http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37428
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 26 06:58:15 2014
New Revision: 208836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/37428
* doc/extend.texi (C Extensions): Mention variable-len
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 26 06:55:39 2014
New Revision: 208835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/39525
* doc/extend.texi (Designated Inits): Describe what ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59545
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 26 06:46:27 2014
New Revision: 208834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208834&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/59545
* ira-color.c (update_conflict_hard_regno_costs):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58489
--- Comment #2 from Timo Teräs ---
I got this fixed. It seems genautomata does not work properly if it is built
with -fPIC. Since PIE/PIC get added automatically in alpine toolchain it caused
this.
For now I'm adding explicitly -fno-PIC to genaut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60663
Bug ID: 60663
Summary: Errors out on valid inline asm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #7 from Chris Johns ---
Thanks and the timing is fine. I saw this as a long term issue. We have a
working rtems thread model that is SMP safe so we are fine for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
BTW, compiled with C++ FE we seem to have important bottleneck in
linemap_macro_map_lookup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
--- Comment #3 from Luke Allardyce ---
On further inspection it looks like vtable symbols for template classes are not
being tagged
struct __attribute((abi_tag("test"))) foo
{
void f();
virtual ~foo();
};
template
struct __attribute((abi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
The compile time hog issue is fixed now. We still fix the predicates for
switch statement (to get pass NOP_EXPR) since it seems very common pattern.
Richard: I suppose we can't fold away the NOP_EXPR easily e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Mar 26 02:11:57 2014
New Revision: 208831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60315
* cif-code.def (UNREACHABLE) New code.
* ipa-inli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #40 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Mar-14, at 11:14 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
>
> --- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres ens.fr> ---
>> gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
Bug ID: 60662
Summary: simple use of call_once throws a system_error
exception, but not if sleep_for is called beforehand
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60631
--- Comment #2 from Paul Preney ---
It seems to the similar/equivalent. That said, clearly this is not a constexpr
issue (which bug 59296 does not demonstrate).
A concern of mine is that this appears to effectively, especially given the
immportan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60649
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Code wise, one has
rtx y;
((void) (!(((enum machine_mode) (x)->mode) ==
VOIDmode) ? fancy_abort ("../../gcc/explow.c", 87, __FUNCTION__),
0 : 0));
restart:
code = ((enum rtx_code)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
--- Comment #2 from Luke Allardyce ---
I thought the symbols weren't being mangled with the attribute on the
instantiation without the extra tag, but as it turns out they are, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #5 from Chris Johns ---
I do not know what the right thing to do is for something like libstdc++ with
such a wide number of different users. I suspect a patch would be easy if the
path to take was clear.
In the RTEMS case raising a ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I would not be opposed to a patch improving error handling of such functions,
the calls in atexit_thread.cc are certainly allowed to fail and we should
handle it.
What is the right thing to do there though?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60661
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Note that one needs to be careful to handle OpenACC/OpenMP correctly to make
sure that, e.g., "!$acc loop" remains attached to the loop it belongs to.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #8 from devurandom at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Mike Frysinger from comment #7)
> it's beyond my (ia64 beginners) experience to track this down further
>
> i can certainly make available ssh access to interested devs ... it's a fast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60661
Bug ID: 60661
Summary: DO CONCURRENT with MASK: Avoid using a temporary for
the mask
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
--- Comment #4 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is much harder than you think really. since you have to move all the
> arguments of the callee function
That I'm aware of, but it should be less of an issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58959
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60654
--- Comment #2 from Martin Nowak ---
Those are macros to declare strings in read-only flash memory.
http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/group__avr__pgmspace.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #7 from Mike Frysinger ---
it's beyond my (ia64 beginners) experience to track this down further
i can certainly make available ssh access to interested devs ... it's a fast
system on a fast edu connection
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #3 from Chris Johns ---
Yes I agree the error should not happen in this case. I apologise as I should
have looked for a better example to highlight the issue being discussed in the
RTEMS project.
