http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
08:45:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Did any interpretation requests go in on this and did we get an answer back?
No, but I just wrote one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 08:49:50 UTC ---
Author: vries
Revision: 183038
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Jan 10 08:49:45 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 08:50:45 UTC ---
Author: vries
Revision: 183052
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Jan 10 08:50:40 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48946
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-01-10
09:10:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Ah, obviously s/REG_UNUSED/REG_NORETURN/g in the patch, sorry for that.
With the above modification I can now build a cross
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
09:14:57 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 10 09:14:51 2012
New Revision: 183055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183055
Log:
2012-01-10 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-01-10 09:24:48
UTC ---
If I understand correctly, you're changing the interface to pass the object
size (Esize) instead of the precision (RM_Size). That is not correct.
I'm just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
09:32:34 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 10 09:32:29 2012
New Revision: 183057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183057
Log:
2012-01-10 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
09:42:14 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jan 10 09:42:10 2012
New Revision: 183058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183058
Log:
libgcc/
PR target/49868
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
09:43:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
It says above them In most cases, these
builtins are considered a full barrier. and only __sync_lock_test_and_set
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51807
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51808
Bug #: 51808
Summary: Improve handling of ISO_C_BINDING binding names
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51809
Bug #: 51809
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE (use statements order)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51806
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
10:04:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Confirmed. I'll fix it for 4.8, while the patch is trivial we're already in
stage 4 for 4.7.
It's certainly fine for 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51809
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
11:18:32 UTC ---
Bootstrap/test seems to work for Andreas (and for my own internal testing) but
still no results from HJ on gcc-testresults.
Still the testcase is broken,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51652
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
11:22:24 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 10 11:22:16 2012
New Revision: 183061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183061
Log:
2012-01-10 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
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=50176
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
12:11:31 UTC ---
We are expanding from
# BLOCK 5 freq:9100
# PRED: 5 [91.0%] (dfs_back,true,exec) 3 [91.0%] (true,exec)
# outptr_89 = PHI outptr_77(5),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51810
Bug #: 51810
Summary: internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51810
--- Comment #1 from David Tardon dtardon at redhat dot com 2012-01-10
13:15:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 26290
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26290
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Matthew Gretton-Dann mgretton at sourceware dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
13:38:46 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 10 13:38:41 2012
New Revision: 183064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183064
Log:
2012-01-10 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51810
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #44 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
13:44:22 UTC ---
There is a conflict between the FreeBSD headers and G++, and we can fix it with
fixincludes. Let's do that and move on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
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=50981
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
14:20:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 26291
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26291
Another extensive test case
(In reply to comment #12)
Draft patch.
That
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51811
Bug #: 51811
Summary: [C++0x] Incorrect incrementation/decrementation of
atomic pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
14:29:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
TODO:
* Add also tests for polymorphic components as actual argument
And a test case where the dummy argument is BT_CLASS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51812
Bug #: 51812
Summary: Virtual public inheritance leads to undefined
reference in header files.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51812
--- Comment #1 from bredelin at ucla dot edu 2012-01-10 14:32:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26293
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26293
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51433
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
14:37:30 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 10 14:37:26 2012
New Revision: 183065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183065
Log:
PR c++/51433
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51813
Bug #: 51813
Summary: -fvisibility=hidden causes std::codecvt members to be
undefined
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51433
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 14:39:16
UTC ---
I understand that fixing __sync_* is a hassle. This is why I opened a separate
bug for libstdc++.
While __sync_* is deprecated in favor of __atomic_*, use of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51810
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=51810
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
14:43:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 26294
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26294
autoreduced testcase
Reduced testcase for trunk.
Program received
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
14:48:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I understand that fixing __sync_* is a hassle. This is why I opened a
separate
bug for libstdc++.
While __sync_* is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39138
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49677
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edwintorok
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49934
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33123
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48515
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51812
--- Comment #2 from bredelin at ucla dot edu 2012-01-10 15:09:09 UTC ---
Also note that the bug report is based on a snapshot of 4.7 that was taken on
Jan 7, 2012.
$ g++-4.7 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/g++-4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50103
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51330
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
15:15:47 UTC ---
I'm having a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47891
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30826
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15087
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
15:23:35 UTC ---
*** Bug 30826 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51809
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15087
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
15:29:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
It says above them In most cases, these
builtins are considered a full barrier. and only __sync_lock_test_and_set
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19325
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20367
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23168
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23216
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51809
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
15:49:52 UTC ---
Some debugging. To make it easier, I split the test case into two files and I
look at the one which only consists of module merry_ICE.
The ICE occurs for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24419
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25249
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25372
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25622
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25511
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26313
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27140
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27308
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27043
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28233
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28547
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 16:26:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
We can't optimize this because System.out.println can change args[].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51806
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:28:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:27:55 2012
New Revision: 183069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183069
Log:
2012-01-10 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51806
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:30:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
We can't optimize this because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51810
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-01-10 16:32:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 26295
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26295
another reduced testcase
The testcase from Comment 4 doesn't work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:35:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
We can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #3 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:39:33 UTC ---
Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51803
--- Comment #4 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:44:24 UTC ---
Oh, a related, but different bug would be, if getcwd isn't on the system, or
fails, I think . might be better than , as we form getcwd '/' argv[0], and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 16:44:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
We can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:50:56 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:50:41 2012
New Revision: 183070
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183070
Log:
PR middle-end/51516
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37782
--- Comment #14 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:55:44 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:55:40 2012
New Revision: 183071
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183071
Log:
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37451
--- Comment #8 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:55:44 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 10 16:55:40 2012
New Revision: 183071
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183071
Log:
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:57:36 UTC ---
The Java frontend could handle this by performing loads of the length field
via a SAVE_EXPR and sharing this across a function. That way CSE would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10
16:55:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
No. What you can do is, via the method I outlined, tell GCC that
args is to be treated similar to a local automatic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21855
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 17:08:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
The Java frontend could handle this by performing loads of the length field
via a SAVE_EXPR and sharing this across a function. That
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo