https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #25 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Aldy - these easiest thing for now would be to unilaterally relax the
> alignment
> test in Handle_Store_Double and see if that allows you to get further with
> your
> tests.
We're debugging past each
||2018-02-06
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Confirmed. Mine.
||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
type is a POINTER_TYPE and we ice here:
bool
operation_no_trapping_overflow (tree type, enum tree_code code)
{
gcc_checking_assert (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type));
Should the find_trapping_overflow() caller
||2018-02-06
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84223
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
ICE happens because "name" is an SSA with a pointer type:
static void
assign_parameter_index_in_region (tree name, sese_info_p region)
{
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (name) == SSA_NAME
&& INTEGRAL_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #27 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #26)
> I've manually built or tried to build several revisions:
> * 197671: build OK, test fails to run at -fno-vect-cost-model -O3 -g
> * 197669: same (!)
> * 1978
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 6 15:44:51 2018
New Revision: 257416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84225
* tree-eh.c (find_trapping_ove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 6 17:11:01 2018
New Revision: 257420
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257420&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84225
Add test for previous commit for PR84225.
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #29)
> I still haven't found a commit where the test passes with
> -fno-vect-cost-model (before -O3).
>
> I went back to r193053 (Nov 1, 2012), where I was able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82210
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #31)
> Created attachment 43352 [details]
> Reduced testcase
>
> I commented out most calls, since abort() is called from csub4.
Can you also remove the csub8, is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82210
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84224
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Thu Feb 8 11:16:25 2018
New Revision: 257480
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257480&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84224
* gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c (pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84224
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE in |[7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56750
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Fri Feb 22 13:46:01 2019
New Revision: 269115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85598
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (pass_sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I can't reproduce with a cross to powerpc64le-linux.
I'm trying this:
void d(void);
char *a, *b;
void c(void) {
if (b == a)
return;
if (__builtin_strncmp(a, "", b - a))
d();
}
I also tried us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2018-08-24
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Fri Aug 24 08:06:06 2018
New Revision: 263828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 87073/bootstrap
* wide-int-range.cc (wide_int_range_di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> So the fix is presumably to change len3 to
>
> len3 = fold_convert_loc (loc, ssizetype, arg3);
>
> Given the difference between sizetype and ssizetype is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87073
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87086
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
My bad. This is a duplicate but of pr87073, which is now fixed on mainline.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87073 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
BTW, this is reproducible with an x86-64 cross by forcing the generation of
cmpstrnsi with -mcpu=cell and the following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
index 9ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> This bug also happens on x86-64.
Would you happen to have a preprocessed testcase on x86-64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
BTW, the suggest patch in comment 10 causes an x86-64 regression on
gcc.dg/attr-nonstring-3.c because of some incompatibility with ssizetype and
sizetype. I believe it's related to this:
https://gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> On x86-64:
>
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ cat x.c
> int a, b;
>
> void
> c(void) {
> if (b)
> b = a / b;
> }
> [hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -O3 -funroll-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87059
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #18)
> BTW, the suggest patch in comment 10 causes an x86-64 regression on
> gcc.dg/attr-nonstring-3.c because of some incompatibility with ssizetype and
> sizetype.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87415
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87415
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 44753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44753&action=edit
untested patch
1-bit signed fields are weird in that 0 - (-MIN) is still -MIN. In any other
world, it is an i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87415
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Fixed in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87415
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Oct 3 17:36:29 2018
New Revision: 264817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/87415
* tree-vrp.c (set_value_range_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
--- Comment #63 from Aldy Hernandez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43442&action=edit
preprocessed testcase
Nevermind, .ii file generated on gcc116.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I can't reproduce on gcc116.fsffrance.org. The assembler completes in less
than a second for both -gno-inline-points and without.
aldyh@gcc116:~/bld/t/gcc$ ./xg++ -B. -g -O -fPIC -shared -fno-rtti -time
po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2018-02-20
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #14)
> I wonder if this could be addressed with a more reasonable address
> computation reassociation.
> ISTM that we associating as (x + (y + c)) which seems like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-*-*|i?86-*-*, x86-64
--- Comment #20 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to amker from comment #22)
> > So my suggestion would be to see if you can make SLSR generate
> > TARGET_MEM_REFs
> > based on some common infrastructure with IVOPTs.
> Yes, I also believe streng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
For the curious, on x86 with -ftree-forwprop we get an additional jump:
inttostr:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movl%edi, %eax
movslq %edx, %rdx
movl$-858993459, %r9d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #28 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> What usually makes things complicated in the end is when for an IV
> we get overlapping life-ranges for the before and after value because
> that inhibits c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #32 from Aldy Hernandez ---
As mentioned in the previous comment, the proposed patch brings down the count
from 116 to 108 on ARM, but is shy of the desired 96.
The missing bytes can be attributed to forwprop folding this (IL expande
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #37 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Hi Richi.
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #31)
> I'd have not restricted the out-of-loop IV use to IV +- CST but
> instead did the transform
>
> + LOOP:
> + # p_8 = PHI
> + ...
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #39 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #38)
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
> >
> > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #41 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #40)
> Well, your patch only replaces increments it can modify possibly
> leaving uses unaltered. That's IMHO not good.
>
> Which is why I suggested to have it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #42 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #36)
> WRT the division removal. That seems so profitable that a slight increase
> in codesize is warranted. So if we fix the other issue and the source of
> the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #44 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #43)
> I don't like to see plain optimize_size uses in match.pd, so yeah,
> just close the PR.
Excellent.
>
> Disclaimer: if we ever need to do sth like that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #45 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Proposed patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00885.html
Richi has made some suggestions and will take it from here.
Thanks.
||2018-10-18
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
My precious.
||2018-10-18
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
All mine baby.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81376
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Assignee|aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On closer inspection, this isn't my ring at all.
This PR was caused by the following, which was way before I started meddling
here:
commit 91a82d532f1442242b290b1515e87116d6f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87640
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 44861
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44861&action=edit
untested patch by Richard Biener
As part of the discussion here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87670
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87677
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Is this fixed by the proposed patch to pr87640? If so, perhaps this is a
duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87757
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strnlen.c at -Og, the -fprintf-return-value
pass does not change the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Why is the sprintf pass (-fprintf-return-value) even enabled at -O0?
Well, at -Og, but isn't that kinda sort-of the same thing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87813
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> The sprintf pass doesn't do any optimization at -O0 but it still runs to
> diagnose the subset of mistakes that are detectable even without
> optimization.
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87848
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87954
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55401
Bug #: 55401
Summary: uninstrumented path in TM clones are still
instrumented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
||2012-11-19
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-11-20
17:48:47 UTC ---
Proposed fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01689.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-11-20
18:28:30 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Nov 20 18:28:09 2012
New Revision: 193672
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193672
Log:
PR tree-optimization/55350
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-11-27
15:51:43 UTC ---
fixed in 4.7 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55401
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55401
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-12-03
16:11:33 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Dec 3 16:11:21 2012
New Revision: 194099
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194099
Log:
PR middle-end/55401
* trans-me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-12-03
18:43:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 28862
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28862
patch to revert the returns twice patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55401
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54160
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54160
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-12-04
22:28:54 UTC ---
Proposed patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00261.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55594
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55604
Bug #: 55604
Summary: ICE while dumping in
remove_some_program_points_and_update_live_ranges
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
401 - 500 of 1818 matches
Mail list logo