I also agree the handling of any error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:57:56PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
>
> --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 32456
> --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 32456
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32456&action=edit
an "improved" complex division
Another variation on the same theme!
The test prints the results for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50347
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 25 20:40:17 2014
New Revision: 208821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60658
* include/bits/atomic_base.h (__atomic_base<_PTp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60566
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60649
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|[ASAN] Bogus "'y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50507
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 25 20:13:46 2014
New Revision: 208820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60658
* include/bits/atomic_base.h (__atomic_base<_PTp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
--- Comment #4 from Cong Hou ---
Yes, there is a quick fix: we can check if the def with vect_used_by_reduction
is immediately used by a reduction stmt. After all, it seems that
supportable_widening_operation() is the only place that takes advanta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50606
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
Created attachment 32455
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32455&action=edit
cdiv.f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:36:35PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Can you be a little more specific on what you want
> to investigate? AFAIK, the general handling of
> complex division is done be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Cong Hou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||congh at google dot com
--- Comment #2 from Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 25 19:39:52 2014
New Revision: 208819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60658
* include/bits/atomic_base.h (__atomic_base<_PTp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60375
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
>without multiple evaluation of the variable arguments as a macro would.
You can use statement expressions with typeof extension to get around the issue
of multiple evaluation issue of macros already.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is much harder than you think really. since you have to move all the
arguments of the callee function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
Bug ID: 60660
Summary: alloca function for inlines that allocates on caller
stack
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60659
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60654
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60659
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #6 from devurandom at gmx dot net ---
Did anyone figure out what's going on? Did the gdb log bring new insights?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Mar 25 18:22:41 2014
New Revision: 208818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-25 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/60600
* ipa-cp.c (ipa_get_indi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 25 18:00:30 2014
New Revision: 208816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60628
* decl.c (create_array_type_for_decl): Complain about a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60375
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 25 18:00:37 2014
New Revision: 208817
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60375
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_expression): Don't parse t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60659
Bug ID: 60659
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE in get_polymorphic_call_info, at
ipa-devirt.c:1292
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Grosser ---
(In reply to Mircea Namolaru from comment #17)
> Yes, data dependencies computation is expensive in the polyehdral model
> and it could take considerable time - but it is worrying that in too many
> cases fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
Bug ID: 60658
Summary: std::atomic is unexpectedly not lock-free
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
--- Comment #17 from Mircea Namolaru ---
Yes, data dependencies computation is expensive in the polyehdral model
and it could take considerable time - but it is worrying that in too many
cases fails to provide (after a few hours left running, when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35449
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Mar 25 16:50:54 2014
New Revision: 208815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/35449
* doc/extend.texi (Example of asm with clobbered asm r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
seen with every package using this boost header
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
Bug ID: 60657
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: error: insn does not satisfy its
constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28575
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 32448
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32448&action=edit
possible fix
Ok, the attached patch seems to fix at least the
dynamic_dispatch_X.f03 test cases on ARMv7 with f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Command lines I was using to reproduce this with a cross compiler.
./cc1 -g -mthumb -fdata-sections -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=hard -O2
-march=armv7-a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |debug
--- Comment #3 from Ramana R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
The expression being put out is :
(const:SI (not:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])))
#0 0x003105033410 in exit () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x011c56b8 in diagnostic_action_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
Charles Baylis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charles.baylis at linaro dot
org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37428
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Bug ID: 60656
Summary: [4.8/4.9 regression] x86 vectorization produces wrong
code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Bug ID: 60655
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: output_operand: invalid
expression as operand
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60654
Bug ID: 60654
Summary: format warnings don't work with PROGMEM/PSTR
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60652
Bug ID: 60652
Summary: System.OS_Constants CRTSCTS
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #2 from Yvan Roux ---
Created attachment 32449
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32449&action=edit
reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
seen with a build of the paw package in Debian/unstable and Ubuntu/trusty.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
fails with -O1 and -O2, works with -O0. fails with both -marm/-mthumb
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
