http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49781
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-19 06:45:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Many lea insns can be combined with the load/store insn followed.
No, these are leal insns, they have inherent zero_extend from SImode and they
clear upper 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
--- Comment #6 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-19 06:25:11 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Tue Jul 19 06:25:07 2011
New Revision: 176434
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176434
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49771
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48172
littlestar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cnstar9988 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32074
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-18
23:00:28 UTC ---
We have __builtin_unreachable() now which should allow for this optimization.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||TREE
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23830
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-18
22:19:34 UTC ---
I think this might already be fixed in either 4.6.0 or on the trunk.
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.sizemain, .-main
.localheap_len
.commheap_len,4,4
.localheap_max
.commheap_max,4,4
.localheap
.commheap,2292,32
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110718 (experimental)&q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin 2011-07-18
20:35:22 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Jul 18 20:35:18 2011
New Revision: 176422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176422
Log:
2011-07-18 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/49648
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin 2011-07-18
20:31:05 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Jul 18 20:31:02 2011
New Revision: 176419
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176419
Log:
2011-07-18 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/49648
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-18
20:21:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Meeting 193 ( http://j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/193/ ):
> - 10-229 has an edit which allows the program (cf. quote in comment 0)
> - 10-229r1 and 10-229r2
M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-18
20:16:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> See "F08/0040" at http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/11/11-006A.txt
> "STATUS: Passed by J3 letter ballot"
My comment is odd. First, the number is wrong. It's F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-07-18 20:01:24 UTC
---
Right, the dependence analysis fails here:
(compute_affine_dependence
(stmt_a =
D.2713_5 = a[i_20];
)
(stmt_b =
a[j_19] = D.2714_6;
)
(subscript_dependence_tester
(analyze_overlapping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #9 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques 2011-07-18
19:59:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created attachment 24790 [details]
> test case with Salsa20 in Crypto++
Sorry about my partial comment. Used the test case on source of gcc 4.6.1 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #8 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques 2011-07-18
19:55:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 24790
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24790
test case with Salsa20 in Crypto++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49675
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
19:49:50 UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49675
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
19:45:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 19:45:21 2011
New Revision: 176418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176418
Log:
PR middle-end/49675
* tree.c (build_common_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49675
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
19:41:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 19:41:45 2011
New Revision: 176417
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176417
Log:
PR middle-end/49675
* tree.c (build_common_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49756
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-18
19:34:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 24789
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24789
my patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49756
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
19:30:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 24788
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24788
gcc47-pr49756.patch
Untested patch. Clueless people will be still able to construct twice or 4
time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780
Summary: internal compiler error: in create_mem_ref, at
tree-ssa-address.c:806
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
18:45:56 UTC ---
Yeah, that indeed fixes this testcase, and in addition keeps
static int a[2000];
int
foo (void)
{
int j;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
for (j = 0; j < 1000; j++)
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49765
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43447
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2670
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29414
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30777
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-18
17:59:04 UTC ---
> Hmmm I'm not sure I see this - what's the configure and arch. specific flags
> you used just in case ?
Flags are just -Os.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #38 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18
17:53:46 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jul 18 17:53:43 2011
New Revision: 176414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176414
Log:
Allow only subregs of DImode hard regs in P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #37 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 17:51:36 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jul 18 17:51:33 2011
New Revision: 176413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176413
Log:
PR target/47744
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #36 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18
17:49:04 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jul 18 17:49:01 2011
New Revision: 176409
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176409
Log:
Remove ix86_simplify_base_index_disp.
2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-18
17:47:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> An extension that is still supported by GCC, right?
Yes but the semantics are not well defined in this area IIRC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33100
--- Comment #38 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-18 17:45:29
UTC ---
*** Bug 36330 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36330
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
--- Comment #2 from bagnara at cs dot unipr.it 2011-07-18 17:42:39 UTC ---
An extension that is still supported by GCC, right?
