http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #10 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-17
08:30:05 UTC ---
Since I can't reproduce the failure,
please help me debug this (basically, print all local variables around the
assertion and the proc maps) or suggest me how to reproduce.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Bug #: 56015
Summary: Option -ffast-math reveals i*(a+bi) -> -b-bi, a
complex multiplication bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56014
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56016
Bug #: 56016
Summary: mutlithreading problem with iostream
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56016
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-17
09:16:20 UTC ---
You might need std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56017
Bug #: 56017
Summary: libgo testsuite does not support cross testing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
> Still a problem in latest 4.7, google/4.7, and trunk (4.8).
So 4.6 was working but 4.7 isn't?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17 10:27:10
UTC ---
> Still a problem in latest 4.7, google/4.7, and trunk (4.8).
So 4.6 was working but 4.7 isn't?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
10:31:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 29189
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29189
gcc48-pr56015.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
10:45:20 UTC ---
I don't care much about the error wording, I've put into dg-error just what gcc
was reporting before (and after it emitted ICE).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-01-17
10:48:40 UTC ---
Hmm, I wonder if it isn't better to disable TER for these cases. We might
run into similar issues with other loads (BIT_FIELD_REF and vectors for
example).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56018
Bug #: 56018
Summary: Access to member of unnamed union variable in
structure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #172 from Richard Biener 2013-01-17
10:53:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #171)
> Created attachment 29182 [details]
> Patch to compress line info
>
> This patch removes column information from LTO (so we lose carret diagnos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55983
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-17 10:55:55 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 17 10:55:50 2013
New Revision: 195261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195261
Log:
2013-01-17 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55983
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-17
11:43:18 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:43:14 2013
New Revision: 195262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195262
Log:
2013-01-17 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
--- Comment #5 from Takeshi Nishimatsu 2013-01-17
11:58:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 29189 [details]
> gcc48-pr56015.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Thank you for your fix.
I add one more test multiplying -i.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #173 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17 12:30:30
UTC ---
> Patch looks incomplete? What does dropping columns only do to memory use?
I will check. I remember that prior columns there was also some savings for
the cache.
Just savi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56019
Bug #: 56019
Summary: max_align_t should be in std namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56020
Bug #: 56020
Summary: FE_INVALID flag not set on comparison with NAN
(unordered)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #56 from Richard Biener 2013-01-17
14:30:10 UTC ---
4.3 vs. trunk I get 9.5s vs. 12.3s for -O3. With 4.7 and 4.6 I get the same
result (on Intel CPUs). Thus basically re-confirmed after the recent
patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #175 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17
14:40:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29191
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29191
alternative patch without the compression.
This is alternative patch just skipping columns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #57 from Richard Biener 2013-01-17
14:42:11 UTC ---
A proper fix these days (with tuples) is to add new tree codes that carry
the knowledge that
countm1.6_40 = _38 / _39;
may not trap. The frontend already knows this (s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56019
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #176 from Richard Biener 2013-01-17
14:54:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #175)
> Created attachment 29191 [details]
> alternative patch without the compression.
>
> This is alternative patch just skipping columns but not do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #177 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17
15:13:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 29192
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29192
caching
Aha, now I see why you ask for complete patch. I obviously messed up the code.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56021
Bug #: 56021
Summary: HAVE_STBLIB_H and HAVE_LIMITS_H not defined. Can't
build gcc 3.2.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Bug #: 56022
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE (segfault) at
convert_memory_address_addr_space (explow.c:334)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
16:08:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 29193
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29193
gcc48-pr49069-1.patch
One possible fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
16:10:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29194
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29194
gcc48-pr49069-2.patch
Another possible fix. Or Steven's fix (+ testcase) if it works. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-17
16:19:19 UTC ---
Yep, I'm fixing it.
I went to add a test for locks that wouldn't rely on thread support and found
I'd already added one ages ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libstdc%2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #1 from Andr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56021
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-17
16:24:08 UTC ---
Noone's going to change anything in the GCC 3.2.1 sources now, so I expect this
will be closed as WONTFIX.
And this can't be severity=blocker because it's obviously not goin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
--- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-17 16:25:04 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jan 17 16:24:54 2013
New Revision: 195273
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195273
Log:
PR target/55981
* confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17
16:27:35 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 17 16:27:23 2013
New Revision: 195274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195274
Log:
PR tree-optimizatoin/51083
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
--- Comment #46 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-17 16:36:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> Is there any improvement if you use -fschedule-insns1 -fsched-pressure?
Yes, please see the table bellow:
ALGORITHM NB REPSTIME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55273
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
16:36:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 17 16:36:43 2013
New Revision: 195275
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195275
Log:
PR tree-optimizatoin/55273
* gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55273
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-17 16:40:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> There are already
>
> R_386_SIZE32 38 word32 Z + A
> R_X86_64_SIZE32 32 word32 Z + A
> R_X86_64_SIZE64 33
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-17
16:43:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Their support has been checked into glibc and binutils.
> Can address sanitizer use them?
What about all the other targets that asan now supports?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-17 16:48:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Their support has been checked into glibc and binutils.
> > Can address sanitizer use them?
>
> What about all the other t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
16:49:58 UTC ---
Ugh, no, that is way too premature. This really shouldn't be a dynamic
relocation. And asan shouldn't be registering the same (common or in the end
non-common) var multiple t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-17 16:57:29
UTC ---
Size relocation means that all instances of
# __beg:
.quadcommon_data
# __size:
.quadcommon_data@size
# __size_with_redzone:
.quadcommon_data@size + 40
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #178 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17
17:11:13 UTC ---
The global cache with arbitrary large size reduces usage down to 0.3%
(16908304) bytes. So it seems that sharing across files is quite an important
part of the game. I will try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56016
--- Comment #2 from JxP 2013-01-17
17:24:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29195
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29195
sample program not mixing iostream with stdio
I confirm that using ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false) m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56016
--- Comment #3 from JxP 2013-01-17
17:45:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29196
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29196
sample program using iostream onlywith stdio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
17:48:18 UTC ---
No idea why you keep mentioning
.quadcommon_data
.quadcommon_data@size
.quadcommon_data@size + 40
That is nothing even close to what asan nee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56016
--- Comment #4 from JxP 2013-01-17
17:51:53 UTC ---
Comment on attachment 29196
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29196
sample program using iostream only
This last one doesn't even include cstdio or unistd.h. Still,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56000
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-17
18:24:20 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 17 18:24:08 2013
New Revision: 195277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195277
Log:
2013-01-07 Thorsten Glaser
PR m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echristo at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #13 from Matt Hargett 2013-01-17 18:28:18 UTC
---
No.
4.6 doesn't devirt (at -O2 or -O3) and therefore the DCE isn't relevant.
At both -O2 and -O3, with and without -fwhole-program, both with and without
adjustin declarat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-01-17
18:43:45 UTC ---
BTW, the reason this works when forcing the instrumented path as Torvald
suggested (comment #7) is because when f1() is instrumented, the call to
__cxa_allocate_exception is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-17
19:20:27 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 17 19:19:37 2013
New Revision: 195280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195280
Log:
Fix PR55833.
Added:
trunk/gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
--- Comment #3 from npl at chello dot at 2013-01-17 20:43:35 UTC ---
great, response looks already more promising than my other gcc
patches/requests.
Any chance this will find its way into 4.7.3?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55679
--- Comment #19 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-17
21:29:01 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Jan 17 21:28:56 2013
New Revision: 195281
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195281
Log:
PR sanitizer/55679
re
~/gcc-build-alpha/gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/uros/gcc-build-alpha/gcc/xgcc
Target: alpha-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-svn/branches/gcc-4_6-branch/configure
--target=alpha-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.4 20130117 (prerelease) [gcc-4_6-branch re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-17 22:08:50
UTC ---
Created attachment 29197
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29197
Preprocessed source of the file that miscompares during bootstrap
This is the preprocessed so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.gentoo.org/sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
Eric Christopher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echristo at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at vnet dot ibm.com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #30 from davidxl 2013-01-17 22:45:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
> >
> > --- Comment #25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-17 22:51:07 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jan 17 22:51:00 2013
New Revision: 195283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195283
Log:
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-01-17
23:20:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 29198
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29198
standalone test case
Here's a standalone test case, extracted from gmp's t-get_d.c. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-17 23:23:47
UTC ---
There are two off-by-one:
diff --git a/libsanitizer/asan/asan_poisoning.cc
b/libsanitizer/asan/asan_poisoning.cc
index a00baff..bbbaf0a 100644
--- a/libsanitizer/asan/asan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-17 23:52:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 29199
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29199
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-m64 asan.exp'
diff --git a/gcc/config/r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #6 from Denis Vlasenko 2013-01-18
00:48:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 29200
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29200
Updated testcase, build heper, and results of testing with different gcc
versions
Tarball
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
Denis Vlasenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vda.linux at googlemail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #8 from Denis Vlasenko 2013-01-18
00:55:37 UTC ---
Grrr, another mistake. Correcting again:
Conclusion:
gcc-3.4.3 -O3 was close to ideal.
^
gcc-4.2.1 is worse.
gcc-4.6.3 got better a bit, still not as good as gcc-3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-18
00:57:00 UTC ---
It would be interesting to try the trunk which has a newer register allocator
than even 4.6.x/4.7.x.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-01-18 04:28:01
UTC ---
Thanks. The fact that -fno-rename-registers does not affect the result
indicates this is a separate code generation issue than the one I'm working on.
The reduced testcase sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54933
Joey Ye changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joey.ye at arm dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-01-18
07:54:52 UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 18 07:54:47 2013
New Revision: 195288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195288
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52573
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
89 matches
Mail list logo
