http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #22 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-21
09:56:08 UTC ---
btw, what's the right component for the PR? tree-optimization? middle-end?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-20 09:27:48 UTC ---
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-20
17:27:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
base returned from get_base_address should never be NULL, so it's
safe to assume it isn't. Otherwise the patch looks ok to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-02-20 19:44:46 UTC ---
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-19
09:31:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Created attachment 26695 [details]
Untested proposed fix
This untested patch fixes the issue for me on a cross-compiler. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-17
17:59:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 26695
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26695
Untested proposed fix
This untested patch fixes the issue for me on a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26262|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-18
09:17:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 17 14:52:57 2012
New Revision: 183249
Just for feedback: In r183270 the bug is still present (and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-17
14:53:06 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 17 14:52:57 2012
New Revision: 183249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183249
Log:
2012-01-17 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-12
18:09:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Where is the address space information about a particular memory access stored
in gimple/tree infrastructure?
You mean the
13 matches
Mail list logo
