http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
--- Comment #2 from liuhc001 at gmail dot com 2012-12-22 07:44:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> GCC 4.1.2 is very old and has not been maintained for years, please try to
> reproduce this with a current version of GCC.
I try it at 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chihin.ko at oracle dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55785
Bug #: 55785
Summary: gcc4.5.2 incorrect line # of caller for destructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55784
Bug #: 55784
Summary: [4.8 regression] declaration of C function 'const
char* strsignal(int)' conflicts with
/usr/include/string.h:112: error: previous declaration
Classifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #8 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
--- Comment #7 from David Sankel 2012-12-22
00:42:35 UTC ---
I just realized my above comment doesn't make much sense regarding the
standard. Please disregard. On the other hand it seems like -pedantic should
reject this program, no?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
--- Comment #6 from David Sankel 2012-12-22
00:33:44 UTC ---
I suppose which gnu extensions are, by default, enabled in the -std=c++11 mode
is up for debate (one which I have no interest in). However, this program still
compiles with "-pedantic"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-12-22
00:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The standard only requires that "a conforming implementation shall issue at
> least one diagnostic message"
(This is from 1.4 [intro.compliance]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #4 from Jo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-22
00:15:04 UTC ---
use -Werror=Wnarrowing then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
--- Comment #2 from David Sankel 2012-12-22
00:13:33 UTC ---
>From what I understand, the standard requires the compiler to reject the
program, not to accept it with a warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-22
00:06:50 UTC ---
"With -std=c++11, -Wno-narrowing suppresses the diagnostic required by the
standard. Note that this does not affect the meaning of well-formed code;
narrowing conversions are st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
Bug #: 55783
Summary: Warnings instead of compiler errors for narrowing
conversions within list-initializations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43764
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30996
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-12-21
22:59:27 UTC ---
To the last test case of comment 0:
> gives an ICE (segfault) at
> vector_comp => field
>
> 0x62d477 gfc_trans_pointer_assignment(gfc_expr*, gfc_expr*)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-21
22:33:42 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:33:36 2012
New Revision: 194688
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194688
Log:
PR ada/53737
* sem_ch12.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53737
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-21
22:31:46 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:31:42 2012
New Revision: 194687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194687
Log:
PR ada/53737
* sem_ch12.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:28:45 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:28:40 2012
New Revision: 194686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194686
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:21:20 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:21:14 2012
New Revision: 194684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194684
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:06:42 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:06:38 2012
New Revision: 194682
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194682
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55782
Bug #: 55782
Summary: GCC needs a -shared-libstdc++ option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55781
Bug #: 55781
Summary: -shared-libgcc does not completely undo -static-libgcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55672
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-21
21:28:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
> The difference is
>
> --- x.s2012-12-18 12:24:17.072888139 -0800
> +++ no-lra.s2012-12-18 12:30:11.419157548 -0800
> @@ -14,7 +14,7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-21
21:20:55 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:20:48 2012
New Revision: 194680
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194680
Log:
2012-12-21 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-12-21
21:05:36 UTC ---
No. SFINAE only applies if there's a substitution error, which doesn't apply
here. The foo(Args...) overload is viable and deduction succeeds unless the
argument types are not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig 2012-12-21
20:50:52 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:50:48 2012
New Revision: 194679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194679
Log:
2012-12-21 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #4 from ph dunski 2012-12-21 19:57:05 UTC
---
It is what i did ;)
But, i'm really not convicted, because, in my head, we should have a SFINAE
behaviour which should fall back into the good overloaded version until there
are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #2 from ph dunski 2012-12-21 19:17:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Am i wrong ?
>
> Yes. The foo(std::string const&, Args...) overload is not in scope within
> foo(int, Args...) so the ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55780
Bug #: 55780
Summary: effective targets arm_arch_v*_multilib are not strict
enough
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey 2012-12-21 18:54:05
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Dec 21 18:54:00 2012
New Revision: 194676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194676
Log:
2012-12-21 Steve Ellcey
PR boots
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55779
Bug #: 55779
Summary: Debug program abort on pthread_exit() while using
-static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-12-21
18:37:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Am i wrong ?
