http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
08:03:41 UTC ---
STATUS:
With the commit for PR 41539, there is no longer an ICE.
However, while the example of comment 2 (attachment 18978) compiles, it fails
to link with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47399
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
08:07:23 UTC ---
Since the commit for PR 41539, the example(s) of comment 0 (#1, #2, #3) compile
and print 13 at run time.
TODO: Check whether we now allow invalid code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43214
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43969
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44568
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Bug #: 51510
Summary: [4.6/4.7 regression] gcc for arm-linux-gnueabi ICEs on
gcc.c-torture/execute/20050713-1.c due to
PR50074+PR51323 fix
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46356
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51502
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Bug #: 51511
Summary: [4.6/4.7 regression] gcc.dg/pr45819.c fails on
arm-linux-gnueabi due to PR50078+PR51466 fix
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
08:37:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Dec 12 08:37:22 2011
New Revision: 182221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182221
Log:
2011-12-12 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51512
Bug #: 51512
Summary: RFC: Bogus Return value of function/INTENT(OUT) was
not set with allocatable results/dummies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50923
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
09:02:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26051
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26051
gcc47-pr51510.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
09:13:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 26052
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26052
gcc47-pr51511.patch
Yeah, I agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51293
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51506
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51505
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
10:16:31 UTC ---
*** Bug 51493 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51493
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51465
Kiskunsag gykarsai at all dot hu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12 10:40:32
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Dec 12 10:40:27 2011
New Revision: 182225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182225
Log:
PR libgcj/50053
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #2 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-12-12 10:41:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
What's the issue you are fixing?
i experienced the dejagnu error that gcj is not found in path. this is because
of gnu make doesn't export its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50053
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26053|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Bug #: 51513
Summary: [missed optimization] Only partially optimizes away
unreachable switch default case
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
--- Comment #1 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com 2011-12-12 10:54:16 UTC ---
Forgot this:
pannekake:~ gcc-4.6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-12-12 11:03:59 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #6)
While investigating pr51597, I have found that vectorized loops in programs as
simple as
subroutine spmmult(x,b,ad)
implicit none
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-12-12 11:13:24 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
In some cases it might be necessary but not here:
sum1+=a;
sum2+=a;
gives exactly the same result as
(sum1, sum2) += (a, a);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
11:22:33 UTC ---
SUN_JAVAC and MAUVEDIR are weird though, we are testing GCJ after all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
11:24:22 UTC ---
Hmm. But we are vectorizing
sum += a[i]
sum += a[i+1]
the same as
sum += a[i+1]
sum += a[i]
no? Thus you have to check whether the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-12-12 11:27:26 UTC
---
Right. We need to check that there is no load permutation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
12:31:55 UTC ---
The failing assert is:
Breakpoint 2, gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr (expr=0x16b8f10,
se=0x7fffd580)
at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
12:39:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
We shouldn't be emitting anything for that nested function declaration in the
concrete instance of the inlined function, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
12:40:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 26056
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26056
manually reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-12-12 12:47:54 UTC ---
even when the above loops are unrolled. How can the loop L5 be unrolled if
it
is only there for a scalar epilogue?
It can't be unrolled,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-12-12
13:09:49 UTC ---
I can't see any vectorizer differences for the testcase in comment #2 and the
patch you cite only (should) have debuginfo changes, no changes to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-12-12
13:10:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
So my question is: what is the mechanism that should prevent epilogue insns
from being moved to before the epilogue?
A full
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
13:14:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
However, while the example of comment 2 (attachment 18978 [details]) compiles,
it fails to link with: undefined reference to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12 13:29:14
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Dec 12 13:29:10 2011
New Revision: 182238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182238
Log:
Correct bug-number in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #3 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2011-12-12 14:09:12 UTC ---
Untested fix.
Wouldn't that fix make this operation O(E^2)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #13 from fb.programming at gmail dot com 2011-12-12 14:20:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
So, you are suggesting to remove the need in flag_associative_math for fp for
cases when a reduction computation is already unrolled by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #7 from Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com 2011-12-12
14:30:27 UTC ---
If this can't be reassigned, can we just close it as not ours?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #2 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-12-12 14:46:26 UTC ---
please fix java::lang::Class::initializeClass for mingw32 ia-32 by adding
__thiscall before being involved this bug. surely PR50053 is fixed but i leaved
a kludge toward
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #3 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-12-12 14:48:52 UTC ---
it seems that libffi handles calling convention of method which is cdecl or
stdcall.
but not for thiscall for mingw32 ia-32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51514
Bug #: 51514
Summary: [OOP] Wrong code when passing a CLASS to a TYPE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51515
Bug #: 51515
Summary: Unable to forward declare nested functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51497
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-12-12
15:17:19 UTC ---
I can't reproduce anything with the testcase from comment #2.
Sorry for the confusion. The code in comment #2 was here only to show the
actual code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50873
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-12 15:18:29 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Dec 12 15:18:24 2011
New Revision: 182244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182244
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24407|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #9 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2011-12-12 16:17:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The problem still exists, but classpath is maintained upstream, not by GCC.
Checking out the GNU classpath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46887
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
16:29:03 UTC ---
Has GCC/GCJ imported a recent version of classpath? The bug may be that the
classpath package is not up to date in libjava. In fact, the file may not be
used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51495
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
16:36:38 UTC ---
I don't think so. We only do something about single_succ_p basic blocks and
therefore we should never call e.g. that can_duplicate_block_p predicate more
than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51347
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
16:44:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 16:44:23 2011
New Revision: 182246
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182246
Log:
PR middle-end/51510
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
16:48:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 16:48:46 2011
New Revision: 182247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182247
Log:
PR testsuite/51511
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-12 17:34:24 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Dec 12 17:34:19 2011
New Revision: 182250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182250
Log:
2011-12-12 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
18:10:10 UTC ---
Odd. I thought this was supposed to happen automatically with
lang_env_dependencies = { module=libitm; cxx=true; };
in Makefile.def.
-optimization/50569
* tree-sra.c (build_ref_for_model): Replicate a chain of COMPONENT_REFs
in the expression of MODEL instead of just the last one.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20111212-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc
-optimization/50569
* tree-sra.c (build_ref_for_model): Replicate a chain of COMPONENT_REFs
in the expression of MODEL instead of just the last one.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20111212-1.c
- copied unchanged from r182252,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
18:55:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 18:55:06 2011
New Revision: 182257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182257
Log:
PR c++/51496
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-androideabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
Bug #: 51516
Summary: [trans-mem] problem with TM clone aliases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51496
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51485
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
19:43:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:43:06 2011
New Revision: 182259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182259
Log:
Backported from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
19:43:54 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:43:49 2011
New Revision: 182260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182260
Log:
PR middle-end/51510
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
19:44:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 12 19:44:22 2011
New Revision: 182261
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182261
Log:
PR testsuite/51511
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51485
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51510
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51511
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
19:51:32 UTC ---
The testcase which I referenced in the bug report is one where it shows adding
a CLOBBER is a good idea. Anyways the following two functions should produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
20:13:45 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:13:40 2011
New Revision: 182262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182262
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12
20:51:19 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Dec 12 20:51:16 2011
New Revision: 182263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182263
Log:
2011-12-12
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo