http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52078
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-01
08:34:32 UTC ---
Submitted patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-01/msg00276.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52074
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
09:22:39 UTC ---
I suppose you can provide at least a backtrace and some debug_rtx output?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52070
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52078
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52076
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52073
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
09:43:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 26538
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26538
gcc47-pr52073.patch
Thanks for the report. Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Bug #: 52080
Summary: Stores to bitfields introduce a store-data-race on
adjacent data
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #20407|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-*-linux|ia64-*-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #30 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-01 10:23:33 UTC ---
> --- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
> 19:09:00 UTC ---
> (N.B. that ChangeLog entry cited the wrong PR)
I know, I've already corrected the ChangeL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52081
Bug #: 52081
Summary: Missed tail merging with pure calls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
10:25:21 UTC ---
SPARC64 also can do 32bit loads/stores as the following testcase shows:
struct x {
long a;
unsigned int lock;
unsigned int full;
};
void
wrong(struct x *ptr)
{
ptr->
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52081
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-01 10:27:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 26540
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26540
tentative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52082
Bug #: 52082
Summary: Memory loads not rematerialized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||48124
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52073
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #5 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #19 from Kai Tietz 2012-02-01 10:46:40
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 1 10:46:36 2012
New Revision: 183794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183794
Log:
PR target/51500
* interpret.cc (_Jv_init_cif)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Betker 2012-02-01
10:51:58 UTC ---
> There's a reason the standard says "no diagnostic required."
>
> When compiling libtmpl.so, how is the compiler supposed to know that a
> different translation unit which it can't s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #31 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #29 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-01 11:10:35 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Feb 1 11:10:30 2012
New Revision: 183795
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183795
Log:
2012-02-01 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
11:12:41 UTC ---
Btw,
offset = bitnum / unit;
bitpos = bitnum % unit;
byte_offset = (bitnum % BITS_PER_WORD) / BITS_PER_UNIT
+ (offset * UNITS_PER_WORD);
byte_offset is bollo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52076
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2012-02-01 11:15:57
UTC ---
gcc 4.1 and before generate or.b #-128,(%a0) instead of bfins. As a
consequence of this they also generate moveq.l #4,%d0 instead of move.b, but
never shorten the write.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-01 11:20:31 UTC ---
submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01513.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-01
11:35:37 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Feb 1 11:35:34 2012
New Revision: 183796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183796
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/51374
* combine.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52074
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52074
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|52080 |
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-01
12:40:26 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Feb 1 12:40:23 2012
New Revision: 183797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183797
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r183796
PR rt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-02-01
12:42:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> /tmp/gcc-4.7-20110820/gcc/ada -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
> -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -gnatpg -gnata -I-
> /tmp/gcc-4.7-20110820/gcc/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-01
12:46:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Feb 1 12:46:39 2012
New Revision: 183798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183798
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51374
* gcc.target/av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
12:48:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Simpler patch I am going to test. Let's hope the wreckage adjust_address
> does to the to_rtx MEM (apart from setting its mode) is harmless.
>
> Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51374
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
12:57:12 UTC ---
*** Bug 49758 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49758
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
13:05:33 UTC ---
*** Bug 51176 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51176
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
13:57:52 UTC ---
Doesn't work.
MEM_SIZE also seems to be somewhat random, because we
re-initialize it via set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos. So we can't
fixup the caller to get_best_mode easily wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
14:01:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 26543
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26543
gcc47-pr52079.patch
Alternate patch for the GO FE. There are hundreds of other
lang_hooks.types.typ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
14:17:05 UTC ---
I remember (bug number?) we have the same issue with multi-word accesses
where the last part uses word_mode (all other pieces as well, of course)
and that accesses the object out-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26543|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-01 14:22:36
UTC ---
The patch to gcc/go/go-lang.c is OK. You don't need the #if as far as I'm
concerned.
