http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-28
07:41:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Jun 28 07:41:02 2012
New Revision: 189038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189038
Log:
PR debug/53671
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27
06:30:05 UTC ---
Alas, it doesn't work on i686 or x86_64: the free_alloc_pool in vt_finalize has
to be conditional on non-NULL, because we will skip vt_emit_notes (and thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-26
20:22:05 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Jun 26 20:21:58 2012
New Revision: 188997
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188997
Log:
PR debug/53682
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aoliva at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27
05:42:26 UTC ---
The bug was introduced in r188527, with the conditionalization of calling
insert_dead_debug_temp in the “else” clause, so that we would no longer insert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27
05:43:33 UTC ---
I've just successfully bootstrapped a recent tree with (and without) the patch
on ia64-linux-gnu, so I'm going to regtest it and post it (with proper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53740
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-22
01:29:33 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 22 01:29:28 2012
New Revision: 188866
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188866
Log:
PR debug/53682
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-22
01:30:21 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 22 01:30:16 2012
New Revision: 188868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188868
Log:
PR debug/53671
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-22
01:30:23 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 22 01:30:16 2012
New Revision: 188868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188868
Log:
PR debug/53671
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-22
01:33:26 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 22 01:33:21 2012
New Revision: 188869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188869
Log:
PR debug/53671
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-22
01:33:26 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 22 01:33:21 2012
New Revision: 188869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188869
Log:
PR debug/53671
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-22
01:33:27 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 22 01:33:21 2012
New Revision: 188869
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188869
Log:
PR debug/53671
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
09:50:01 UTC ---
It's a bit surprising, but I guess it makes sense. I'd reorder the
initializers too, so that we release stuff in the reverse order of allocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13
20:42:00 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Jun 13 20:41:55 2012
New Revision: 188527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188527
Log:
PR debug/52983
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13
20:42:00 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Jun 13 20:41:55 2012
New Revision: 188527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188527
Log:
PR debug/52983
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13
21:43:24 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Jun 13 21:43:19 2012
New Revision: 188530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188530
Log:
PR debug/47624
* var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13
21:43:54 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Jun 13 21:43:51 2012
New Revision: 188531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188531
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13
21:49:09 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. I'm going to look into backporting it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13
21:57:39 UTC ---
Fixed in mainline. Is there interest in a backport?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||49888
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-23
09:30:29 UTC ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01546.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-15
04:25:40 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue May 15 04:25:25 2012
New Revision: 187497
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187497
Log:
PR c++/53209
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-11
13:27:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri May 11 13:27:03 2012
New Revision: 187404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187404
Log:
PR c++/53209
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-11
13:52:00 UTC ---
Fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
12:15:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 27267
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27267
Proposed patch to fix the problem (testing)
Here's the patch. It's much
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] FAIL: |[4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-13
15:56:00 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Apr 13 15:55:52 2012
New Revision: 186420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186420
Log:
PR debug/51570
* var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-13
15:56:29 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Apr 13 15:56:21 2012
New Revision: 186422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186422
Log:
PR debug/48866
* df.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
--- Comment #23 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-25
11:55:30 UTC ---
I've just verified that the score problem is indeed port-specific, and needs
lookinginto by the port maintainer, but the problem exposed in m68k is generic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-25
12:00:34 UTC ---
The bug, duplicated by compiling attachment 26150, from bug 43437 comment 16,
with a cross-compiler to m68k-elf with -O -c, exposes a reload problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52479
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-15
04:47:07 UTC ---
IMHO, the whole point of -ffast-math is to trade precision for speed, so the
use of fsca makes sense to me, but I wouldn't mind if we no longer used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26796|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01
16:58:17 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Mar 1 16:58:11 2012
New Revision: 184750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184750
Log:
PR debug/52001
PR rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01
16:58:17 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Mar 1 16:58:11 2012
New Revision: 184750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184750
Log:
PR debug/52001
PR rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01
03:29:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 26796
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26796
Patch that seems to cure the problem
I'm not very happy about this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aoliva at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-25
