--- Comment #24 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-10 15:42 ---
I am sorry, but the patches on comments 17, 18, 21, and 22 are no good without
the
patch on comment 5, which seems, it was never commited into the repository...
Can you double check this. Thanks.
Edmar
--
edmar
--- Comment #28 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-12 15:36 ---
I double checked everything. The sources I checked out last night has the
patches of comments 17, 21, and 25.
This time I got a failure just like the on comment 7. The insn is the same
The original attachment
--- Comment #33 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-17 15:22 ---
The latest round of patches cured the original problem. Unfortunately, the
target itself is still broken. This time because of a bug originaly reported
for the e500v1 target. (27075).
I am not sure what is the right
--- Comment #35 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-17 15:44 ---
The original problem was solved. For futher bootstrap problems on this target,
see bug 27075.
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-17 15:57 ---
This bug also affects target e500v2. The e500v2 is configured with:
--target=powerpc-unknowm-linux-gnuspe --enable-e500_double.
I will try the patch on comment 8 overnight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnualtivec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27578
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-05-12 18:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=11449)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11449&action=view)
File generated with --save-temps
This is the .ii file that causes ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27875
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-06-02 15:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=11579)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11579&action=view)
file generated with --save-temps
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27875
--- Comment #9 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-07-13 16:08 ---
I tried the patch on comment 7 on gcc main line from yesterday. It did not work
for me:
foo.c: In function 'foo':
foo.c:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 11 10 12 3 (set (subreg:DF (reg:DI 121) 0)
--- Comment #11 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-07-13 18:01 ---
I tested with both examples. Both fails with the same ICE.
I am sure I am using the right compiler, because I invoked it explictitly with:
./install_area/gcc-trunk-20060712-e500v2/bin/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe-gcc
--- Comment #13 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-07-13 20:09 ---
What about now:
/local/gnu_toolchain/build_area/obj_gcc-trunk_e500v2/gcc/xgcc
-B/local/gnu_toolchain/build_area/obj_gcc-trunk_e500v2/gcc/ -O2 -c foo.c
foo.c: In function 'f':
foo.c:1: error: unrecognizable i
--- Comment #15 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-07-13 20:48 ---
Ahhha, I found the problem. My patch is wrong:
This line
+ (match_operand:DF 1 "register_operand" "r,m"))]
should read
+ (match_operand:DF 1 "input_operand" "r,m")
--- Comment #16 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-07-14 17:19 ---
With the *correct* patch applied my regression tests are back to "normal", and
no sign of new issues.
Sorry for the previous confusion...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27287
--- Comment #4 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-06-19 20:16 ---
Folks here at Freescale are requesting me this very same fix.
But the proposed patch were never committed. Any particular reason why not ?
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|Removed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
GCC
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-07-07 20:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=18153)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18153&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40677
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-07-07 20:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=18154)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18154&action=view)
patch to fix bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40677
--- Comment #4 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-07-08 15:06 ---
I did not run any test suite, nor prepared any test case suitable for inclusion
in dejagnu suite.
I opened a bug hopping the information I gave would help resolve the issue
faster.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #13 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-07-24 15:05 ---
For my part (e500v2) it works just fine. I have being using since april for my
regression tests. As Andrew posted, the question is the impact on other
targets...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28930
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-01 19:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=12171)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12171&action=view)
Input file
Input file generated with --save-temps
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28930
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-01 19:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=12172)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12172&action=view)
What glibc scripts expect
Input file processed with gcc-4.0.2
That is what glibc sed scripts expect
--
--- Comment #3 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-01 19:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=12173)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12173&action=view)
What gcc-trunk 20060828 generates
Input file processed with gcc-trunk, from 20060828.
