http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-12
08:03:41 UTC ---
STATUS:
With the commit for PR 41539, there is no longer an ICE.
However, while the example of comment 2 (attachment 18978) compiles, it fails
to link with: undefined reference to `
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47399
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-12
08:07:23 UTC ---
Since the commit for PR 41539, the example(s) of comment 0 (#1, #2, #3) compile
and print "13" at run time.
TODO: Check whether we now allow invalid code. Check the c.l.f thread.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43214
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43969
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44568
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Bug #: 51510
Summary: [4.6/4.7 regression] gcc for arm-linux-gnueabi ICEs on
gcc.c-torture/execute/20050713-1.c due to
PR50074+PR51323 fix
Classification: Unclassified
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46356
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Bug #: 51511
Summary: [4.6/4.7 regression] gcc.dg/pr45819.c fails on
arm-linux-gnueabi due to PR50078+PR51466 fix
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
08:37:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Dec 12 08:37:22 2011
New Revision: 182221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182221
Log:
2011-12-12 Richard Guenther
PR lto/512
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51512
Bug #: 51512
Summary: RFC: Bogus "Return value of function"/"INTENT(OUT) was
not set" with allocatable results/dummies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50923
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
09:02:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26051
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26051
gcc47-pr51510.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
09:13:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 26052
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26052
gcc47-pr51511.patch
Yeah, I agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51293
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51506
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51505
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
10:16:31 UTC ---
*** Bug 51493 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
Kiskunsag changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-12 10:40:32
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Dec 12 10:40:27 2011
New Revision: 182225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182225
Log:
PR libgcj/50053
* java/lang/natClass.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #2 from gee 2011-12-12 10:41:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What's the issue you are fixing?
i experienced the dejagnu error that gcj is not found in path. this is because
of gnu make doesn't export its variable to environment i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26053|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Bug #: 51513
Summary: [missed optimization] Only partially optimizes away
unreachable switch default case
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
--- Comment #1 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-12-12 10:54:16 UTC ---
Forgot this:
pannekake:~> gcc-4.6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:03:59 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> While investigating pr51597, I have found that vectorized loops in programs as
> simple as
>
> subroutine spmmult(x,b,ad)
> implicit none
> integer, parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:13:24 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> In some cases it might be necessary but not here:
>
> sum1+=a;
> sum2+=a;
>
> gives exactly the same result as
>
> (sum1, sum2) += (a, a);
>
So, you a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
11:22:33 UTC ---
SUN_JAVAC and MAUVEDIR are weird though, we are testing GCJ after all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
11:24:22 UTC ---
Hmm. But we are vectorizing
sum += a[i]
sum += a[i+1]
the same as
sum += a[i+1]
sum += a[i]
no? Thus you have to check whether the summation occours in "memory order"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen 2011-12-12 11:27:26 UTC
---
Right. We need to check that there is no load permutation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
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=49074
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-12
12:31:55 UTC ---
The failing assert is:
Breakpoint 2, gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr (expr=0x16b8f10,
se=0x7fffd580)
at /home/tob/projects/gcc-git/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:4529
4529
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
12:39:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> We shouldn't be emitting anything for that nested function declaration in the
> concrete instance of the inlined function, and we don't when compiling wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-12
12:40:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 26056
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26056
manually reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-12-12 12:47:54 UTC ---
> > even when the above loops are unrolled. How can the loop L5 be unrolled if
> > it
> > is only there for a "scalar epilogue"?
>
> It can't be unrolled, since the alignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-12-12
13:09:49 UTC ---
> I can't see any vectorizer differences for the testcase in comment #2 and the
> patch you cite only (should) have debuginfo changes, no changes to the
> produced
> IL at stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-12-12
13:10:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So my question is: what is the mechanism that should prevent epilogue insns
> from being moved to before the epilogue?
A full compiler barrier? See PR3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-12
13:14:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> However, while the example of comment 2 (attachment 18978 [details]) compiles,
> it fails to link with: undefined reference to `assign_'
The problem is in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-12 13:29:14
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Dec 12 13:29:10 2011
New Revision: 182238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182238
Log:
Correct bug-number in ChangeLog.
