http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #74 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-06
08:27:36 UTC ---
> I do wonder when Apple introduced this problem. It was first reported with
> Darwin 10, but GCC 4.6 and GNAT GPL 2011, 2012 (both based on GCC 4.5) don't
> show the problem,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gingold at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56220
Bug #: 56220
Summary: g++ failed to initialize a __thread local bool
variable.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 08:53:41 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Feb 6 08:53:32 2013
New Revision: 195784
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195784
Log:
2013-02-06 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56220
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26366|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56221
Bug #: 56221
Summary: Generation of zero initializer for array new without
parenthesis
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56221
--- Comment #1 from neldev.online at gmail dot com 2013-02-06 09:25:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29365
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29365
Assembly output showing consecutive mov's for zero initialization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56221
--- Comment #2 from neldev.online at gmail dot com 2013-02-06 09:26:27 UTC ---
I've attached assembly output with -S -fverbose-asm as well.
It has been compiled with:
-O3 -Winline -Wextra -Wall -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fomit-frame-pointe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56218
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #76 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-06
09:31:15 UTC ---
> This is fine with me.
OK, let's go for this v2 patch, thanks. Now we need to test it on a version of
Darwin with the bug. Although I can do it, this will take a couple of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56215
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t-gcc-bugzilla at snowelm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56216
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-02-06
09:36:02 UTC ---
Please send the patch with an appropriate ChangeLog entry to the mailing lists.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56221
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56146
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neldev.online at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
09:55:04 UTC ---
I start to believe we should arrange for --disable-werror for any non-standard
build config ... testing matrix is simply too large and mostly false positives
pop up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56200
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
09:57:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Optimized alignments are enabled for -O2 and above. For -O2, there are:
>
> .p2align 4,,10
> .p2align 3
> .L19:
> cmpl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56185
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
09:58:47 UTC ---
Ok, so this eventually points at cloog issues. Still needs someone to
investigate where it traps using a debugger. Can you post a backtrace maybe?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56218
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:08:59 UTC ---
Here is a draft patch, which seems to fix the test case:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
--- gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ai.azuma at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52619
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t.schuele at web dot de
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54403
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ripper-tm at yandex dot ru
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56218
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:16:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> If I'm not missing anything, I think we should pass 'f' directly instead of
> '&f':
>
> do_stuff (struct foo_t * & restrict f)
> {
> i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52613
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56217
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-06
10:35:02 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 6 10:34:53 2013
New Revision: 195796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195796
Log:
PR middle-end/56217
* omp-low.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56217
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
10:45:35 UTC ---
I think the issue is that we are duplicating a loop header. Yes, we somehow
lost (or did not detect) this loop - we don't discover new loops after we
start preserving them - a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:54:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > + if (fsym && fsym->attr.optional && sym && sym->attr.pointer)
>
> Shouldn't you use something like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #16 from Dodji Seketeli 2013-02-06
10:55:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29366
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29366
Candidate patch to avoid duplicated intra bb instrumentation
> As for Dodji's patch: can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman 2013-02-06
10:58:22 UTC ---
I went through the source code of Fedora Linux rawhide
and there are about 220 occurrences of this problem.
So it appears far more frequently than I had suspected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222
Bug #: 56222
Summary: Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to
be captured
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-06
11:16:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> For the allocatable case, no packing is done at all (I guess it's just not
> needed there, since an allocatable array, contrary to a pointer, is alw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #17 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-06
11:18:28 UTC ---
Trying this patch:
% cat inc.cc
void foo(int *a) {
(*a)++;
}
% gcc -fsanitize=address -O2 inc.cc -S -o - | grep __asan_report
call__asan_report_load4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56223
Bug #: 56223
Summary: Integer ABS is not recognized for more complicated
pattern
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56223
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-02-06
11:41:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 29367
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29367
testcase to reproduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
2013-02-06 11:42:21 UTC ---
The code looks valid to me, I don't see any reason for capturing something
here. The expression "&Test::y" should be valid in that scope and returns an
rvalue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 11:44:46 UTC ---
Here is an updated patch, which works for pointers and pointer components, uses
GFC_STD_F2008 and does some minor refactoring:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-06 12:01:32
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 6 12:01:20 2013
New Revision: 195803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195803
Log:
2013-02-06 Rainer Emrich
PR targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56223
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-06
12:17:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Here is an updated patch, which works for pointers and pointer components,
Seems to work better than I expected. However, there is still an issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Severity|m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
12:21:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Code is (maybe_emit_sprintf_chk_warning):
>
> /* If the format doesn't contain % args or %%, we know its size. */
> if (strchr (fmt_str, targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #18 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-06
12:24:51 UTC ---
First results with the patch (c-only tests, train data):
orig patched
401.bzip2,89.60,90.10, 1.01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56219
--- Comment #1 from demiurg_spb at freemail dot ru 2013-02-06 12:34:53 UTC ---
It would be optimal move outside loop all extra instructions, and use temp
register r0 more active.
ldi r24,0
ldi r25,lo8(4) // out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
12:39:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Trying this patch:
> % cat inc.cc
> void foo(int *a) {
> (*a)++;
> }
> % gcc -fsanitize=address -O2 inc.cc -S -o - | grep __asan_report
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #20 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-06
12:43:09 UTC ---
> The clang variant looks incorrect to me - if asan distinguishes between
> loads and stores
It doesn't.
