--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-10 16:01 ---
Verified on x86_64 using:
gcc-4.3 -O3 -o 43.s -S reduc.c -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1
[two loops vectorized]
gcc-4.4 -O3 -o 43.s -S reduc.c -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1
[one loop vectorized]
--
drow at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 02:49 ---
FYI, confirmed to fail for ColdFire.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45017
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 18:08 ---
It seems to me that a series of line notes for each copy of line 5 are the
right debug output, and if GCC can generate that, someone should hack up GDB
until it recognizes that and treats it sensibly.
--
http
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-04 15:45 ---
FYI, this patch also fixes a number of failures in cpexprs.exp in GDB.
Testcase:
struct s
{
bool operator!= (s const o) const { return false; }
};
bool
func (const struct s arg, const struct s right)
{
return
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-25 18:47 ---
Interesting note: if this case had an abstract origin instead of a
specification, then 15e and 173 would both have DW_AT_abstract_origin, and the
DW_AT_artificial would be inherited. As it is, though, the debug info
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-22 21:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
* What is the purpose of insn 12 here? It looks to me like this is dead code,
since r5 is restored in insn 38 (although, not knowing ARM so well, I may be
wrong).
I couldn't figure
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-22 21:34 ---
Works for me too, using GCC 4.4.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 14:08 ---
If no one else has EEMBC available, ask me and we can verify any fix. We've
been using Steven's and Joern's patches; we tried other approaches, but in the
end we weren't able to come up with any other approach
--- Comment #15 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-15 14:34 ---
I no longer care whether this works; I don't do build-tree testing. It's
probably still broken, but with no one using it, closing as WONTFIX.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43053
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 15:52 ---
The type of the class only contains one destructor. If you have to pick one
for a debugger to call, in-charge makes the most sense. For other debugger
purposes they all make equal sense (or nonsense).
If you want
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-08 22:14 ---
With -fmloat-abi=softfp, it looks to me like this is vectorized correctly on
trunk. It's a little unintuitive because it becomes a left vector shift by
249 == -7.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-07 14:42 ---
Ramana, is this fixed or are you planning on applying it to more branches?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40887
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 13:15 ---
The CFA also needs to be adjusted after __gnu_mcount_nc returns;
__gnu_mcount_nc is a pop instruction from the point-of-view of the caller.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42380
org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41881
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 22:41 ---
Subject: Re: Complete unrolling (inner)
versus vectorization of reduction
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:20:46PM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
You could use -O2 -ftree-vectorize.
No:
static bool
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 12:12 ---
I really would like to see this submitted - at least as a starting point for
discussion. You don't need to do anything different than for a small patch; if
you've missed any steps, a reviewer will tell you.
Another
--- Comment #17 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 21:50 ---
Steven, have you had time for this? Anything we can do to help?
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 21:30 ---
Hi Steven,
Maybe I'm missing something, but what do patches talking about
SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES have to do with this issue? For ARM, the registers
involved are general purpose and ! SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES. There's
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 15:03 ---
It looks, roughly speaking, like the two nearby addresses are initially
commonized. In the process, the use after the loop ends up sharing a REG with
the use in the loop. Then the use in the loop is changed to use
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 14:19 ---
It looks like you're right. Jan K. recently added support to GDB to attach the
unreferenced children of abstract DIEs to each concrete instance, and that
caused my existing test case to fail in a new way.
--
drow
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 14:21 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Hmm, I tought GCC was doing the same thing for years. So we need
abstract function for each inline?
Why? I think we each inlined copy (and the outlined copy) to refer to the one
abstract
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 17:52 ---
Subject: Re: DWARF for inlined subroutines refers to the
outlined copy
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:29:25PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06
--- Comment #9 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 18:59 ---
Subject: Re: DWARF for inlined subroutines refers to the
outlined copy
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 06:13:16PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Weird, the difference I get with the patch on the testcase at -O2
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40573
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-27 22:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=18083)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18083action=view)
Test case
Compile with -O2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40573
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 12:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] -g causes GCC to
generate .eh_frame
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:09:48AM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I think if we don't want to emit .eh_frame, we should just
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 15:49 ---
Nope. It would be somewhere between hard and impossible to do in the linker,
because these have to go in the middle of the .text section, and within
compile-time known offsets from the using functions (to accommodate
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40521
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 15:20 ---
CC'ing some people who know about CFI for opinions on the best resolution. Do
we need a new gas option and/or CFI directive for this?
