http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
08:13:29 UTC ---
The issue unfortunately isn't old vs. new kernels, just using linux/* and
asm/* headers, which as can be seen in this case sometimes aren't of a good
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-30
08:53:31 UTC ---
gmp-5.0.5 builds and tests Ok on m68k-linux when configured with -ffloat-store
in CFLAGS. There is one fcmp;fblt and three fcmp;fbne sequences in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55909
--- Comment #43 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
09:41:52 UTC ---
TLS is supported in Fedora glibc obviously, the issue is likely with the sorry
state of the Fedora/SPARC port, which is essentially unmaintained.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56142
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56146
Bug #: 56146
Summary: Erroneous char initialization only in template
function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
Bug #: 56147
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE on invalid code in
lto_symtab_merge_decls_1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56146
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55446
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56146
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54984
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56146
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-30 10:34:29 UTC ---
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #5 from Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2013-01-30 10:54:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think we necessarily want to support this fully...
Are such bug reports useful, or it's just a nuisance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56064
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:04:35 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jan 30 11:04:30 2013
New Revision: 195574
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195574
Log:
gcc/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56064
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:21:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think we necessarily want to support this fully...
Are such bug reports useful,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:25:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Does it make sense to allow -O0 -flto at all?
The classical example why we want to support this is a static library
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:29:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Does it make sense to allow -O0 -flto at all?
Answering myself, the docs have this example:
Additionally, the optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:38:30 UTC ---
struct s2 {
volatile int x;
};
struct s2 s;
void foo (void) {
s = s;
}
As said previously I think that volatile struct members are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:39:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 30 11:39:19 2013
New Revision: 195575
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195575
Log:
2013-01-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56141
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:40:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
If you're doing a non-default build (e.g. using cloog) you need to say
exactly
what you're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
11:43:38 UTC ---
Or the FE should expand the structure assignment in that case to some other
stmts based on what the right semantics is (using loops for larger objects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56141
--- Comment #5 from jarausch at igpm dot rwth-aachen.de 2013-01-30 11:54:14 UTC
---
Many thanks for your help,
Helmut.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
Bug #: 56148
Summary: [4.8 Regression] inline asm matching constraint with
different mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
Teodor Petrov fuscated at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fuscated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com 2013-01-30
12:29:00 UTC ---
I suppose this isn't important. __mod_term_func are destructors, and they even
aren't called in the crashing program.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-30
13:05:48 UTC ---
Compiling the test in comment #0 still gives the same ICE with revision 195570.
The tests in comment #1 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-30
13:28:58 UTC ---
The behavior of the test in comment #0 modified with the following patch
--- pr55959.f902013-01-13 12:23:04.0 +0100
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-01-30 13:34:31 UTC ---
ToDo: The test case in comment 4 still fails (cf. also comment 23 - 27).
Note that after revision 195562, the test in comment #4 and its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2013-01-30 13:39:37 UTC ---
The other way around, compiling and installing with
-O2 but then at link time use -O0 -g to get a debug
build is more questionable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
13:50:04 UTC ---
All of the tree SSA incremental time is spent in computing the IDFs. With
a patch to cache IDF on def-blocks nothing is gained.
Unpatched, n =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
Bug #: 56149
Summary: 64 bit gFortran-C interop hidden character argument
length passed as 32 bit value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-30
14:23:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I suppose this isn't important. __mod_term_func are destructors, and they even
aren't called in the crashing program.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com 2013-01-30
14:32:54 UTC ---
The question is why does...
if (builtin_decl_implicit_p (BUILT_IN_ASAN_INIT))
return;
in initialize_sanitizer_builtins() not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
14:38:29 UTC ---
The following (old!?) idea helps though:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
14:41:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
This one is a necessary one.
asan_finish_file inserts __asan_init into the array of constructors (aka
__mod_init_func
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: francesco.zappa.narde...@gmail.com
The program below makes
gcc version 4.8.0 20130130 (experimental) (GCC)
crash (ICE) at optimisation level -O2 and -O3:
$ gcc -O2 5-min.c
5-min.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56150
--- Comment #1 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail
dot com 2013-01-30 14:44:45 UTC ---
Sorry, forgot to specify:
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #31 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 15:02:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
ToDo: The test case in comment 4 still fails (cf. also comment 23 - 27).
Note that after revision 195562, the test in comment #4 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
Bug #: 56151
Summary: Performance degradation after r194054 on x86 Atom.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com 2013-01-30
15:20:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 29306
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29306
testcase to reproduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56152
Bug #: 56152
Summary: explicit template instantiation of protected template
function redeclared as public fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
15:40:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
The following (old!?) idea helps though:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
Bug #: 56153
Summary: False warning about signed and unsigned type in
conditional expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56154
Bug #: 56154
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bad .debug_loc generated for some
code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56150
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-30
15:57:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
See in gcc/config/darwin.h...
/* The Apple assembler and linker do not support constructor priorities. */
#undef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2013-01-30 16:16:15
UTC ---
foo-num is unsigned, -1 is signed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-30
16:28:17 UTC ---
It also seems that Solaris 2 will suffer from this issue when not using Gold...
#ifndef USE_GLD
/* The Solaris linker doesn't understand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
Bug #: 56155
Summary: [C++0X] enumeration with fixed underlying type - enum
literals have wrong type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-30
16:31:14 UTC ---
This limitation all exists for clang on darwin...
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12556
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
16:32:11 UTC ---
Solaris doesn't support Asan in gcc, and perhaps it is time to admit that
Darwin doesn't either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Bug #: 56156
Summary: Reject INTERFACE blocks in procedures which import
local nonseq. TYPE decls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
16:33:20 UTC ---
I am working on it. The fix will be ready today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #18 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
16:36:01 UTC ---
Yea... We don't have interest in supporting gcc-asan-darwin, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
16:43:03 UTC ---
Well, if somebody does the work and in a clean way that won't penalize targets
with sane linkers and object formats, I'm not objecting, I just am not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:51:03
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:50:49 2013
New Revision: 195579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195579
Log:
PR other/54620
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:51:03
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:50:49 2013
New Revision: 195579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195579
Log:
PR other/54620
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52623
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pedzsan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:56:50
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:56:36 2013
New Revision: 195580
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195580
Log:
2013-01-30 Kai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:56:50
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:56:36 2013
New Revision: 195580
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195580
Log:
2013-01-30 Kai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:58:24
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:58:10 2013
New Revision: 195581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195581
Log:
PR other/54620
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:58:22
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:58:10 2013
New Revision: 195581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195581
Log:
PR other/54620
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 16:59:13
UTC ---
Created attachment 29307
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29307
cxa_atexit implementation in libgcc
This version of the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com 2013-01-30
17:07:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Well, if somebody does the work and in a clean way that won't penalize targets
with sane linkers and object formats,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56154
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
17:16:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 29308
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29308
gcc48-pr56154.patch
Untested fix, together with guality testcases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-01-30 17:16:25 UTC
---
They are useful. It should be technically possible to support -O1 vs. -O0,
and if not, we have means to forcefully enable -O1 at link-time (which we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
17:20:47 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jan 30 17:20:39 2013
New Revision: 195582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195582
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56154
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com 2013-01-30
17:30:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29309
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29309
Dummy patch that reverses the order of the constructors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-30
17:34:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The bug, duplicated by compiling attachment 26150 [details], from bug 43437
comment 16,
with a cross-compiler to m68k-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Reject INTERFACE blocks in |Reject
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-30
17:50:07 UTC ---
Sorry I quoted the wrong fragment from 175r.fwprop, the correct fragment is:
(insn 288 287 289 41 (set (reg/f:SI 124 [ D.1812 ])
(mem/f:SI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
18:04:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 18:04:34 2013
New Revision: 195584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195584
Log:
PR c++/55742
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
18:06:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 18:05:53 2013
New Revision: 195585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195585
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30
18:18:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
I'm speaking as one of Code::Blocks' developers:
If you implement this we'll for sure use it, because we have many
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-01-30
19:00:29 UTC ---
Weird I thought we fixed this, we should find the relevant old PRs and see why
we are mishandling this specific case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-01-30
19:16:12 UTC ---
I think I thought that Jason's work to completely fix c++/53524 had fixed this
too.
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo