http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51057
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51835
Bug #: 51835
Summary: ARM EABI violation when passing arguments to helper
floating functions like __aeabi_d2iz
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-12 08:04:13
UTC ---
I think that DF is OK, the problem is in recog.c/peep2_find_free_register, with
this loop:
while (from != to)
{
HARD_REG_SET this_live;
from = peep2_buf_position (fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36755
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-12
08:04:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 26305
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26305
Incomplete chmod parser
The attached chmod.c implements an incomplete chmod argument parser.
TODO:
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51834
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51833
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51830
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*86*-*-*|i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-01-12 09:06:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you attach preprocessed sources to reproduce this?
I've reduced it to this snipped:
% cat foo.cpp
#include
struct foo
{
void bar ()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-12
09:07:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Did any interpretation requests go in on this and did we get an answer back?
Thanks to Van and Dan, it's now on the server f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51834
--- Comment #2 from Prasoon 2012-01-12
09:07:52 UTC ---
@Richard Guenther
Considering the expression i += (i,i++,i) +i;
(i,i++,i) involves change in the value of i, however comma introduces a
sequence point so very roughly considering it equiv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51836
Bug #: 51836
Summary: -Wsequence-point fails when convoluted expressions
with multiple side effects are used (C++03)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51831
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51826
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24943
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51834
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51827
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
09:23:03 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51833
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-12
09:34:49 UTC ---
It's not valid, you can't pass a function type by value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-01-12 09:58:39
UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Thu Jan 12 09:58:34 2012
New Revision: 183122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183122
Log:
PR 51803 Avoid malloc if getcwd fails or is not avai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51520
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #4 from Tob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8081
--- Comment #24 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
10:23:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26306
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26306
A patch for using by-reference passing
(In reply to comment #23)
> as alternative to rejecting th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47852
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51827
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2012-01-12 10:53:44 UTC ---
I already mentioned "PCH" and ".H" extension, but just to be 100% clear, the
error happens only when compiling the testcase as a c++ header.
Reproduced on i686-pc-linux-gnu and i68
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23856
Andrew John Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu_andrew at member dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-12
11:18:37 UTC ---
> I think that DF is OK, the problem is in recog.c/peep2_find_free_register,
> with
> this loop:
>
> while (from != to)
> {
> HARD_REG_SET this_live;
>
> from = p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23856
--- Comment #4 from Ranjit Mathew 2012-01-12
11:19:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have a feeling there have been changes in this area since this report (and
> the reporter does state that he was using an old version then). However,
> t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
--- Comment #23 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
11:20:35 UTC ---
As we have MEM_REF available we can in theory do the combining on the
tree-level
as well (or during gimplification). In fact, as we have the byteswap
detection pass which does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-12 11:34:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> > Here we need to analyse the insn patterns for ALL sets and clobbers, not
> > only
> > track live registers through the insn stream.
>
> I'm not sure I u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-12 11:42:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I'm not sure I understand. If the peephole matches, then the insn pattern is
> present in the insn stream with instantiated registers, so it's sufficient t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
12:05:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Here's another example:
>
> struct A { int i[100]; };
> void f(struct A);
> int main()
> {
> f((struct A){1});
> }
>
> Here we build up the compound
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-01-12 12:11:03 UTC ---
g++ -fabi-version=6 -shared foo.cpp foo.cpp -flto -std=c++11
is fine BTW.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-*-*
Component|middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32283
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
13:02:25 UTC ---
Shorter testcase, compilable and to the point. We are not able to CSE
the b1 && ... && b8 sequence because we produce control-flow for it
during gimplification.
void bar (short *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32455
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0, 4.7.0
Summary|[4.4/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-12
13:47:04 UTC ---
I think that SRA's part of the fix is what I have just posted to the mailing
list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00613.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-12 14:22:52
UTC ---
> OTOH, it is time to deprecate this extension and warn about it (after
> all we miscompile this since quite some time, GCC 3.3 and 4.1 already produce
> the recursive open - how was th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-12 14:27:12 UTC ---
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
>
> --- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka 2012-01-12 14:22:52
> UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #26 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
14:30:31 UTC ---
The patch fails to bootstrap in libquadmath btw:
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/libquadmath/math/cimagq.c:24:1: error:
redefinition of 'cimagq'
In file included from
/space/rguent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #27 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
14:31:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
> >
> > --- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #28 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-01-12 14:35:58 UTC ---
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> > I think extern inlines are sadly rather common to be deprecated...