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 15:22 ---
I've confirmed that older GCC emits both .debug_frame and .eh_frame.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40521
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 17:31 ---
Subject: Re: ARM -fshort-enums attribute not emitted
for Fortran
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 04:12:28PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
Probably fixed on trunk. Please reopen if not.
Thanks! I
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-12 11:36 ---
Sorry, I don't know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35296
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 16:40 ---
GLIBC patches are no longer required and I know folks have built
iwmmxt-targeted ARM Linux toolchains since this was filed.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-04 18:41 ---
If a patch was committed, can this bug be closed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34263
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 18:34 ---
Right. You would need an arm-elf (not arm-eabi) or arm-linux (not
arm-linux-gnueabi) toolchain to test this. Those are slowly becoming
obsolete...
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #14 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-22 13:46 ---
Part fixed, part refiled.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 15:18 ---
I tried 4.4.0 20081130; it does not look fixed.
bb 8:
# mult_acc.14_40 = PHI mult_acc.14_17(6)
[break.c : 12] D.2737_41 = value_13 + -1;
[break.c : 12] D.2738_42 = (unsigned int) D.2674_12;
[break.c : 12] D
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 14:53 ---
Subject: Bug 38014
Author: drow
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:51:38 2008
New Revision: 141859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141859
Log:
PR bootstrap/38014
PR bootstrap/37923
--- Comment #34 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 14:53 ---
Subject: Bug 37923
Author: drow
Date: Fri Nov 14 14:51:38 2008
New Revision: 141859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141859
Log:
PR bootstrap/38014
PR bootstrap/37923
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 15:37 ---
Patches reverted. This is really a bug in gmp/mpfr/intl, but no point
triggering it.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-14 15:38 ---
Patches reverted. This is really a bug in gmp/mpfr/intl, but no point
triggering it.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-27 13:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] CPPFLAGS now unset for
stage 1 build of libcpp files.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:37:27AM -, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot
edu wrote:
already. I think the issue
--- Comment #19 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-27 14:13 ---
It won't be logged.
Paolo, any comment on the CPPFLAGS problem from comment 17? I want the top
level CPPFLAGS passed down, because that's how users can add additional -I
arguments. But it seems typical to do
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-27 02:45 ---
Do you have:
2008-10-24 Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Makefile.tpl (HOST_EXPORTS): Correct CPPFLAGS typo.
* Makefile.in: Regenerated.
What was previously setting CPPFLAGS? I don't see
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 13:31 ---
Subject: Bug 2175
Author: drow
Date: Wed Oct 22 13:30:19 2008
New Revision: 141292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141292
Log:
./
PR gdb/921
PR gdb/1646
PR gdb/2175
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 13:31 ---
Subject: Bug 921
Author: drow
Date: Wed Oct 22 13:30:19 2008
New Revision: 141292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141292
Log:
./
PR gdb/921
PR gdb/1646
PR gdb/2175
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 13:31 ---
Subject: Bug 2176
Author: drow
Date: Wed Oct 22 13:30:19 2008
New Revision: 141292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141292
Log:
./
PR gdb/921
PR gdb/1646
PR gdb/2175
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 13:31 ---
Subject: Bug 1646
Author: drow
Date: Wed Oct 22 13:30:19 2008
New Revision: 141292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141292
Log:
./
PR gdb/921
PR gdb/1646
PR gdb/2175
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 15:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Small structs are not
passed correctly on hppa64-*-*
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:37:09PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Was the I am reasonably sure it will only
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 18:57 ---
Then let's forget about the -fmerge-constants question and mark this fixed.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-12 12:43 ---
Reopening...
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #16 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-12 12:43 ---
Fixed.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37428
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 03:16 ---
That patch isn't supposed to make any difference, because of when the parallel
is removed - it's not supposed to be early enough to affect where things are
passed. It just happens within the function.
Unfortunately
DW_AT_vtable_elem_location
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 12:38 ---
Interesting, I didn't know this was for the benefit of some debugger. I don't
think GDB has needed it in several years. If things work with GDB 6.8 and
without these DIEs, I think it's safe to combine the declaration
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-12 11:55 ---
In the past, we've worked around bugs like this in widely used compilers - they
make life difficult. Obviously it depends how nasty a workaround is found!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #18 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 22:18 ---
Putting the regression marker back. The code doesn't matter; if it's a
regression, then it's regression.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-08 20:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] unaligned access in
gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-7.c
It sounds plausible but I suggest you ask on gcc-patches, I can't
review that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36748
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 13:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=15869)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15869action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36748
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 22:31 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] unaligned access in
gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-7.c
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:25:08PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
is incorrect for ia64 HFA. You can't do
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-04 03:14 ---
Does the new function do anything on this test case? What are the various
incoming modes (nominal, promoted) and the actual RTX?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36701
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-14 13:47 ---
I agree that a new option would be useful. Something like --target-sysroot to
go parallel to --sysroot, with an optional value or a special value same or
some other way to avoid duplicating the path on the command
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: arm-none-linux-gnueabi
http
--- Comment #13 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-21 19:30 ---
Closing, then.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: arm*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 04:38 ---
It's found through multilib os-directory suffixes.