Here is another testcase showing the same phenomenon with `break':
int main() {
do {
while (({ break; 1; })) {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33100
--- Comment #37 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-18 17:38:13
UTC ---
*** Bug 36356 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36356
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-07-18
17:36:38 UTC ---
Hmm, statement expressions are an extension to the C language.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
Summary: Wrong code generated for while loop with guard
containing continue
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #35 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-18 17:17:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> 2011-07-17 H.J. Lu
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_decompose_address): Don't support
> 32bit address in x32 mode.
This one is also not needed an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49708
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 17:08:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Janus, what's the status?
Well, mostly "busy with other things" mixed with a bit of "waiting for comments
and/or approval" ;)
> The patch is OK w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38730
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38804
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43785
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla.gcc.gnu.com at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49778
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-18 16:55:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
>
> Please also note, that there is no need for new lea_x32 patterns anymore.
My x32 branch has
2011-07-18 Uros Bizjak
PR target/47744
* config/i3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #33 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-18 16:52:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Is isn't too bad:
>
> 5182.95user 396.13system 15:32.41elapsed 598%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> 362556maxresident)k
My check on unloaded SNB (using current ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39111
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49769
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49769
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-18 16:42:00 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 18 16:41:55 2011
New Revision: 176406
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176406
Log:
PR bootstrap/49769
* config.gcc (alpha*-*-linux*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-07-18 16:31:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The machine-dependent reorg pass does something unexpected:
>
> (insn 30 18 14 3 (set (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
> (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
--- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-18 16:36:37
UTC ---
*** Bug 39186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39186
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39215
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #17 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-07-18 16:35:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > The machine-dependent reorg pass does something unexpected:
> >
> > (insn 30 18 14 3 (set (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39810
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40183
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40227
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40483
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41810
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49778
Summary: Can't take pointer to std::make_pair in c++0x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42278
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42753
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43324
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44093
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44171
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44642
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48430
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48430
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-18 16:07:34 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jul 18 16:07:24 2011
New Revision: 176405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176405
Log:
2011-07-18 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48430
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #3 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46023
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46944
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48223
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49756
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-18
15:22:11 UTC ---
For this testcase, even 30MB isn't enough, but 40MiB is, so I think I'll round
up to 64MB.
I think it's probably best to raise the limit in both places to avoid confusion
when invokin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-18 14:54:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
>
> But I was running SPEC CPU at the same time. I will re-time it.
Is isn't too bad:
5182.95user 396.13system 15:32.41elapsed 598%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
36255
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49381
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49545
--- Comment #10 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-07-18
14:35:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Can you check what patch caused it on the 4.6 branch?
It is this one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-07/msg00431.html
2011-07-11 Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49777
Summary: for c++ code, without -g option, cannot generate PIC
*.so library.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49381
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-18 14:30:23 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 18 14:30:14 2011
New Revision: 176401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176401
Log:
PR boehm-gc/49381
Backport from mainline:
20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49756
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49550
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49756
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
14:12:49 UTC ---
That commit looks bogus, the change it made is:
# ivtmp.37_45 = PHI
vect_pa.7_44 = (vector(4) int *) ivtmp.37_45;
- D.2731_1 = vect_pa.7_44 < &a;
- D.2733_14 = vect_pa.7_44 >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49773
--- Comment #1 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-07-18 14:11:11 UTC ---
I just upgraded to
c++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=c++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-18 14:04:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> (In reply to comment #29)
>
> > This patch increases bootstrap time from
>
> On which target?
I used
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #30 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-18 14:00:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> This patch increases bootstrap time from
On which target?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-18 13:55:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Here is my latest proposed patch:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: i386.c
> ===
> --- i386.c(revisi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49768
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-18
12:47:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 24787
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24787
gcc47-pr49768.patch
The easier fix attached. The more complicated would probably mean if we see
pos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth 2011-07-18 12:10:39
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Jul 18 12:10:34 2011
New Revision: 176394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176394
Log:
PR target/49541
* testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp (li
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
