http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55263
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55322
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55364
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55408
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21
12:44:31 UTC ---
Looks like the first example is just an undefined behavior in which case GCC
isn't obliged to issue an error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-24
11:53:19 UTC ---
So, in .cse1 we have:
ENTRY
|
|
2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
14:29:59 UTC ---
Patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02095.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
18:55:34 UTC ---
ICEs even with 4.7 branch. With 4.6:
/home/marek/rh/tests/pr55494.C:6:19: warning: variadic templates only available
with -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55520
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-02
20:17:16 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Dec 2 20:16:09 2012
New Revision: 194060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194060
Log:
PR54838
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03
10:07:22 UTC ---
That's because in 4.8/4.7 we introduced
c-family/c-common.c:check_user_alignment which contains:
if (!INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (align
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03
10:33:58 UTC ---
In fact, we of course check for that, we should just switch the expressions in
the if. Testing a fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55569
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03
13:02:10 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Dec 3 13:02:04 2012
New Revision: 194083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194083
Log:
Fix PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-03
13:10:33 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Dec 3 13:10:18 2012
New Revision: 194084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194084
Log:
Fix PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55685
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55685
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-14
10:48:40 UTC ---
Reduced. Hope I haven't turned it into something invalid.
typedef unsigned int size_t;
namespace base
{
template size_t Size, size_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55687
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55684
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-14
16:12:48 UTC ---
The issue here is that we have a loop with header and two latches, and via
delete_basic_block we delete both latches (and all edges of those two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-14
16:14:58 UTC ---
(The reason why we don't have a loop anymore is simply that the header doesn't
have any incoming back edges after removing the latches
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-14
16:37:39 UTC ---
Now I don't know why we'd need that hunk, the code for handling latch/header is
just above it, only loop-latch is NULL, because there are more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55208
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55750
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-20
13:37:47 UTC ---
The issue here is that when unswitching, we create this new bb:
;; basic block 19, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 14, maybe hot
;; prev block 20, next
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55797
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55797
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-02
11:22:00 UTC ---
Cannot reproduce with xgcc (GCC) 4.6.4 20130102 (prerelease).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55859
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55859
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-04
11:16:39 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 4 11:15:55 2013
New Revision: 194901
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194901
Log:
PR55859
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55859
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55875
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10
15:11:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
By unswitching on an exit test that exits to the enclosing loop we create
an unswitched loop that is now reached by what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-17
19:20:27 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 17 19:19:37 2013
New Revision: 195280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195280
Log:
Fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
10:22:21 UTC ---
The problem looks to be in fix_loop_structures:
/* If there was no latch, schedule the loop for removal. */
if (!first_latch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-22
13:24:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 29248
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29248
pr56035
Potential fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-25
08:52:33 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 25 08:52:02 2013
New Revision: 195462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195462
Log:
Fix PR56035
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-25
15:33:57 UTC ---
So, we replace
# a.0_26 = PHI a.0_10(5)
with
# a.0_26 = PHI .MEM_10(5)
This happens when we call rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa in case we're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
13:33:47 UTC ---
The problem here is in dfs_enumerate_from, which wrongly detects the number of
BBs in a loop. get_loop_body_with_size calls dfs_enumerate_from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
13:35:15 UTC ---
Maybe just remove the assert? We know, that dfs_enumerate_from can sometimes
return bogus number.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
13:42:51 UTC ---
Yeah, on the second thought, that is nonsense, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28
16:43:31 UTC ---
Unfortunately this patch causes a few FAILs, e.g.:
/home/polacek/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20020604-1.c: In
function ‘foo’:
/home
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-29
09:38:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I'll test an alternative patch.
FYI, I've tried this one:
--- a/gcc/loop-init.c
+++ b/gcc/loop-init.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
12:16:08 UTC ---
So, what happens here is that tracer performs tail-duplication. That is per se
of course fine, but when we're re-scanning bodies
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
12:22:28 UTC ---
Hopefully it'll be somewhat clearer with a picture:
http://people.redhat.com/mpolacek/src/pr56181.png
the BB 4 is the one that is first marked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
15:53:44 UTC ---
Or maybe tracer shouldn't duplicate BB between headers, i.e. BB whose successor
and predecessor is a header. Testing a patch for that...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
16:33:45 UTC ---
Hmm, maybe I should have put it this way: we don't want to duplicate a BB,
which may be a preheader. Does it sound sane? Thus, something like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58599
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Gah, sorry, you're right. In fact, started with r179156:
$ ./cc1plus-179156 -quiet -std=c++0x ~/x.C
/home/polacek/x.C: In substitution of ‘templateclass, class ...
templateclass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58597
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, indeed :(. As it's too old, I don't have enough cc1plus binaries to
really bisect it. Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's the loop unswitching.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58626
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58635
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58635
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, I think it's the uncprop:
--- Q.c.139t.crited22013-10-08 13:03:04.169955615 +0200
+++ Q.c.141t.uncprop12013-10-08 13:03:04.169955615 +0200
@@ -51,7 +51,7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58635
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Oct 9 14:51:28 2013
New Revision: 203323
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203323root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/58635
cp/
* semantics.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58635
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58671
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This will ICE even with -std=c++03 -Wnarrowing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This will fix the ICE, but perhaps we want to give an error instead...
I'll regtest this and post to ML.
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
@@ -833,7 +833,8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
This will fix the ICE, but perhaps we want to give an error instead...
IMNSHO we want, as C FE does:
58705.C:1:1: error: empty scalar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe fold_range_test should just return 0 when the type is not
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P. If that's the case, I can take this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58814
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted for the first testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01714.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Oct 21 18:40:34 2013
New Revision: 203907
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203907root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58809
* fold-const.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27719
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46157
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 9968 matches
Mail list logo
