--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-05-11 22:05
---
Subject: Re: Wrong code generation when cross compile for
attiny2313
p dot mateja at sh dot cvut dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from p dot mateja at sh dot cvut dot cz 2006-05-11 21
--- Comment #10 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-05-12 15:10
---
Subject: Re: Wrong code generation when cross compile for
attiny2313
p dot mateja at sh dot cvut dot cz wrote:
> In other words: Is there any way how to say to gcc that const arrays shoud
> stay
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-05-31 22:19
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks a lot, hope it will find the way to WinAVR soon.
Yes, it will.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-07-11 14:15
---
"My complaint is that I discovered an error in the file paths
when I tried to look at some of the files under External Dependencies in the
AVR GCC Project Window. None would open. Clicking on
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
GCC target triplet: avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25298
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2005-12-07 18:01
---
Created an attachment (id=10438)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10438&action=view)
Preprocessed test case.
Attaching a preprocessed testcase using 4.0.2.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2005-12-07 18:24
---
Thanks for pointing this(In reply to comment #2)
> This is invalid C and in fact we removed the extension for 4.0.x.
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html
> And http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/cha
--- Comment #19 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2005-12-28 23:01
---
Bugmasters,
Is there any more information needed, or can this bug be marked as NEW?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19087
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-01-13 16:15
---
The host is Windows.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-01-19 16:18
---
I would concur with Richard. The fact that you're getting "no such instruction"
points to an issue with the assembler, and that you probably don't have a
target assembler (AVR assemble
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-01-19 16:22
---
Bjoerne, could you post a comment to this bug that includes the link to the
patch in the gcc-patches list?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25035
--- Comment #10 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-08-22 17:38
---
Subject: RE: Add option to have GCC not search $(prefix)
>
> Are you aware of this discussion
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00313.html
>
> and this alternative patch, installed
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-08-30 15:06
---
The AVR does not have an Add Immediate instruction (addi), so this is normally
done using sbi with a negative number as Andrew correctly points out.
In Ralf's unoptimized output, it correctly shows
--- Comment #17 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-08-30 21:13
---
Note that you cannot completely restrict this bug to "unified tree" builds.
Building GCC 4.1.1 for the AVR target still fails unless one uses
--disable-libssp, AND this is not a unified tree build
--- Comment #21 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-08-31 15:39
---
Created an attachment (id=12161)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12161&action=view)
Patch to select 32 bit DWARF addresses for the AVR target.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #22 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-08-31 15:41
---
Created an attachment (id=12162)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12162&action=view)
Patch to add a note to the ELF file to notify the difference between old ELF
files and new EL
--- Comment #8 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-01 21:44
---
Bugmasters: Please mark this bug as NEW. It is a valid bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #12 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-18 22:42
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=12115)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12115&action=view) [edit]
> When relocated do not add paths that contain the conf
--- Comment #12 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-19 19:41
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I just realized that the patch posted here had just posted had a <= where
> should have been a < for two comparisons. The patch on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> is
--- Comment #14 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-19 20:25
---
Thanks, Bjoern, for responding in detail.
If this bug cannot be reproduced, can we go ahead and close this bug report?
Eric
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21990
--- Comment #23 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-19 21:54
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I suggest that this change should be accompanied by another indication in
> the output that tells the ELF/DWARF-2 consumer about the changed pointer
> size. Othe
--- Comment #25 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-20 03:38
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> i'm not sure why you think you need an
> extra note.
Because we weren't aware of the information that you thoughtfully laid out and
put in this bug report? :-)
--- Comment #26 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-21 15:18
---
(From update of attachment 12162)
The gcc-4.1.1-dwarf32-note.patch file is obsolete and no longer needed. Torleif
was able to build a parser to work with both size DWARF addresses.
--
eweddington at cso
--- Comment #13 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-10-05 01:56
---
I had to slightly modify patch-2006-08-22-pr17621.diff from Carlos to
successfully patch against 4.1.1 (last hunk for gcc.c). It patched
successfully, but failed for the avr target in that the toolchain
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-10-05 12:49
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> GCC_EXEC_PREFIX does not control the search directories for header files.
> Could
> you verify that your target actually compiles before applying the patches?
In the te
--- Comment #13 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-10-11 17:05
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I can confirm that this bug still exists on with avr-gcc (GCC) 4.0.2 (running
> on Mac OS X 10.4.8/PPC, installed via Macports)
> Is there any news on this bug?
Sorry,
--- Comment #29 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-02-13 19:00
---
Can a bug master please close this bug as fixed?
Thanks
Eric Weddington
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19087
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-02-13 19:12
---
5 months later and this bug still needs to be marked as NEW. Will a bug master
please do this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-02-14 16:48
---
Same results with GCC 4.1.1:
:
0: af 92 pushr10
2: bf 92 pushr11
4: cf 92 pushr12
6: df 92 pushr13
8: ef 92
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-03-10 19:40
---
>From the link in comment #1, on the gcc list, from Jim Wilson:
">DW_AT_member_location seems to consequently equal -1 (ff ff ff ff) for
the > first member of a bitfield.
FYI You can g
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-03-16 21:34
---
Created an attachment (id=13217)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13217&action=view)
Patch to add in the missing break statements.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31137
ReportedBy: eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
GCC build triplet: mingw
GCC host triplet: mingw
GCC target triplet: avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31331
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-03-26 20:22
---
FWIW, I agree with the OP. This will place a burden on users who work with
embedded systems such as the AVR. Special sections are sometimes needed in the
AVR to place code into a special bootloader area that
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-03-30 19:55
---
Dr. John,
Can you provide additional information:
- What AVR processor was this compiled for? You don't have the required -mmcu=
flag in your command line.
- Can you provide a disassembly listing sh
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-03-30 20:58
---
The test program works for me for AVR GCC 4.1.1. (WinAVR distro 20070122)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29932
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-02 17:41
---
Can someone please commit this patch? I need this for mingw-hosted cross
toolchains.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 00:24
---
Created an attachment (id=13324)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13324&action=view)
Pre-processed testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27192
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 00:25
---
Created an attachment (id=13325)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13325&action=view)
Disassembly of the shifty3.i test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27192
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 00:38
---
Confirmed bug.
shifty3.i is a test case showing the problem. Compiled with avr-gcc 4.1.2,
with:
avr-gcc -Os shifty.c -o shifty.o
shifty3.dis is a disassembly of shifty.o (with avr-objdump -d shifty.o).
The
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 13:41
---
Created an attachment (id=13327)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13327&action=view)
Patch by Anatoly Sokolov
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29932
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 23:46
---
Confirmed on 4.1.1.
Please add wrong-code to Keyword list.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30289
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-05 18:07
---
This is a duplicate of bug #22133.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29851
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-09 04:01
---
Correcting target milestone to 4.1.3.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19087
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18553
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-09 23:33
---
Bernd, what mcu type was this compiled for?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27663
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|4.1.1 |
GCC host triplet|AVR |
GCC target
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31137
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-10 14:11
---
Danny,
Can you take a look at this bug and the corresponding patch in comment #5? This
issue has been around a long time, and the fix has worked for a long time too.
It would be nice if the fix could be
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-11 04:20
---
Bernd, Rolf,
Can you verify if this bug still exists? If so, I have in my notes that this
patch will fix this bug:
<http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/avr-ada/trunk/patches/gcc-4.1-integer-
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-25 16:34
---
This is very probably an mcore target issue. The test case passes for the AVR
target for 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 with all -O settings (0,1,2,3,s).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31702
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-25 18:04
---
Note that the -MM-DD date format is ISO standard 8601, which also includes
formats for time as well.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
Any new formats for __DATE__ and __TIME__ should pr
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-26 21:44
---
The committed patch fixes this warning:
../../gcc/gcc/varasm.c: In function `assemble_variable':
../../gcc/gcc/varasm.c:1699: warning: empty body in an if-statement
However, the following warning
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-23 22:57
---
Here's what I see:
The array __clz_tab is used in a macro, count_leading_zeros, which is called in
the function __clzSI2 in libgcc2.c, which (AFAICT) gets compiled to the
function __clzsi2 and aggregat
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.1 |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29524
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-24 23:50
---
Version 4.2.1 offers somewhat better results:
With -O0:
.file "test.c"
/* File "test.c": code 109 = 0x006d ( 74), prologues 18, epilogues 17 */
With -O[123s]:
.fil
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 00:04
---
Bug still exists on 4.2.1.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:05
---
Patch to document AVR progmem attribute:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01832.html
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:29
---
Confirmed on 4.2.1.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:57
---
The AVR test results for a 4.2.1 prerelease still shows failure on -O0 only:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-07/msg00335.html
However the results for a 4.3 snapshot shows failure on all -O
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:42
---
Confirmed for 4.2.1 on mingw host.
test.cpp: In function 'T* rom(const T&) [with T = uint8_t]':
test.cpp:21: instantiated from here
test.cpp:10: internal compiler error: Segm
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #11 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-27 14:23
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #10 from dmixm at marine dot febras dot ru
> 2007-07-27 01:24 ---
> Yes, results are:
&g
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 16:57
---
Wouter, please attach the assembly output that you are getting for your test.c
file using 4.1.2. That way we can compare it to other compiler versions.
Thanks,
Eric
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 17:09
---
4.3.0 20070817 snapshot generates this for the testcase:
test2:
push r16
push r17
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
mov r16,r24
ldi r24,lo8(10)
call foo
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 17:16
---
Confirmed on the AVR target for 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 17:48
---
Bug fixed in 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-23 20:10
---
Confirmed for AVR. GCC 4.2.1 for avr generates this:
foo:
/* prologue: frame size=0 */
push r14
push r15
push r16
push r17
/* prologue end (size=4) */
movw r14,r22
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Priority|P2 |P5
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-23 20:39
---
Closing bug as WORKSFORME based on Bjoern's observations in comment #13.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #12 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-23 22:26
---
Seems to be fixed in 4.3 20070817 snapshot.
An additional minor patch is needed, not for this bug, but to allow Objective-C
to build for the AVR. (It's unknown if Objective-C will actually *work* on th
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:25
---
Created an attachment (id=14106)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14106&action=view)
Correct assembler output of test case for 4.1.2.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:30
---
Created an attachment (id=14107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14107&action=view)
Test case assembler output for 4.2.1.
Not really any better than 4.1.2.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:35
---
Created an attachment (id=14108)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14108&action=view)
Test case assembler output for 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot.
Again, only marginally better.
--
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:41
---
(In reply to comment #3)
4.3.0 20070817 snapshot produces this for the second test case:
test:
push r17
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
mov r17,r24
call foo
add
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-28 23:30
---
Confirmed bug, and verified patch fixes bug.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-28 23:31
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Confirmed bug, and verified patch fixes bug.
>
... For the AVR port only.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33028
--- Comment #40 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-29 18:06
---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Created an attachment (id=14131)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14131&action=view) [edit]
> another test case
>
> This test case only ha
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-04 03:37
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Patch to document AVR progmem attribute:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01832.html
>
Now committed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg00159.h
--- Comment #13 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-04 03:46
---
Seems to be fixed in 4.2.1, at least. I haven't tried earlier releases.
Changing target milestone and closing bug.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-04 04:02
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yes and this correct.
Andrew,
Are you saying that this bug is invalid? If so, then it needs to be closed as
such.
Thanks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33287
--- Comment #13 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-11 16:10
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Andy Hutchinson wrote (comment #6) that addition a 'movdi' instruction
> improves
> the result. I have try to add a very simple 'movdi' (which spli
--- Comment #18 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-16 15:44
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #15 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-09-16 12:57 ---
> Also, it seems to me t
--- Comment #20 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-17 02:31
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> Here's a patch which doesn't mess up the stack pointer update
> in the epilogue.
>
Hi Rask,
--- Comment #22 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-17 22:53
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #21 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-09-17 11:13 ---
> It's probably someti
--- Comment #24 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-18 19:06
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #23 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
> In define_insn_and_split "*movhi&
--- Comment #26 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-19 05:28
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> > c:/avrdev/gcc/gcc-4.3-20070914/libobjc/Object.m:66: error:
> unrecognizable
> > insn:
> > (insn
--- Comment #27 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-19 17:57
---
Created an attachment (id=14224)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14224&action=view)
Rask's patch modified from comments.
Here is Rask's patch again, but slightly
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-24 01:45
---
Subject: RE: Double load of volatile operand for abs
builtin
> --- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-09-23 12:35 ---
> Please re-confirm this if this still happe
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-10-07 19:46
---
Created an attachment (id=14316)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14316&action=view)
Patch by Anatoly Sokolov
Proposed patch by Anatoly Sokolov.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-10-07 19:48
---
Changing target milestone to 4.2.3. Hopefully the attached patch will be
committed by then.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
GCC host triplet: mingw
GCC target triplet: avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31790
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-02 20:28
---
Woops! Thanks for catching that! I forgot I had --disable-fixincludes still in
there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31790
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