Yes. The foo(std::string const&, Args...) overload is not in scope within
foo(int, Args...) so the call resolves to the foo(Args...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55778
Bug #: 55778
Summary: Variadic template extension possibly wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52152
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
Bug #: 55777
Summary: Inlining nomips16 function into mips16 function can
result in undefined builtins
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas 2012-12-21 16:51:41
UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't look down the PR - I thought that we were just at the stage of
your opening email :-(
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-21
16:26:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 16:15:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48881
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55776
Bug #: 55776
Summary: -Wshadow generates an incorrect warning with enum
classes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 16:15:34
UTC ---
> As another data point, in our internal benchmarks I had tried a few
> values and 99.9% gave the best performance. Just going down to 99.0%
> reduced the inlining too much, even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #12 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-21
15:59:36 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Dec 21 15:59:27 2012
New Revision: 194669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194669
Log:
PR bootstrap/54659
compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
Bug #: 55775
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE when building pari
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ra
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21
15:01:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 29021
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29021
Patch I am testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #11 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:34:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:59 2012
New Revision: 194666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194666
Log:
2012-12-21 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:33:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:33:13 2012
New Revision: 194665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194665
Log:
2012-12-21 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas 2012-12-21 14:29:40
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Dec 21 14:29:34 2012
New Revision: 194663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194663
Log:
2012-12-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55106
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-12-21
14:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'm still hitting this failure when building GMP 5.1.0 for i686-w64-mingw32:
>
> libtool: compile: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 14:22:28
UTC ---
> There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't
> right
> now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
> removes restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54728
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21
14:16:09 UTC ---
When writting symtab_real_symbol_p I made external nodes to not be real symbols
unless they are explicitelly called or refereed.
The reason is that we keep around virtual exten
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:12:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar.
I think that would not help as we'd likely propagate constants through it.
But yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-21
14:10:19 UTC ---
There would be if we had ADD_RESTRICT or something similar. But we don't right
now, so supposedly it would be better to avoid such IPA-CP changes if it
removes restrict for no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:08:24 UTC ---
Btw, one thing to improve would be the excessive number of aliasing runtime
checks the vectorizer currently generates. That would also help himeno.
What is missing here is co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
14:01:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
> Well, replacing parameter by known constant should not pessimize in ge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-21
13:59:29 UTC ---
Yeah, I wonder if that transformation wasn't meant to be guarded by also
FLOAT_TYPE_P (itype), comparing TYPE_PRECISION of a floating type with say
integer type or vector type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
13:57:40 UTC ---
And as usual - convert.c contains premature optimization (this one hardly
worth) and/or duplicates of fold-const.c. Thus removing the whole
NEGATE_EXPR case looks like the cor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
13:55:41 UTC ---
Or rather convert.c:convert_to_real:
/* Propagate the cast into the operation. */
if (itype != type && FLOAT_TYPE_P (type))
switch (TREE_CODE (expr))
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 13:49:15
UTC ---
> Nothing to fix for me - it's the IPA-CP decision that pessimizes things.
Well, replacing parameter by known constant should not pessimize in general...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55686
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 13:48:19
UTC ---
> Honza, any thoughts on this (both the combine vs. strset and local register
> vars vs. string insns)?
Well, Steven's suggestion to track local explicit reg vars in seems reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|mpo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
12:47:54 UTC ---
Ick, I had
Index: gcc/cprop.c
===
--- gcc/cprop.c (revision 194658)
+++ gcc/cprop.c (working copy)
@@ -1554
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55774
Bug #: 55774
Summary: AVX integer store segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|rguenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #35 from albcl111 2012-12-21
11:58:37 UTC ---
Well said….positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked
to check out new stuff you weblog
airlinesplanet
http://www.airlinesplanet.com/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-21
11:57:41 UTC ---
> but of course even better would be to fix the reason for this hack - why
> are those Ada files built with a C++ compiler in the first place?!
Probably because it would be to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55765
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55773
Bug #: 55773
Summary: C++ class object destructors are not called which a
static class object in destructor function in a shared
library after dlclose is called.
Classification: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53866
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
10:32:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 21 10:32:43 2012
New Revision: 194659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194659
Log:
2012-12-21 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061
Jean-Pierre Flori changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpflori at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52996
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
10:30:54 UTC ---
It no longer reproduces for me ... we no longer unswitch. But the issue
is certainly latent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55770
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-12-21
10:12:24 UTC ---
Yeah, it's very broken - don't use it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
