: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32615
--- Comment #2 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2007-07-03
18:40 ---
Thanks for the explanation - that does explain why -O0 causes an error (since
there is no inlining being done as far as I understand), whereas any other
optimization setting results in success due
--- Comment #3 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-04-01
00:27 ---
Updated patch based on additional feedback:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg02025.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33979
--- Comment #4 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-04-15
20:17 ---
Updated patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01235.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33979
--- Comment #3 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-04-20
00:51 ---
Can someone assign this bug to me? I'm waiting for 'write after approval'
commit privs right now, and it seems that I do not have bugzilla privs.
I'm currently looking into this.
--
http
--- Comment #4 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-04-21
11:15 ---
Patch posted to gcc-patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01552.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35981
--- Comment #1 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-06-09
13:25 ---
It sound like AVR will need a different specification for CHAR32_TYPE given
that the default in c-common.c (unsigned int) won't work. Which would go in
the appropriate file in gcc/config/avr, similar
--- Comment #7 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-06-12
00:12 ---
Patch looks good to me. Good catch!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36479
--- Comment #1 from kris dot van dot hees at oracle dot com 2008-09-04
19:12 ---
The vendor extension mangling was based on the following email as feedback on
the original patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01622.html
The original suggested mangling
