http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60062
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16660
Thomas Martitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugel at rockbox dot org
--- Comment #23
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16660
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Martitz ---
Alright, looking at the revision history it appears to me that the GCC 4.6
series ship the fix and it was not backported to 4.4 (although 4.4.7 was
released months after this patch hit svn trunk) or 4.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072
Bug ID: 60072
Summary: wrong code (for code with an optimize attribute) at
-O0 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59193
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have applied the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-02/txtX3eVILZEGw.txt on top of 4.8.3 r206497
and the test runs successfully (so it fixed on trunk by r207389).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60062
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 60072 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49906
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmartinez at gmv dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37921
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59906
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmartinez at gmv dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Wrong PR in the previous post. Sorry for the noise.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 59906 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49906
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> *** Bug 60066 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Wrong post. Sorry for the noise.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
The patch submission (1st February) said:
"That must be one of the fastest reviews on record!
Committed as revision 207389
4.7 and 4.8 to follow next weekend."
Given my limited time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say it is a backend bug. Canonicalizing (minus:SI (const_int INT_MIN))
into (const_int INT_MIN) is IMNSHO very much desirable, it is just a target bug
that it matches an insn with it at the point where it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note the case RTX_UNARY: handling in simplify_while_replacing wasn't strictly
necessary to fix the bug, so in theory that can be temporarily reverted, but
that doesn't change anything on this being a target bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60060
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is that we create the DIE for the namelist before we've emitted
DIEs for global vars. Thus we run into
static dw_die_ref
gen_namelist_decl (tree name, dw_die_ref scope_die, tree item_decls)
{
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45152
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52615
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59150
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #7 from Paulo J. Matos ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Apart from expand there is the redundant-extension-elimination, ree.c.
In expand we get the following gimple for the loop:
;; basic block 4, loop depth 0
;;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFOR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||23855
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59718
--- Comment #2 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Wed Feb 5 11:42:50 2014
New Revision: 207501
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207501&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM Documentation] Clarify -mcpu, -mtune, -march
gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #8 from Paulo J. Matos ---
(In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > Apart from expand there is the redundant-extension-elimination, ree.c.
>
> In expand we get the following gimpl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #9 from Paulo J. Matos ---
Created attachment 32044
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32044&action=edit
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
I'll have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #43 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 32045
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32045&action=edit
new testcase
r207489 fixes the original issue. Thanks.
But llvm still doesn't build with -flto:
FAILED:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
--- Comment #8 from Dimitris Papavasiliou ---
Is there anything more I can do to help with this? Does the process simply
take a lot of time or is there no interest in such a feature?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
Bug ID: 60073
Summary: [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c
FAILs on Solaris/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Reverting the cls_double.ca change lets the testcase pass. Strangely, the
> cls_longdouble_va.c test still passes even with the patch, so this could
> indicate a bug in the libffi sparcv9 code.
Possibly, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60074
Bug ID: 60074
Summary: g++.dg/vect/pr33426-ivdep-[34].cc FAIL on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60074
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
d but the problem is also known for
official releases like 4.7.2
gcc version 4.7.4 20140205 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 195858] (GCC)
Target: avr
Configured with: ../../gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4_7-branch/configure --target=avr
--prefix=/local/gnu/install/gcc-4.7 --disable-nls --with-dwarf2
--ena
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60075
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space, wrong-code
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 32047
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32047&action=edit
.vect dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
Bug ID: 60076
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/pr60012.c FAILs on Solaris/SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #44 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c
index da76b10511f0..e47679239d84 100644
--- a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c
+++ b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ get_symbol_class (sym
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60077
Bug ID: 60077
Summary: [4.9 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr35767-5.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60077
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59832
Sam Kellett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at wavestore dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59832
--- Comment #2 from Sam Kellett ---
Using gcc v4.8.2 I should add...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60061
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I see init cloned in both -fwhole-program ipa-cp dumps and in WPA
-flto dumps (i.e. when omitting the -S option).
Apparently, when creating fat LTO object file -fwhole-program does not
apply during the compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
>> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2:
>
> do you use the default m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Some more TLC to be applied before it's ready for prime time (and obviously
testing). Eventually integrating with LIM sounds better?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #11231|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32051
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32051&action=edit
updated patch
Slight update to apply all possible hoists to PR60042.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57499
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 5 14:34:30 2014
New Revision: 207504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/57499
* tree-eh.c (cleanup_empty_eh): Bail out on tota
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
PR23855 fixed we'd get for the analysis of the remaining DRs in the outermost
loop
for example for matrix A:
Creating dr for *_290
analyze_innermost: success.
base_address: pretmp_1792 + (sizetype) (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57499
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59718
--- Comment #3 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Wed Feb 5 14:40:36 2014
New Revision: 207505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Backport: ARM Documentation] Clarify -mcpu, -mtune, -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #6 from Tom Tromey ---
Null pointer constants are treated specially, which makes sense,
but only if they have type "void *" and are in address space 0.
That is, this works:
#define NULL ((__attribute__ ((address_space (0))) void *) 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
Bug ID: 60078
Summary: acats c761007 fails on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Mine. Some dg-requires of vect_XXX missing probably.
>
> note: not vectorized: no vectype for stmt: _8 = *_7;
> scalar_type: long long unsigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 32052
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32052&action=edit
unsigned int .vect dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59718
--- Comment #4 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Wed Feb 5 14:55:18 2014
New Revision: 207506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Backport: ARM Documentation] Clarify -mcpu, -mtune, -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
> > --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
> >> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60079
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod ---
Created attachment 32053
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32053&action=edit
Reduced test case for LRA ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system
> does
> not exhibit the slow-down?
no, I see it both on unloa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59718
jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60079
Bug ID: 60079
Summary: [LRA] ICE when compiling attached case.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
note: extract even/odd not supported by target
aha... next try:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr60012.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
> note: extract even/odd not supported by target
>
> aha... next try:
This works: scan-tree-dump isn't even attempted.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
[...]
> so the open question is whether there's a fault in the fall-back solution -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 5 15:14:56 2014
New Revision: 207509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-05 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/60076
* gcc.dg/vect/pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
> > --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
> [...]
> > Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system
> > does
> > not ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080
Bug ID: 60080
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Seems to be a dup of PR60062.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60062 ***
Sorry for the dup Jakub, but are you certain about it? Since 60062
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 5 15:32:01 2014
New Revision: 207511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58703
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_declare_reduction): Save and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 5 15:34:25 2014
New Revision: 207512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/59947
* ipa-devirt.c (possible_polymorphic_call_targets): Fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #10 from Paulo J. Matos ---
(In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #8)
>
> Made a mistake. With the attached test, the final gimple before expand for
> the loop basic block is:
> ;; basic block 5, loop depth 0
> ;;pred:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60062
--- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> *** Bug 60072 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The testcase below is most likely another dup as the only difference is that it
affects the trunk at -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #7 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #6)
> Null pointer constants are treated specially, which makes sense,
> but only if they have type "void *" and are in address space 0.
Otherwise, they're not a null poin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60081
Bug ID: 60081
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is fixed by the same patch, and is the same problem. If one of the two PRs
ever worked with optimize attribute, it was purely by accident.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59918
Bug 59918 depends on bug 59947, which changed state.
Bug 59947 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with #pragma GCC
optimize ("O2"), ICE in get_odr_type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59918
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> Should be the same issue as PR59947
No. Still happens after r207512.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.* |sparc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60047
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFOR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
