https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #9)
Alex, can you confirm that this is fixed?
If you are asking whether the patch makes the reported testcase work
as expected then yes, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Aug 6 13:59:18 2014
New Revision: 213666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213666root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-08-06 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #9 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alex, can you confirm that this is fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #1)
However, I do not really know what the semantics of that flag mean so
at least for now I am not going to propose this (I am also not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 5 09:12:14 2014
New Revision: 211259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211259root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-05 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 5 09:13:56 2014
New Revision: 211260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211260root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-05 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.3 |4.10.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thinking about this more, I've come to the conclusion that on the
release branches simply disabling IPA-CP of transactional memory
clones is the best solution to this bug. Patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alexander, as a temporary workaround, you can use -fno-ipa-cp.
The problem (also present in the trunk) seems to be that the tm_clone
flag of cgrapn_node is not copied over to
10 matches
Mail list logo