12:09:33 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 25 12:09:27 2012
New Revision: 184571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184571
Log:
PR debug/52001
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52001
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-25
12:09:48 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Feb 25 12:09:41 2012
New Revision: 184572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184572
Log:
PR debug/52001
* alias.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51725
--- Comment #20 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-07
21:37:20 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Jan 7 21:37:15 2012
New Revision: 182982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182982
Log:
PR bootstrap/51725
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-06
20:21:00 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 6 20:20:55 2012
New Revision: 182963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182963
Log:
PR debug/51746
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-05
00:17:27 UTC ---
Thanks, Jakub, the patch is fine, I've just verified that it fixes the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51746
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-05
00:58:13 UTC ---
I've now realized the reason we fail to find the (plus:si (reg:si r1)
(const_int -1)) is that reverse_op miscomputes the hash of value 22, because
we're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
02:09:04 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Nov 1 02:09:00 2011
New Revision: 180725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180725
Log:
PR debug/50869
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27
20:46:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 25638
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25638
Patch that fixes the bug, testing
Here's a patch that fixes the bug. We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-26
08:52:13 UTC ---
Thanks. FTR, the reason we get this on PA64 and not on x86* (and probably not
on PA32) is that pa_internal_arg_pointer sets up a pseudo to hold r29+offset
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-26
13:32:57 UTC ---
Nice, a testsuite run detected gcc.dg/torture/pr43165.c -Os -g on
i686-linux-gnu gets a debug stmt referencing a user variable using a debug temp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-26
13:47:56 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Oct 26 13:47:48 2011
New Revision: 180525
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180525
Log:
PR debug/50826
* var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862
--- Comment #15 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-26
13:55:25 UTC ---
Shouldn't the testcase contain:
// { dg-require-sched-yield }
? I'm getting a failure because this_thread::yield is not defined, and
30_threads
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-25
04:05:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25605
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25605
Patch that restores earlier behavior, hiding the problem
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25605|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50826
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-25
04:14:15 UTC ---
Steve, forgot to ask you to give the latest patch a try and let me know how it
goes. I'm not sure yet why we don't trigger this problem on x86*. TIA,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50770
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-25
04:38:34 UTC ---
Michael, please fill in the target and any other configure options you used,
and attach a preprocessed version of the source that exposes the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693
--- Comment #23 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-25
04:48:24 UTC ---
Yup. We don't even need a new debug stmt type, methinks. Say, emit the debug
stmt with the LABEL_DECL, decay that to a debug stmt in cfgexpand, and turn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
16:46:29 UTC ---
On it. FWIW, I don't get these failures with rev 180136, with or without the
patch, and I can't trigger them at 180194 either. Can you get more info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
19:15:51 UTC ---
Just tried with ld.gold instead, still no failure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
19:57:41 UTC ---
What kind of error are you getting from gdb 7.3? Since 7.2 is getting the
correct info, that's the bug report that ought to be submitted to GDB.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
21:45:42 UTC ---
Err, that doesn't seem to tell what errors you're getting from gdb. I know
older GDB might cause tests to be skipped, but that's not the case here. I'm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-20
22:52:54 UTC ---
Yep. That, or some other difference in the compiler's assembly output, that I
asked for in comment 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49310
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-19
15:50:04 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Oct 19 15:50:00 2011
New Revision: 180194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180194
Log:
PR debug/49310
* var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49270
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-06
13:24:41 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Jun 6 13:24:39 2011
New Revision: 174697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174697
Log:
PR bootstrap/49270
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49270
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49270
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.g.gorbachev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49116
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49270
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49116
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49116
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48333
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-04
10:08:12 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Jun 4 10:08:09 2011
New Revision: 174636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174636
Log:
PR debug/48333
* calls.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-04
10:15:51 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Jun 4 10:15:48 2011
New Revision: 174637
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174637
Log:
PR debug/47590
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48333
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-03
01:41:57 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jun 3 01:41:54 2011
New Revision: 174595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174595
Log:
PR debug/47590
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49210
Summary: verify_gimple fails building ada/einfo.o at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-06
14:43:45 UTC ---
I don't see how it would. Except for some very particular cases (that do not
include the expansion of addresses AFAICT) we just expand each
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24189|0 |1
801 - 900 of 1091 matches
Mail list logo
