http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-30 01:36:26
UTC ---
This helps:
diff --git a/gcc/rtlanal.c b/gcc/rtlanal.c
index 43d4cb8..d076ad6 100644
--- a/gcc/rtlanal.c
+++ b/gcc/rtlanal.c
@@ -5460,6 +5460,7 @@ strip_address_mutations (rtx *l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28566|0 |1
is obsolete|
||2012-10-30
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-30 10:36:29
UTC ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55093
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
Bug #: 55142
Summary: [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: in
plus_constant, at explow.c:88
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Bug #: 55145
Summary: [4.8 Regression] [x32] -maddress-mode=long miscompiles
glibc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 08:26:10
UTC ---
Patch doesn't work and elf_get_dynamic_info is miscompiled:
0xf7dddc88 <+5224>:neg%eax
0xf7dddc8a <+5226>:lea(%rcx,%rax,4),%eax
---Type to continue, or q to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 09:13:46
UTC ---
The code looks like:
while (dyn->d_tag != 0)
{
if ((d_tag_utype) dyn->d_tag < 34)
info[dyn->d_tag] = dyn;
else if (dyn->d_tag >= 0x7000 &&
dyn->
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 11:25:48
UTC ---
Breakpoint 7, fold_binary_loc (loc=2696, code=PLUS_EXPR, type=0x7199e000,
op0=0x71ab8398, op1=0x71aa6660)
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c:10058
10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 12:19:56
UTC ---
Does this make any senses?
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
index 5ea5110..50879d6 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -7038,6 +7038,24 @@ fol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 13:10:02
UTC ---
-maddress-mode=long is new in 4.8. GCC 4.7 only implements
-maddress-mode=long equivalent.
I backported -maddress-mode=long to hjl/x32/gcc-4_7-branch branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-01 22:30:16
UTC ---
All binaries die before main:
Starting program:
/export/build/gnu/glibc-x32-long/build-x86_64-linux/libio/bug-fclose1
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0xf7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-01 22:31:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Shouldn't the gcc.target/i386/pr54457.c testcase be...
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54457.c
> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-01 22:37:20
UTC ---
Like this:
# Return 1 if -mx32 can compile, 0 otherwise.
proc check_effective_target_maybe_x32 { } {
return [check_no_compiler_messages maybe_x32 object {
void foo (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-01 23:07:06
UTC ---
T(In reply to comment #16)
> > I think the bug is in unsigned array index computation as
> > shown in Comment 7. dyn->d_tag is signed type and Pmode
> > != ptr_mode here.
>
> Pos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-02 23:09:19
UTC ---
(gdb) disass $pc - 19, +25
Dump of assembler code from 0xf7dddc7a to 0xf7dddc93:
0xf7dddc7a :mov%r8d,%esi
0xf7dddc7d :sub%eax,%esi
0xf7dddc7f :cmp$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55185
Bug #: 55185
Summary: Error generated on extern inline function which isn't
called
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-03 02:51:26
UTC ---
This patch:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 tmp]$ cat /tmp/x
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 3e8e004..da35488 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -8115,7 +8115,7 @@ expand_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
Summary|[4.8 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-04 10:14:07
UTC ---
It is due to long int usage in real.h. Depending on
size of long int, real.c gives slightly different
results.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-04 11:09:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This cannot explain the crashes you see since the difference is just one ULP.
The glibc crash is fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-04 22:51:46
UTC ---
Here are different internal values from the same input:
32-bit long: 1.57079632679489661925640447970309310221637133509
Input: 1.57079632679489661920219437107881788051599869504
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-04 23:06:27
UTC ---
From:
http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14803#c1
---
Really I'd consider this just a variant on bug 21718 (real.c rounding not
perfect). That would ideally b
||dot com, hjl.tools at gmail
||dot com
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-05 01:38:14
UTC ---
Given that the correct MPFR isn't widely available, is that
possible to fix rounding in real.c?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-05 21:44:50
UTC ---
On Linux/x86-64:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$
/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
Bug #: 55224
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/tailcall-1.c
scan-assembler jmp
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-06 22:15:02
UTC ---
There is no x32 mode in hardware. Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode
and only OS limits x32 address space to 32-bit, x32 process has
full access to 64-bit insns, just like 64-bit process.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55228
Bug #: 55228
Summary: index.go should check size of int instead of GOARCH
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-07 22:11:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> If you compile the testcase with the unmodified compiler but without -fPIC,
> you
> get in the assembly file:
>
> movl%edx, _dl_rtld_map-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-07 23:02:58
UTC ---
Created attachment 28632
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28632
A complete testcase
I applied i386 change at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #28 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-08 23:02:54
UTC ---
So for POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED > 0, we should transform
(zero_extend:DI (plus:SI (FOO:SI) (const_int Y)))
in such a way that it won't cause ICE and zero-extend the
result. For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #30 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-09 00:35:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
>
> I think the most robust solution would be to always zero-extend the addresses
> for -mx32, i.e. output
> movl%ecx, -1073743664(%eax)
> even if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55246
Bug #: 55246
Summary: Define a macro for 16*1024*1024
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
Bug #: 55247
Summary: [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: Max. number
of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-09 02:36:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 28644
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28644
A patch
This patch prints SImode register names to force addr32 prefix
if displacement < -16*10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-09 05:08:29
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$ cat /export/gnu/import/delta-2006.08.03/x.c
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
typedef unsigned int uintptr_t;
typedef uint32_t Elf32_Word;
typedef uint32_t Elf32_Addr;
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 01:32:06
UTC ---
There are 2 issues here:
1. Should we use
movdqu(%eax), %xmm0# 19*movti_internal_rex64/4[length = 5]
movdqa%xmm0, (%rsp)# 29*movti_internal_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 01:39:16
UTC ---
We don't properly handle memory operand in
(insn 19 17 20 2 (set (reg:TI 85 [ *_15 ])
(mem:TI (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 82)) [0 *_15+0 S16 A32])) x.i:29 61
{*movti_internal_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 01:58:31
UTC ---
We fail to see (mem:TI (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 82))) is offsettable.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55258
Bug #: 55258
Summary: SSE register isn't used for 16byte copy
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 02:30:16
UTC ---
Something like this:
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 6109832..9ec38f9 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -84,12 +84,22 @@ plus_constant (enum machine_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55259
Bug #: 55259
Summary: plus_constant doesn't handle zero-extended address
properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55259
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 04:13:32
UTC ---
A potential fix:
diff --git a/gcc/emit-rtl.c b/gcc/emit-rtl.c
index 95bbfa7..d7c454c 100644
--- a/gcc/emit-rtl.c
+++ b/gcc/emit-rtl.c
@@ -2109,6 +2109,12 @@ adjust_address_1 (rtx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55258
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 08:52:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 28651
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28651
Something like this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Component|middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 19:11:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > ~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1 -O2 -mx32 -maddress-mode=long pr55247.c
> >
> > results in following sequence:
> >
> > mov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46890
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|ICE: SIGSEGV in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46992
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-17 16:09:44
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 166167:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00053.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46994
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46995
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46394
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dseketel at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-17 22:25:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Filled in the GNU LD bug as
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12323
It should have been fixed on hjl/lto-mixed branch at
http://git.kernel.org/?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46998
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: objc.dg/exceptions-4.m
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46998
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-17 23:48:36
UTC ---
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/exceptions-4.m:
In function 'test':^M
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/exceptio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47002
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47003
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 15:40:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Compiled like so:
> > $ gcc-4.4.2 -S -O2 sha256_4way.i -o sha256_4way-44.s
> > $ gcc-4.5.0 -S -O2 sha256_4way.i -o sha256_4way-45.s
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 15:43:06
UTC ---
It may be fixed by the patch for PR 40436.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 16:03:44
UTC ---
Can you try
--
diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
index af1adf4..dd00de6 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
@@ -3342,7 +3342,11 @@ estimate_num_insns (gi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 19:35:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 22813
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22813
A new patch
Try this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 19:38:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I'd like to wait for Honza's opinion before we just start trying random
> patches.
>
> But if you feel like trying some other things, perhaps you can see if
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46880
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47079
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/nrv-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47086
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47087
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47022
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47125
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47028
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47020
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47009
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc incorrectly combines assembly
inputs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-31 20:26:43
UTC ---
The proposed patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00517.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47141
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-01 17:08:59
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 161433:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01351.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47144
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47148
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-01 20:17:26
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 161433:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01351.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47148
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47150
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47150
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47150
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46589
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||42324
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-02 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47152
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-02 20:53:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> And upper 32 bits are undefined if the argument is 8/16/32 bit (i.e. callee
> must sign/zero extend, instead of caller)?
If callee wants 64bit, it has to sign/zer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46755
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-02 23:12:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Not sure if this is still useful, but here's a fairly small failure-inducing
> testcase for this bug for today's GCC.
>
> [reg...@gamow tmp437]$ current-gcc -O2 -
601 - 700 of 7027 matches
Mail list logo