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #3 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2011-12-12 14:09:12 UTC ---
> Untested fix.
Wouldn't that fix make this operation O(E^2)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #13 from fb.programming at gmail dot com 2011-12-12 14:20:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> So, you are suggesting to remove the need in flag_associative_math for fp for
> cases when a reduction computation is already unrolled by t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #7 from Sean McGovern 2011-12-12
14:30:27 UTC ---
If this can't be reassigned, can we just close it as "not ours"?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #2 from gee 2011-12-12 14:46:26 UTC ---
please fix java::lang::Class::initializeClass for mingw32 ia-32 by adding
__thiscall before being involved this bug. surely PR50053 is fixed but i leaved
a kludge toward this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #3 from gee 2011-12-12 14:48:52 UTC ---
it seems that libffi handles calling convention of method which is cdecl or
stdcall.
but not for thiscall for mingw32 ia-32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51514
Bug #: 51514
Summary: [OOP] Wrong code when passing a CLASS to a TYPE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51515
Bug #: 51515
Summary: Unable to forward declare nested functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-12-12
15:17:19 UTC ---
> I can't reproduce anything with the testcase from comment #2.
Sorry for the confusion. The code in comment #2 was here only to show the
actual code after the inlining of tris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50873
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-12 15:18:29 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Dec 12 15:18:24 2011
New Revision: 182244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182244
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/50873
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24407|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #9 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-12-12 16:17:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The problem still exists, but classpath is maintained upstream, not by GCC.
Checking out the GNU classpath project from savannah (CVS HEAD), there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn 2011-12-12
16:29:03 UTC ---
Has GCC/GCJ imported a recent version of classpath? The "bug" may be that the
classpath package is not up to date in libjava. In fact, the file may not be
used at all and solely a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
16:36:38 UTC ---
I don't think so. We only do something about single_succ_p basic blocks and
therefore we should never call e.g. that can_duplicate_block_p predicate more
than once for each basic bloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51347
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
16:44:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 16:44:23 2011
New Revision: 182246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182246
Log:
PR middle-end/51510
* calls.c (internal_arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
16:48:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 16:48:46 2011
New Revision: 182247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182247
Log:
PR testsuite/51511
* gcc.dg/pr45819.c: Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-12 17:34:24 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Dec 12 17:34:19 2011
New Revision: 182250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182250
Log:
2011-12-12 Paolo Carlini
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-12
18:10:10 UTC ---
Odd. I thought this was supposed to happen automatically with
lang_env_dependencies = { module=libitm; cxx=true; };
in Makefile.def.
* tree-sra.c (build_ref_for_model): Replicate a chain of COMPONENT_REFs
in the expression of MODEL instead of just the last one.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20111212-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c
* tree-sra.c (build_ref_for_model): Replicate a chain of COMPONENT_REFs
in the expression of MODEL instead of just the last one.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20111212-1.c
- copied unchanged from r182252,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
18:55:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 18:55:06 2011
New Revision: 182257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182257
Log:
PR c++/51496
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_for_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-androideabi |arm-linux-androideabi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
Bug #: 51516
Summary: [trans-mem] problem with TM clone aliases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51485
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
19:43:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:43:06 2011
New Revision: 182259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182259
Log:
Backported from mainline
2011-12-11 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
19:43:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:43:49 2011
New Revision: 182260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182260
Log:
PR middle-end/51510
* calls.c (internal_arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-12
19:44:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:44:22 2011
New Revision: 182261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182261
Log:
PR testsuite/51511
* gcc.dg/pr45819.c: Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-12
19:51:32 UTC ---
The testcase which I referenced in the bug report is one where it shows adding
a CLOBBER is a good idea. Anyways the following two functions should produce
the same exact code:
int g(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-12
20:13:45 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:13:40 2011
New Revision: 182262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182262
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45830
* gcc.c-torture
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-12-12
20:51:19 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:51:16 2011
New Revision: 182263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182263
Log:
2011-12-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