(The whole idea of a frontend hook for type_for_mode is somewhat broken
anyhow.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50235
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
14:53:21 UTC ---
*** Bug 50235 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
15:34:37 UTC ---
I've changed my mind: given that we shouldn't have references outside the base
object in valid programs, there must be an offset if the bitpos is negative, so
we can simply add the (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
15:36:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 26545
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26545
Tentative fix
Uros, does it fix the original issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #28 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
15:41:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > I've changed my mind: given that we shouldn't have references outside the
> > base
> > object in valid programs, there mu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #27 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
15:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> I've changed my mind: given that we shouldn't have references outside the base
> object in valid programs, there must be an offset if the bitpos is nega
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-01
15:48:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26546
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26546
another patch
This patch passes bootstrap on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu but ICEs in
struct-layout
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26545|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
15:53:25 UTC ---
> I'm not sure it's the best thing to do (adjusting 'offset' by
> a BITS_PER_UNIT multiple instead of whatever the caller would like the most).
> Only the callers would know how they
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-01 16:00:41 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
>
> --- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
> 15:53:25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
16:13:43 UTC ---
> So, shell we do this kind of shortening in fwprop instead? If a MEM load has
> all uses subregged to a narrower mode, try to subreg it and adjust the
> callers?
This would be back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
16:34:30 UTC ---
> The base object can be an indirect reference, so yes, there doesn't have
> to be an overall positive offset (well, yes, to the _real_ object,
> but we don't see that).
If this is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
16:35:13 UTC ---
That's true, but currently REE is after reload, this combining would be better
done before reload. Perhaps a separate post-combine pre-ira pass could handle
that and also perhaps PR50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52083
Bug #: 52083
Summary: Misleading warning for internal procedures with names
of intrinsic procedures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-01
17:45:08 UTC ---
get_best_mode returns DImode because of:
/* Nonzero if access to memory by bytes is slow and undesirable.
For RISC chips, it means that access to memory by bytes is no
better th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50308
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #33 from Uros Bizjak 2012-02-01 18:41:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Created attachment 26547 [details]
> Correct fix
>
> This adds the missing division...
This patch fixes both the testcase and original issue. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-*-linux, |ia64-*-linux,
|sparc64-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52079
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
18:58:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 1 18:58:44 2012
New Revision: 183806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183806
Log:
PR target/52079
* go-lang.c (go_langhook_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-01
19:01:54 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:01:49 2012
New Revision: 183807
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183807
Log:
2012-02-01 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5205
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46311
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|MOVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-01
19:06:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:06:07 2012
New Revision: 183808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183808
Log:
2012-02-01 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-02-01
19:40:29 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Feb 1 19:40:25 2012
New Revision: 183812
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183812
Log:
2012-02-01 Thomas König
PR fortran/51958
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45166
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46311
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50986
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
19:58:12 UTC ---
I think you are violating ODR here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35082
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-01
20:20:31 UTC ---
Do you know if these work after the fixes you did recently?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52084
Bug #: 52084
Summary: go tests fail to link on powerpc-linux-gnu (undefined
reference to __sync_add_and_fetch_8)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52074
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose 2012-02-01
20:24:08 UTC ---
libgo builds with this fix.
libgo now fails to run every test (see PR52084).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31509
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35082
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-02-01 20:40:07 UTC ---
On 2/1/2012 3:20 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Do you know if these work after the fixes you did recently?
Unlikely, however, I should recheck the report and try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38528
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50986
--- Comment #2 from Richard Smith
2012-02-01 21:14:35 UTC ---
As noted in comment#0, I believe there is no ODR violation here. Each
definition of U::k consists of the same sequence of tokens, every name
refers to the same entity in both definitio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
Bug #: 52085
Summary: sizeof packed enum can vary without warning depending
on include order
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52086
Bug #: 52086
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE caused by wrong peephole2 for
QImode mem += reg followed by test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52086
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-01
22:01:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26548
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26548
gcc47-pr52086.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38575
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|powerpc-app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48815
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44080
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52035
Marcin Baczyński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
--- Comment #4 from Marcin Baczy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29527
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
