
> s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #33 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-12-02 16:45:24 UTC ---
> The failing polyhedron 2005 benchmark is linpk which can be seen with -Ofast
> on
> x86_64-apple-darwin11...
>
> > Value= 25.114499300 Target= 23.1 Tolerance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2011-12-02
16:48:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Now, the question is why we don't consistently error in 4.3 ...
>
> I see
>
> > gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG
> cc1: error: unrecognized comma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37782
--- Comment #13 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-12-02
16:54:33 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Dec 2 16:54:27 2011
New Revision: 181929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181929
Log:
Revert:
2008-09-18 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37451
--- Comment #7 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-12-02
16:54:33 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Dec 2 16:54:27 2011
New Revision: 181929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181929
Log:
Revert:
2008-09-18 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-12-02
16:59:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Still the behavior of warning for -Wno- changed appearantly. Joseph?
>
> The idea was th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #34 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-02
17:06:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> Ok, which is, I suppose, a bug in both compilers.
Kind of, though, -ffast-math by itself already is on the verge of violating the
standard. I think -fno-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
Bug #: 51390
Summary: Builtin changes on November 29th, broke recip-5.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner 2011-12-02
17:18:55 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Dec 2 17:18:51 2011
New Revision: 181930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181930
Log:
PR 51390
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51313
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02
17:23:24 UTC ---
This badly requires a reduced testcase, I'm going to prepare one. Then the fix
should be pretty simple: just use STRIP_NOPs unconditionally, ie cxx0x too, in
null_ptr_cst_p?! Anything
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2011-12-02
17:26:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 25972
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25972
Patch to fix the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51313
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
--- Comment #3 from Nickolay Cherney 2011-12-02
18:58:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> But apparently this issue is very old, I can reproduce with 4.3.x too! Out of
> curiosity, which release series worked for you?
It's pretty hard to remem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-02
19:14:20 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Dec 2 19:14:15 2011
New Revision: 181936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181936
Log:
PR target/51002
PR target/51345
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51345
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-02
19:14:20 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Dec 2 19:14:15 2011
New Revision: 181936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181936
Log:
PR target/51002
PR target/51345
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #35 from Eric Botcazou 2011-12-02
21:21:15 UTC ---
> One thing I notice (and that's the only difference I can spot at the tree
> level) is that we do not CSE the **2s of
There are many missed hoisting opportunities, with or without t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51387
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-02
21:57:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 21:57:15 2011
New Revision: 181951
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181951
Log:
PR target/51387
* config/i386/sse.md (mul3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50814
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51337
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51368
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-03
00:52:03 UTC ---
that function was not defined in its own file in 4.5, I moved it for PR 43863
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51307
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-12-03 02:12:44 UTC ---
On 28-Nov-11, at 4:48 AM, charlet at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Here is the patch from Thomas Quinot fixing this issue, I'll commit it
> when I get a chance, feel free to us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51347
Patrick Marlier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patrick.marlier at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
Bug #: 51391
Summary: pragma GCC diag ignored then warning of Winline
activates -fno-inline
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #1 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:10:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25973
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25973
this is the source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #2 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:10:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 25974
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25974
this is the header file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #3 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:11:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25975
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25975
this is the bad output I am getting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #4 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:13:49 UTC ---
Forgot to mention ... in my original discovery, I was seeing it occurring when
inlines were inside inlines. That is what I submitted, I don't know if it is
part of the proble
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-03
03:14:27 UTC ---
The warnings are correct. You declared some functions as inline but they are
not being inlined because optimization is not turned on (that is -fno-inline).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-03
03:15:48 UTC ---
inlineBug.h:16:8: warning: function ‘inlineBug::inlineBug()’ can never be
inlined because it is suppressed using -fno-inline
Without any -On (or -O or -Os), -fno-inline is the default
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #7 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:18:50 UTC ---
Wow ... I never picked that up when trying to find the answer in the online GCC
docs. Thanks for the advice.
That being said, why would it work when I didn't have the pragma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-03
03:24:26 UTC ---
Because there is code to explicitly turn off the warning for -O0 but not when
using the pragma:
/* Inlining does not work if not optimizing,
so force it not to be done.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #9 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:29:03 UTC ---
I just tested on my Linux box and I am getting the results you suggest for -O2
and -O3. It is finding issues with -O, -Os, and -O1, but I think that is my
problem (barking on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #10 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:31:06 UTC ---
off-topic, but I added myself to the cc-list but don't get copies of my own
submissions, is that the way gcc bugzilla behaves (would be different than
redhat's for fedora)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-03
03:32:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> off-topic, but I added myself to the cc-list but don't get copies of my own
> submissions, is that the way gcc bugzilla behaves (would be different than
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51391
--- Comment #12 from pnewell at cs dot cmu.edu 2011-12-03 03:36:51 UTC ---
changed preferences, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Marlier
2011-12-03 03:53:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 25976
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25976
reduced and without transaction relaxed
I am hesitating to mark it as invalid since limiting the t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #4 from John Regehr 2011-12-03 07:01:50
UTC ---
Created attachment 25977
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25977
smaller test case
90 matches
Mail list logo