The asm file confu
--- Comment #5 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-01 20:03 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Re: New: [4.2.0] regression
>
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, edmar at freescale dot com wrote:
>
> > During the build of glibc (2.3.6) there is a file (csu/initfini.c) th
--- Comment #7 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-01 20:45 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The options you quote don't include -fno-unit-at-a-time. glibc should be
> using this option (or, better, -fno-toplevel-reorder with newer GCC) to
> compile this file; I don&
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29255
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-27 18:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=12339)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12339&action=view)
Source code that causes the ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29255
ity: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-27 18:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=12340)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12340&action=view)
Result of 4.1 compilation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-09-27 18:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=12341)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12341&action=view)
Result of 4.2 compilation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #14 from edmar at freescale dot com 2008-01-24 18:57 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Created an attachment (id=14573)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14573&action=view) [edit]
> gcc43-pr34134.patch
>
> Patch to avoid the ICE.
>
&g
--- Comment #3 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-03-23 15:13 ---
Ben, this bug is almost 2 years old.
I don't remember what we did to resolve the issue.
I am surprised to find it is still open. I am going try to close it.
Edmar
--
edmar at freescale dot com ch
nt: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39529
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-03-23 18:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=17523)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17523&action=view)
Here is the patch I used
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39529
l in object file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-unkno
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2009-03-27 15:01 ---
I noticed that too. On x86_64 there is no undefined symbol either.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39565
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #30 from Edmar Wienskoski 2011-08-24
15:06:48 UTC ---
Not really.
A year ago when I opened the bug, it was affecting all branches.
When it was finally approved (David E.), I re-factored the patch.
At this point I found 4.4 did not n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53559
Bug #: 53559
Summary: ICE on altivec builtins stv[l|r]x[l]
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32348
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: edmar at freescale dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This test case has only unsigned variables and constants:
extern void bar1 (void);
extern void bar2 (void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69984
--- Comment #2 from Edmar Wienskoski ---
Right, but the variables A and B are *unsigned short*.
Both A, and B are promoted to signed int, but max value is 65535.
So, the result of A*B *can* be bigger than 31 bits.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69984
--- Comment #4 from Edmar Wienskoski ---
I forgot that default on x86 is 64 bits.
Repeating the test with -m32 still shows the signed comparison.
Here:
#include
void main ()
{
unsigned short int A, B;
unsigned long C,D;
unsigned long E =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69984
--- Comment #6 from Edmar Wienskoski ---
Hummm, You are almost convincing me, one last question,
be patient with me.
As Andrew posted:
C = A * B
should be equivalent to:
C = (unsigned long)( ((int)A) * ((int)B) )
The variables are promoted *bef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69984
--- Comment #9 from Edmar Wienskoski ---
Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
The comparison is made with an unsigned variable, but gcc
is certain that this variable cannot have (legally) a value that
cannot be represented in an int.
That is why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48604
Edmar Wienskoski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edmar at freescale dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #21 from Edmar Wienskoski 2011-05-19
15:52:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Edmar, have you posted your alternative patch to gcc-patches?
> That's where patch review is done, not in bugzilla.
I don't remember, I am posting it t
ilding for Freescale e500v2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host tr
functions. [4.4][4.5][4.6]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 20:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=20967)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20967&action=view)
patch for 4.5 and 4.6
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #3 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 20:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=20969)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20969&action=view)
ChangeLog for propsed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #4 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 20:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=20970)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20970&action=view)
ChangeLog for proposed test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 20:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=20968)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20968&action=view)
patch for 4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #5 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 20:24 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Sorry for the spelling, please read "unknown" through out the report.
Thanks
Edmar
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #7 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 21:18 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think this is the wrong fix I think the problem is in the patterns not
> using a hard register or a constraint that says only those registers can be
> used.
>
> C
--- Comment #9 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 23:36 ---
Hummm, I will work on your input, But now I have more questions:
1) Why do you call this case as explicit, and function call arguments implicit
? The way I see it, this is a special function call (implemented with a
--- Comment #11 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-22 16:53 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Because the insn has a register reference to r11/r1/r12 :) that is the (use
> (match_operand: )) part of the rtx. This is unlike call instructions which
> don't have matc
--- Comment #12 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-22 20:51 ---
Ok. Following your lines from comment 8, (You suggested to create 3 new
constraint, "d", which would accepts only one register each (11, 12, 1), right
?).
