On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:48:53PM -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
Hi,
I recently contributed some fixes against GCC trunk, gcc-4_9-branch, and
gcc-4_8-branch for which I need the requisite legal paperwork.
However, I'd like to backport these particular fixes to the MacPorts
Project's
On 24 November 2014 at 10:58, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:48:53PM -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
Hi,
I recently contributed some fixes against GCC trunk, gcc-4_9-branch, and
gcc-4_8-branch for which I need the requisite legal paperwork.
However, I'd
All:
The optimization of reducing save and restore of the callee and caller saved
register has been the attention Of
increasing the performance of the benchmark. The callee saved registers is
saved at the entry and restore at the
exit of the procedure if the register is reused inside the
Ajit,
Please check it out the -fshrink-wrap option.
~Umesh
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
ajit.kumar.agar...@xilinx.com wrote:
All:
The optimization of reducing save and restore of the callee and caller saved
register has been the attention Of
increasing the
On Saturday 2014-08-23 12:38, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Packaging last week's GCC 5 snapshot, I ran into a couple of issues
due to the version number change.
One is this: We are still creating libdata/pkgconfig/libgcj-5.0.pc
as we used to create libgcj-4.10.pc.
Shouldn't that be libgcj-5.pc
On 11/24/14 09:00, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Saturday 2014-08-23 12:38, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Packaging last week's GCC 5 snapshot, I ran into a couple of issues
due to the version number change.
One is this: We are still creating libdata/pkgconfig/libgcj-5.0.pc
as we used to create
*ping*
Didn’t get any response to my question so far…
Thanks everyone for the comments and review.
Committed as r217366
I cannot push the change to binutils-gdb as I don’t have write access there.
Also, Joseph Myers said I needed to commit to newlib/libgloss, but their
webpage only
Done:
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-11/msg00318.html
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:04 AM, FX fxcoud...@gmail.com wrote:
*ping*
Didn’t get any response to my question so far…
Thanks everyone for the comments and review.
Committed as r217366
I cannot push the change to binutils-gdb
Done:
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-11/msg00318.html
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64041
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63905
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Nov 24 08:36:32 2014
New Revision: 218001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218001root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63905
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #15 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28367
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, something along that line would be needed. The issue is that
the partial value is not available (as in: it doesn't have a SSA name)
and thus there is nothing to CSE the load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64013
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #44 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 24 09:24:26 2014
New Revision: 218004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218004root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #45 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 24 09:24:50 2014
New Revision: 218005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218005root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
Bug ID: 64042
Summary: FAIL: boehm-gc.c/gctest.c -O2 execution test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
configure line:
...
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
/home/vries/gcc_versions/data/test-devel-oacc-11/with/src/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Googling the sigsegv site GC_typed_mark_proc finds these threads, which may be
related:
- http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc/2010-March/003796.html
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64012
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Isn't that just because in C++ empty structs are forced by the FE into
having length of one byte?
Yes, of course.
I mean, if you:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Bug ID: 64043
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) with LTO: in
tree_check/tree.h:2758
get_binfo_at_offset/tree.c:11914
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64042
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I run into this failure once.
I meant: I run into this failure once in a while.
It's sort of reproducible. In running the testcase a thousand times, it
triggered 3 times:
...
Segfault at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63968
Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63968
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 24 10:25:06 2014
New Revision: 218006
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218006root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/63968
* bb-reorder.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Bug ID: 64044
Summary: Java emits bogus .class$ decls
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Simple patch to reproduce the issue:
Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-fold.c (revision 218005)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Andrew Haley aph at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Suggested fix:
Index: gcc/java/class.c
===
--- gcc/java/class.c(revision 218005)
+++ gcc/java/class.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61021
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thus we should have this already in GCC trunk. Does it still fail to build
there?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Andrew Haley aph at redhat dot com changed:
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63856
Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64041
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64039
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 24 11:07:23 2014
New Revision: 218011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218011root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-24 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64038
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64033
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #17 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-
/* Do a block move either if the size is so small as to make
each individual move a sub-unit move on average, or if it
-is so large as to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64031
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64028
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64015
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
By the way, this ICE manifests when building perlbmk in SPEC2006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64025
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64024
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Andrew Haley aph at redhat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64017
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That sounds like sth sensible. Note that I'd put that test into gcc/configure
as there you can perform link tests even to an in-tree compiled ISL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64026
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #21 from Rohit rohitarulraj at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #20)
The commits from comments #16 and #17 broke the compiler (and bootstrap) on
powerpc-apple-darwin9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64028
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #17 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
Bug ID: 64045
Summary: fortran.dg/pr45636.f90 fails for AArch64 - memcpy and
memset are not combined
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64045
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Look at gcc/tree-ssa-fwprop.c:1650
/* If the new memcpy wouldn't be emitted by storing the literal
by pieces, this optimization might enlarge .rodata too much,
as commonly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
--- Comment #2 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For reference, both at -O3, based on r217939:
./cc1 of
#include math.h
int
test_of_builtin_trig (double theta)
{
return 2 * sin (theta) * cos (theta);
}
generates:
test_of_builtin_trig:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #19 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #16)
Certainly removing the alignment is not going to fly - we'd generate
very bad code for strict-align targets for initializing packed
patch fixes it (changing the first ldr instruction to an ldar
in this case). Full AArch64 assembly listings below.
I've also written a blog post on this subject in the hope of clarifying the
issue for anyone determined enough to make sense of it:
http://preshing.com/20141124/fixing-gccs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #21 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
With today's HEAD, the ICE in libgo is gone (s390x). Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #6)
Em, is offset valid for [reg+offset] addressing mode? if it is, why don't we
transform reg+reg+offset into regX - reg + reg; [regX + offset];?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #19 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin.li at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #8 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
while above associate virtual_stack_var_rtx with constant offset actually cause
another hidding issue.
I assume after the association, we are generating cleaner insn sequences.
given
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60436
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #9 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To summary, given the following testcases:
case A.C
===
void bar(int i)
{
char A[10];
g(A);
f(A[i]);
}
case B.c
===
void bar(int i)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64046
Bug ID: 64046
Summary: Malformed .eh_frame generated with LTO, gold and LTO
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63965
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63942
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 24 12:49:08 2014
New Revision: 218016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218016root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/63942
* mangle.c (mangle_decl): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Bug ID: 64047
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault when compiling
gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61925
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61927
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62178
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62238
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62265
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #22 from fxcoudert at gmail dot com fxcoudert at gmail dot com ---
Sorry. The REGISTER_NAMES macro that was updated in rs6000.h file gets
redefined in darwin.h file. I can provide the required patch, but I don't
have a darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64048
Bug ID: 64048
Summary: UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/peel-1.c scan-rtl-dump
loop2_unroll
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
The test was not failing on Linux x86-64 nor x86-32. I sent pre-processed
testcase from AIX that Jason was able to reproduce on Linux.
1 - 100 of 403 matches
Mail list logo
