http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39244
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-24
07:18:33 UTC ---
I don't see the failures on arm-linux-gnueabi but do on powerpc64-linux-gnu; I
wonder if this is a related bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Bug #: 54688
Summary: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit
restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap
on sparc64-linux
Classification: Unclassifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-24 08:52:06 UTC ---
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, polacek at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
>
> --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-21
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
08:57:12 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 24 08:57:08 2012
New Revision: 191658
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191658
Log:
2012-09-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54676
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-24
08:59:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 28258
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28258
gcc48-pr54676.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54689
Bug #: 54689
Summary: sparseset.h:147 Conditional jump or move depends on
uninitialised value(s)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-24
09:14:31 UTC ---
Guess for BOOLEAN_TYPE in unions we can't look just at the single bit, but also
all other bits of the boolean type, because we rely that the bool doesn't
contain other values t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54684
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54683
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
09:26:25 UTC ---
If it's triggered by GC I suggest to try reducing with --param ggc-min-expand=0
--param ggc-min-heapsize=0 (not that this will make it any faster ;))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #28 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-24
09:27:05 UTC ---
Indeed uglier ;) but I must say that overall I think we have to do something
like this. I'm still annoyed that because of the type we can't handle in the
same way div but I'm a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54666
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-09-24 09:38:40
UTC ---
If I remember correctly, with --param ggc-min-expand=0
--param ggc-min-heapsize=0 the program didn't crash - maybe the space was
reallocated of another tree, so the pointer becam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
Bug #: 54690
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_(7|13).f03 *
(internal compiler error) after revision 191649
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-09-24
09:46:12 UTC ---
for me testcase FAIl with -O2 -flto --param ggc-min-heapsize=0
and OK with -O3 -flto --param ggc-min-expand=0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43554
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54684
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
10:47:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 28259
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28259
autoreduced testcase
(gdb) p *pass
$1 = {type = GIMPLE_PASS, name = 0x149a13a "fab", ga
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54684
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |tree-optimization
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54689
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-09-24
11:35:56 UTC ---
189310 OK
189563 OK
189602 OK
189648 OK
190510 FAIL
190556 FAIL
190613 FAIL
190868 FAIL
191105 FAIL
191129 FAIL
191244 FAIL
191356 FAIL
191461 FAIL
191511 FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
11:44:32 UTC ---
This boils down to the question whether reading a 1-bit precision quantity
from memory has to disregard the upper bits or not (I think we had similar
issues with SRA). Thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
--- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-09-24 11:48:51 UTC ---
still broken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54684
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
Bug #: 54691
Summary: [4.8 Regression] --enable-checking=valgrind doesn't
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-24 12:27:28 UTC ---
I get:
==24033== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==24033== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==24033== Using Valgrind-3.8.1 and LibVEX; rerun w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54383
166291 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||166291 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
13:14:00 UTC ---
We still want to possibly optimize
extern void abort (void);
union u
{
int i;
_Bool b;
};
void f(union u * vp, union u v)
{
*vp = v;
}
int main()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
Bug #: 54692
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc doesn't build with "-Og -g"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
Bug #: 54693
Summary: VTA guality issues with loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Ri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685
--- Comment #6 from Andy May 2012-09-24
13:57:37 UTC ---
Thanks for fixing this, the GCC 4.7.1 shipping with openSUSE 12.2 does not show
this problem, and a build of GCC 4.7.2 from source doesn't either. Providing
this has also been pushed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-24
14:04:38 UTC ---
The patch in comment #1 fixes this PR. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-24 14:07:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> ISTR it worked for me when checking in -Og support with
> BOOT_CFLAGS/BOOT_CXXFLAGS="-Og -g". I don't have a host compiler with -Og
> support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54684
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
14:14:24 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 24 14:14:18 2012
New Revision: 191667
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191667
Log:
2012-09-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54684
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-24 14:21:05 UTC ---
The following lines from gcc/configure don't know about -Og:
4862 # Remove the -O2: for historical reasons, unless bootstrapping we prefer
4863 # optimizations to be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-24
14:39:30 UTC ---
Guess
*) CFLAGS=`echo $CFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" `
CXXFLAGS=`echo $CXXFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" ` ;;
needs to be now
-O[[s0-9gf]] instead (also for -Ofast)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-24 14:40:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Does it work with "s/-O[sg0-9]* *//"?
Yes:
tmp % echo "-Og -g"| sed "s/-O[sg0-9]* *//"
-g
tmp %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
14:49:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Guess
> *) CFLAGS=`echo $CFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" `
> CXXFLAGS=`echo $CXXFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" ` ;;
> needs to be now
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-24
15:03:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 24 15:02:53 2012
New Revision: 191669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191669
Log:
2012-09-24 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-24
15:04:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Guess
> > *) CFLAGS=`echo $CFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" `
> > CXXFLAGS=`echo $CXXFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-24 15:08:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> -O[[s0-9gf]] instead (also for -Ofast).
"s/-O\([sg0-9]\|fast\) *//" should work.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2012-09-24 15:28:52 UTC ---
Looks good to me - why did this pop up now?
On 24 September 2012 16:04, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14202
Daniel Jacobowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Starke
2012-09-24 16:55:33 UTC ---
The problem in autoconf was fixed with version 2.69. I suggest to update
AC_PREREQ within the configure.ac files to this version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-24 16:56:52 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Sep 24 16:56:41 2012
New Revision: 191673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191673
Log:
2012-09-24 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Starke
2012-09-24 16:57:53 UTC ---
Here is the reference to the autoconf change:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commitdiff;h=17ea0df46f819a9b64c21151983a5c5b8561fefb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52724
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2012-09-24
18:07:17 UTC ---
This patch looks promising:
Index: list_read.c
===
--- list_read.c (Revision 191649)
+++ list_read.c (Arbeits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-09-24
18:35:41 UTC ---
I'm working on a patch to avoid introducing a multiply by a pointer type, such
as happened here.
The interesting thing is that this doesn't look like a profitable
transf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-09-24 18:38:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> combine fails on:
>
> Trying 6 -> 8:
> Failed to match this instruction:
> (set (reg:QI 66)
> (mem/j:QI (plus:SI (subreg:SI (plus:DI (reg/v:D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-09-24 18:44:51
UTC ---
At x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, the build fails at a different place:
...
libtool: link:
/home/smatz/build-191654-lto-checking-valgrind-disable-bootstrap-disable-graphite/./gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] gcc|gcc doesn't build with "-Og
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-24
19:05:24 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Sep 24 19:05:18 2012
New Revision: 191676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191676
Log:
2012-09-24 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54690
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508
--- Comment #3 from Paul Koning 2012-09-24
19:32:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28260
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28260
Fix and testcase for this, as submitted to the gcc-bugs list
I'm not sure if the main submiss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54281
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54281
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-24
19:43:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> This patch kind of caused PR bootstrap/54281.
[which is this PR ...]
I meant another PR, namely PR bootstrap/54659.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #32 from François Dumont 2012-09-24
19:53:46 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Sep 24 19:53:36 2012
New Revision: 191679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191679
Log:
2012-09-24 François Dumont
PR libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-24 20:11:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'm working on a patch to avoid introducing a multiply by a pointer type, such
> as happened here.
>
> The interesting thing is that this doesn't look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
--- Comment #3 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com 2012-09-24 20:14:04 UTC ---
>From what I understand, gold's failing test assumes that gcc will make
available in general the old functionality, functionality that certain BSD
derived systems l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2012-09-24
20:32:34 UTC ---
To be clear, SLSR doesn't rely on mult costs being greater than int costs -- it
simply trusts that the given costs are accurate and makes decisions based upon
them.
Don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54694
Bug #: 54694
Summary: internal compiler error: in
dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr, at dwarf2out.c:2387
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-24
21:26:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> To be clear, SLSR doesn't rely on mult costs being greater than int costs --
> it
> simply trusts that the given costs are accurate and makes decisions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Target Mileston
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28261|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-09-25
00:53:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't know how linux/glibc have been handling atomic ops on SH2 or SH2A, but
> I've got an idea that would work in a bare-metal setup.
There i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54630
--- Comment #9 from Larry Baker 2012-09-25 01:53:01 UTC
---
The build on Linux i386 works fine without --with-host-libstdcxx. I believe
g++ is used for linking.
I tried using a native Linux i386 GCC 4.7.1 to build a cross GCC 4.8.0, wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54695
Bug #: 54695
Summary: Bogus warning for module variable in USE statement
with -Wall
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54696
Bug #: 54696
Summary: Makefile doesn't propagate CPPFLAGS properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54695
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54697
Bug #: 54697
Summary: testsuite in gcc 4.7.x leaves zombie processes.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54698
Bug #: 54698
Summary: make -j 3 -k check, trying to do parallel check at the
top level, go around in circles.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54698
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-25
03:44:32 UTC ---
It works for me and I have been using -j5 even -j32 recently too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54698
--- Comment #2 from Hin-Tak Leung
2012-09-25 03:53:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It works for me and I have been using -j5 even -j32 recently too.
with "-k"?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54448
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.4.1, 4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54698
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-25 06:37:34 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Sep 25 06:37:29 2012
New Revision: 191692
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191692
Log:
PR c++/50970
* typeck
93 matches
Mail list logo