>
> Well, not deprecating extern inlines
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
--- Comment #5 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-12 14:41:51 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Jan 12 14:41:44 2012
New Revision: 183126
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183126
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51799
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #29 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
14:49:42 UTC ---
Btw, GCC 3.2.3 produces for
extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
void open ()
{
}
void open ()
{
open ();
}
open:
pushl %ebp
movl%esp, %ebp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #30 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-12
14:54:04 UTC ---
Of course the question is what we should really do here wrt name-lookup.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-12
15:25:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> error: /tmp/ccZEKdVj.o: multiple definition of
> '_ZNSt16allocator_traitsISaIiEE18__construct_helperIiJiEE5valueE'
That symbol is an extra-name alias for
s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-12 15:47:53 UTC ---
> --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-11
> 17:48:25 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #19)
>> I've just tried it with the vendor cxx (first disabling noexc
h-boot-ldflags=-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--as-needed,--gc-sections,--icf=all,--icf-iterations=3
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120112 (experimental) (GCC)
% ld -v
GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.22.51.20120112) 1.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-12
16:16:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The std/mutex change is a hack to avoid
>
> In file included from
> /var/gcc/regression/trunk/5.1b-gcc/build/alpha-dec-osf5.1b/libstdc++-v3/include/futu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51295
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-12
16:19:04 UTC ---
is this just a dup of PR 50043 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51756
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-12
16:51:44 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Jan 12 16:51:28 2012
New Revision: 183129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183129
Log:
PR target/51756
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48754
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-12 16:58:36 UTC ---
Closing as fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2012-01-12 17:00:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Yes, this seems to be the correct approach.
Patch that fixes the failure:
Index: recog.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51756
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-12
17:23:38 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:23:32 2012
New Revision: 183131
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183131
Log:
Backport from mainline r183129
PR target/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51756
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51403
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-12
17:27:02 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:26:57 2012
New Revision: 183132
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183132
Log:
PR c++/51403
* pt.c (unify): Handle error_m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-12
17:27:12 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:27:07 2012
New Revision: 183133
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183133
Log:
PR c++/48051
* mangle.c (write_expression):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36755
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26305|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36797
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36797
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-12
17:48:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26308
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26308
Patch for 4.8
Here's a patch, but it'll have to wait until we're in stage 1 again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51403
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36797
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, patch
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-01-12
18:09:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Where is the address space information about a particular memory access stored
> in gimple/tree infrastructure?
You mean the ADDR_SPACE macros from tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-12 18:17:56 UTC ---
> Does adding 'noexcept' to ~__mutex_base() make that hack unnecessary?
>
> The destructor should be implicitly noexcept, but G++ doesn't implement that
> yet (PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #14 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-12 18:30:00 UTC ---
Author: denisc
Date: Thu Jan 12 18:29:54 2012
New Revision: 183136
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183136
Log:
PR target/50925
* config/avr/av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-12
19:05:32 UTC ---
We should probably resurrect the decloning patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg01147.html
for this reason as well as the space optimization.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51837
Bug #: 51837
Summary: Use of result from 64*64->128 bit multiply via
__uint128_t not optimized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36755
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51838
Bug #: 51838
Summary: Inefficient add of 128 bit quantity represented as 64
bit tuple to 128 bit integer.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51839
Bug #: 51839
Summary: GCC not generating adc instruction for canonical
multi-precision add sequence
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51833
--- Comment #5 from Richard Eames 2012-01-12
20:01:15 UTC ---
I've reduced the testcase further. It appears to be a problem with templates.
The reason I was passing a function type in the template was because
std::function wouldn't work for me. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51833
--- Comment #6 from Richard Eames 2012-01-12
20:01:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26309
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26309
Reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44731
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.0 |4.5.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32511
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.0 |4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.2 |4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36755
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-12
20:26:18 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jan 12 20:26:10 2012
New Revision: 183137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183137
Log:
2012-01-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42818
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.3 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46788
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36755
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43706
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45094
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45616
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.3 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39968
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.3 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