The only reason why we have two callbacks is that asan
prints a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-06
12:48:39 UTC ---
As the shadow memory doesn't have information about what locations are
read-only, it only has info whether the relevant bytes are valid, or invalid
(or some invalid, some valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 12:54:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> That generates the code:
> D.1896 = x != 0B
> ? (struct array1_integer(kind=4) *) _gfortran_internal_pack (x)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2013-02-06 13:04:43
UTC ---
Regressed due to pr54131 fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56219
--- Comment #2 from demiurg_spb at freemail dot ru 2013-02-06 13:06:01 UTC ---
oops r0 - is call-clobbered:(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-06
13:25:29 UTC ---
Because object sizes are finalized only during the objsz pass, after lots of
optimization passes. Note, as I said earlier, what matters most is that the
check is performed at r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56224
Bug #: 56224
Summary: gfortran -fopenmp cannot find omp_lib.h
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2013-02-06 13:31:45
UTC ---
This one is hardly an annoying bug. You need
a) nested functions,
b) using floating point,
c) with an unusual set of callee saved fprs,
d) and -Os.
I found the bug only becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-02-06
13:39:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Because object sizes are finalized only during the objsz pass, after lots of
> optimization passes. Note, as I said earlier, what matters most is tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-06
13:42:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 6 13:42:06 2013
New Revision: 195806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195806
Log:
PR c++/54122
* tree.c (lvalue_k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-06
13:46:05 UTC ---
1) this is -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE warning, you can invent other warnings elsewhere
2) with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE, e.g. sprintf is an inline function, so the FE sees
it as a call to an in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 13:56:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> It seems to work just as well as the patch in comment #18 and is much simpler.
> Also it could catch this sort of thing in other situations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56225
Bug #: 56225
Summary: ICE in lra-constraints.c when executing the testsuite
with -m32 -march=pentium3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56200
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
14:20:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 29368
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29368
patch to make flow_loops_find work in-place
One idea is, as in the attached patch, to unif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54582
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29368|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56225
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56225
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
14:55:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 29369 [details]
> updated patch
>
> This works better. Probably flow_loops_find should not handle loop removal
> though, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-06
14:59:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> But, what to do about unions? The standard says that only one union member is
> active, but which one it is? I think the compiler generally can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29366|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2013-02-06
15:29:38 UTC ---
I'm wondering: before doing anything in v3, is this a C++11 issue? Because in
17.5.2.1.3 I see a fixed underlying type but otherwise I see exactly
~static_cast(X) like in v3?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29369|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-06
15:59:51 UTC ---
[dcl.enum]/7 "For an enumeration whose underlying type is fixed, the values of
the enumeration are the values of the underlying type."
Because the underlying type in 17.5.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener 2013-02-06
16:00:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created attachment 29371 [details]
> final patch
>
> This is what I am considering seriously. It adds the dumping (but we don't
> have info on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Bug #: 56226
Summary: Add support for DEC UNION and MAP extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancemen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56227
Bug #: 56227
Summary: Bootstrap failure on MinGW building ggc-page.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56214
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2013-02-06
16:40:09 UTC ---
Oh, I was missing that, thanks. Now, I don't know if we should really try to
fix this now after so many years. I'm tempted to just leave it alone until we
break the ABI, unless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56228
Bug #: 56228
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Indirect call fails to assemble
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-06
16:45:44 UTC ---
> This one is hardly an annoying bug. You need
> a) nested functions,
> b) using floating point,
> c) with an unusual set of callee saved fprs,
> d) and -Os.
a) + b) + d)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56228
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-06
16:52:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 29373
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29373
gcc48-pr56228.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56227
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2013-02-06 16:54:49
UTC ---
Created attachment 29374
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29374
proposed patch to use HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT
Please try to bootstrap with the attached patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Starke
2013-02-06 17:04:21 UTC ---
This will probably not fix all problems with ada on mingw.
My last tests with 4.7.2 made me also need to patch this:
diff -uart gcc-4.7.2-original/gcc/ada/tracebak.c gcc-4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Emrich 2013-02-06
17:20:53 UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 06.02.2013 18:04, schrieb daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56178
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56224
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
