http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #39 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-12-21 08:02:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 29019
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29019
objdump of the offending routine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #40 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-12-21 08:03:49 UTC ---
After getting an asan instrumented libgfortran to work (thanks hjl, jakub), I'm
still getting the error message.
==66645== ERROR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55772
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #41 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
08:11:19 UTC ---
Wild guess: does Fortran have any custom unwinding mechanism (like exceptions
in C++ or longjmp in C)?
For C/C++ we've spent quite some time to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #42 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-12-21 08:18:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
Wild guess: does Fortran have any custom unwinding mechanism (like exceptions
in C++ or longjmp in C)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
--- Comment #43 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
08:23:09 UTC ---
false stack-buffer-overflow reports may appear if you have stack unwinding
*somewhere*, not necessary in this routine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55772
Matthias Urlichs matthias at urlichs dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 09:38:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I can replicate on x86_64 with the jdom.jar from jdom-1.1.3-3.fc18.noarch but
not with the older jdom.jar from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 09:42:28
UTC ---
The crash should of course not happen, but since jdom now depends on jaxen just
including the jaxen.jar on the classpath seems to work around the issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
09:46:41 UTC ---
Just for the record:
llvm implementation of asan does not catch these either for the same reason.
It would be interesting to find a way to implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55766
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55663
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-12-21
10:06:50 UTC ---
I'm beginning to think the test case is invalid. The operands of the
multiplication in f1 are unsigned long and float, but they are not converted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55770
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
10:12:24 UTC ---
Yeah, it's very broken - don't use it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
10:30:54 UTC ---
It no longer reproduces for me ... we no longer unswitch. But the issue
is certainly latent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061
Jean-Pierre Flori jpflori at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
10:32:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 10:32:43 2012
New Revision: 194659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194659
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53866
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Bug #: 55773
Summary: C++ class object destructors are not called which a
static class object in destructor function in a shared
library after dlclose is called.
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55765
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
11:57:41 UTC ---
but of course even better would be to fix the reason for this hack - why
are those Ada files built with a C++ compiler in the first place?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #35 from albcl111 muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com 2012-12-21
11:58:37 UTC ---
Well said….positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked
to check out new stuff you weblog
airlinesplanet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Bug #: 55774
Summary: AVX integer store segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
12:47:54 UTC ---
Ick, I had
Index: gcc/cprop.c
===
--- gcc/cprop.c (revision 194658)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 13:48:19
UTC ---
Honza, any thoughts on this (both the combine vs. strset and local register
vars vs. string insns)?
Well, Steven's suggestion to track local explicit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 13:49:15
UTC ---
Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
Well, replacing parameter by known constant should not pessimize in general...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
13:55:41 UTC ---
Or rather convert.c:convert_to_real:
/* Propagate the cast into the operation. */
if (itype != type FLOAT_TYPE_P (type))
switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
13:57:40 UTC ---
And as usual - convert.c contains premature optimization (this one hardly
worth) and/or duplicates of fold-const.c. Thus removing the whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
13:59:29 UTC ---
Yeah, I wonder if that transformation wasn't meant to be guarded by also
FLOAT_TYPE_P (itype), comparing TYPE_PRECISION of a floating type with say
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:01:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
Well, replacing parameter by known constant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:08:24 UTC ---
Btw, one thing to improve would be the excessive number of aliasing runtime
checks the vectorizer currently generates. That would also help himeno.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:10:19 UTC ---
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't right
now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:12:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar.
I think that would not help as we'd likely propagate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:16:09 UTC ---
When writting symtab_real_symbol_p I made external nodes to not be real symbols
unless they are explicitelly called or refereed.
The reason is that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 14:22:28
UTC ---
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't
right
now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55106
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I'm still hitting this failure when building GMP 5.1.0 for i686-w64-mingw32:
libtool: compile: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 14:29:40
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:29:34 2012
New Revision: 194663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194663
Log:
2012-12-21 Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:33:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:13 2012
New Revision: 194665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194665
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
14:34:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:59 2012
New Revision: 194666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194666
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
15:01:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 29021
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29021
Patch I am testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Bug #: 55775
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE when building pari
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #12 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
15:59:36 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Dec 21 15:59:27 2012
New Revision: 194669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194669
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-21 16:15:34
UTC ---
As another data point, in our internal benchmarks I had tried a few
values and 99.9% gave the best performance. Just going down to 99.0%
reduced the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55776
Bug #: 55776
Summary: -Wshadow generates an incorrect warning with enum
classes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-12-21
16:26:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 16:51:41
UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't look down the PR - I thought that we were just at the stage of
your opening email :-(
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
Bug #: 55777
Summary: Inlining nomips16 function into mips16 function can
result in undefined builtins
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52152
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Bug #: 55778
Summary: Variadic template extension possibly wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
18:37:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Am i wrong ?
Yes. The foo(std::string const, Args...) overload is not in scope within
foo(int, Args...) so the call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55779
Bug #: 55779
Summary: Debug program abort on pthread_exit() while using
-static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21 18:54:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Dec 21 18:54:00 2012
New Revision: 194676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194676
Log:
2012-12-21 Steve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55780
Bug #: 55780
Summary: effective targets arm_arch_v*_multilib are not strict
enough
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #2 from ph dunski koala01 at free dot fr 2012-12-21 19:17:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
Am i wrong ?
Yes. The foo(std::string const, Args...) overload is not in scope within
foo(int,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #4 from ph dunski koala01 at free dot fr 2012-12-21 19:57:05 UTC
---
It is what i did ;)
But, i'm really not convicted, because, in my head, we should have a SFINAE
behaviour which should fall back into the good overloaded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
20:50:52 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:50:48 2012
New Revision: 194679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194679
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
21:05:36 UTC ---
No. SFINAE only applies if there's a substitution error, which doesn't apply
here. The foo(Args...) overload is viable and deduction succeeds unless the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
21:20:55 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:20:48 2012
New Revision: 194680
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194680
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55672
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
21:28:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The difference is
--- x.s2012-12-18 12:24:17.072888139 -0800
+++ no-lra.s2012-12-18 12:30:11.419157548
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55781
Bug #: 55781
Summary: -shared-libgcc does not completely undo -static-libgcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55782
Bug #: 55782
Summary: GCC needs a -shared-libstdc++ option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
22:06:42 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:06:38 2012
New Revision: 194682
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194682
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
22:21:20 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:21:14 2012
New Revision: 194684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194684
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
22:28:45 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:28:40 2012
New Revision: 194686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194686
Log:
2012-12-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
22:31:46 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:31:42 2012
New Revision: 194687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194687
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
22:33:42 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:33:36 2012
New Revision: 194688
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194688
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
22:59:27 UTC ---
To the last test case of comment 0:
gives an ICE (segfault) at
vector_comp = field
0x62d477
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30996
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