The following is more explicit, and would avoid to
--- Comment #14 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:15 ---
I am attaching new patches. One for gcc-4.4 and the other for gcc-4.5 and
gcc-4.6.
All three branches were bootstrapped and regression tested for both 32 bits
powerpc (603e) and 64 bit powerpc (970) with no
--- Comment #15 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=21026)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21026&action=view)
Alternative patch that affects powerpc only
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
--- Comment #16 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=21027)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21027&action=view)
Alternative patch for 4.5 and trunk
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|
--- Comment #17 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=21028)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21028&action=view)
Changelog for alternative patches
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #22 from Edmar Wienskoski 2011-05-23
21:57:08 UTC ---
I completed re-testing everything.
It turns out I cannot reproduce the original error on gcc-4.4 (rev 173968)
So, I am submitting only the patch that I tested for gcc-4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #23 from Edmar Wienskoski 2011-05-23
21:58:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 24337
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24337
This patch was tested against 4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #24 from Edmar Wienskoski 2011-06-02
15:33:16 UTC ---
The patch was approved by David, but I don't have WAA.
Can I get anyone in this list to volunteer to do the commit ?
Thanks,
Edmar
2011-05-23 Edmar Wienskoski ed...@freescale.
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2008-06-02 18:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=15714)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15714&action=view)
Patch to fix the bug
The lines deleted in the patch are executed after the command line is parsed.
The v
ion: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unkown-linux-gnuspe
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unk
--- Comment #3 from edmar at freescale dot com 2008-06-02 21:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=15716)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15716&action=view)
Modified patch
Wouldn't it better then, to remove the duplicate code from linuspe.h and
eabispe.h ?
--- Comment #5 from edmar at freescale dot com 2008-06-02 21:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=15717)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15717&action=view)
More complete patch
Ok. Is it ready to commit now ?
Thanks
Edmar
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
GCC target triplet: powerpc
--- Comment #3 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-02-24 18:49 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It also tells us that testing powerpc-linux-gnuspe is not important as it has
> been broken for over a half of a year.
>
We test all releases, the last one was 4.0.2 and
--- Comment #5 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-02-24 19:10 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Edmar --
>
> Does changing:
>
> if (rs6000_float_gprs_string == NULL) \
> rs6000_float_gprs = 2;
>
> too:
>
> if (!rs6000_explicit_options.float_gprs)
--- Comment #7 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-02-24 20:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=10911)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10911&action=view)
Input program that causes ICE on gcc-4.1.0 RC2
No deal. I got an ICE now:
[root:/local/edmar/obj_gcc/
--- Comment #9 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-02-24 21:15 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc fails to build on
> powerpc e500-double targets
>
>
>
> Bummer.
>
> Please attach preprocessed source and configuration opt
ined assembler on config/rs6000/darwin-
ldouble.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: e
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-03-08 19:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=10994)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10994&action=view)
Intermediate file for reported bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26607
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-03-08 19:10 ---
Same error observed on gcc-4_1-branch 20060308
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26607
y: Compiler generate incorrect assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27075
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-07 15:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11221)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11221&action=view)
Intermediate file of the failing code
Intermediate file that generates the wrong syntax assembler.
--
--- Comment #3 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-07 15:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=11222)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11222&action=view)
Aseembler file generated by the compiler
Assembler file generated by the compiler
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #6 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-07 15:54 ---
The problem is how %y is defined in rs6000.c (print_operand)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27075
cc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnualtivec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29617
ponent: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: edmar at freescale dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
--- Comment #2 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-12-19 18:49 ---
Still, On December 16 I had a complete build, and on December 17 I have an ICE.
It feels more like a regression than moving forward...
Edmar
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
--- Comment #4 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-12-20 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: [4.1 branch] ICE on valid code
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, edmar at freescale dot com wrote:
>
> > Still, On December 16 I had a complete build, and on Dec
85 matches
Mail list logo