How did you configure GCC?
The standard_exec_prefix_1, et cetera patch is not necessary on HEAD and will
conflict. In fact that's another of Carlos's patches. I
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 16:11 ---
Looks like it should be do_it eq, t. Each additional t or e predicates
one more instruction. The mvfeqd has to be predicated and so does the
RETc(eq).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35071
--- Comment #11 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 16:31 ---
Might want to try at least one SPE target, for completeness. I think
powerpc-*-eabispe is sim testable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34526
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 03:19 ---
Subject: Re: no-altivec ABI should be fixed or no longer
be the default
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 02:23:20AM -, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
There's another mess hiding under the ABI change, which
--- Comment #14 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-22 13:30 ---
Subject: Re: gas version style changed causes
warnings with configure
Thanks, H.J.!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32287
--- Comment #9 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 20:41 ---
Here's why I didn't remember the patch - I just checked it in, I didn't write
it.
2007-08-23 Brian Sidebotham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* configure.ac (leb128): Modify sed statement to work with any
--- Comment #12 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 20:59 ---
I don't care about 4.0/4.1 at this date.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 21:00 ---
I don't care about 4.0/4.1 at this date.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 21:00 ---
I don't care about 4.0/4.1 at this date.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 21:46 ---
Subject: Re: gas version style changed causes
warnings with configure
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:43:09PM -, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
The second line isn't needed. I checked the following
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 19:27 ---
Probably. Why are you using the iwmmxt ABI? Don't. Just trust the AAPCS, it
knows what's good for you.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34205
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 13:50 ---
I don't know how you configured to get this. It looks like you've got
-fshort-enums by default; GCC can not be built with that option (although it
should be fixable).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 22:02 ---
Works for me on Debian/unstable using GCC 4.2, GDB 6.7, so I expect this was a
bug in Ubuntu's compiler version.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-03 17:50 ---
Subject: Bug 33921
Author: drow
Date: Sat Nov 3 17:50:20 2007
New Revision: 129872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129872
Log:
PR debug/33921
* reorg.c (emit_delay_sequence): Do
--- Comment #6 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-03 17:54 ---
Checked in on trunk.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 16:39 ---
All that patch does is change the line number associated with an instruction,
i.e., .debug_line. xyzzy is supposed to appear in .debug_info, so I don't see
how it could make a difference.
That doesn't mean it doesn't
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 17:42 ---
Confirmed. Here the xyzzy and the call are in the same line. That means that
previously the sequence got the right locator by accident, and the jump kept
the right locator. Afterwards the sequence has the right
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33899
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33861
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-22 14:13 ---
Fixing bug 30161 might fix, or at least simplify, this too. But I suspect this
name still shows up in error messages where it is suboptimal.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33537
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-23 17:49 ---
I got the correct result on amd64 with g++-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-15).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33537
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-23 18:40 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] C++ arguments
passed by invisible reference have wrong type
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 06:31:42PM -, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
If this function is called from
--- Comment #15 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-31 17:42 ---
Has Segher's patch been sent to gcc-patches? I've just encountered the ppc64
bootstrap failure too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31490
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-17 17:24 ---
Subject: Bug 31884
Author: drow
Date: Fri Aug 17 17:24:22 2007
New Revision: 127590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=127590
Log:
PR testsuite/31884
* testsuite/ext/pb_ds/example
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-14 14:08 ---
I don't think there's anything useful we can do with it without a testcase,
unfortunately.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-14 16:02 ---
I encountered this as a build failure for powerpc-eabispe in libstdc++-v3.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-13 20:29 ---
Sorry, my mistake. I meant readelf -wi (lowercase I).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32990
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-02 21:59 ---
Nathan Froyd checked in a patch for this.
--
drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-01 16:53 ---
Subject: Bug 32919
Author: drow
Date: Wed Aug 1 16:53:01 2007
New Revision: 127132
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=127132
Log:
PR tree-optimization/32919
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
