--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-08-10 18:57 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Merge two ifs if
one subsumes the other.
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 19:16 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-08-11 15:43 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Merge two ifs if
one subsumes the other.
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:01 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-08-11 17:29 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Merge two ifs if
one subsumes the other.
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:52 +, trt at acm dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2005-08-11 15:52
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-08-17 19:31 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 08:03 +, bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-09-08 19:04 ---
Subject: Re: VRP/DOM does not like
TRUTH_AND_EXPR
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 18:20 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-08
18
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-09-18 00:29 ---
Subject: Re: New: DOM has dead code,
VALUE_HANDLEs are not created during DOM
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 00:09 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
While looking into PR 23049, I noticed that DOM checks
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-09-18 00:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE with -O3
-ftree-vectorize on 4.1.x
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:38 +, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-09-18 01:12 ---
Subject: Re: DOM has dead code, VALUE_HANDLEs
are not created during DOM
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 00:48 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-09-20 15:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE with -O3
-ftree-vectorize on 4.1.x
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 15:59 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-13 17:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Dominator opts
slows down bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 00:37 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
int g(int);
int f(int i, int j)
{
i +=1
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-13 21:35 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 20:38 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-13 20:38
---
What should
--- Comment #51 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-17 16:46 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] g++ crash with
-O2 and -O3 on input file
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 16:34 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #50 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-17 21:55 ---
Subject: Re: Old-style asms don't clobber
memory
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 21:43 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 21:43
--- Comment #14 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-17 23:54 ---
Subject: Re: Old-style asms don't clobber
memory
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:25 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 22:25
--- Comment #16 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-18 00:01 ---
Subject: Re: Old-style asms don't clobber
memory
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 23:14 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 23:14
--- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 23:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 20:55 +, hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2005-10-31 23:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 23:25 +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
See comment #5. The fact that we ended up with more jumps
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 01:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] jump threading
causing excessive code duplication
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 03:43 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 18:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Missing 'used
unintialized' warning
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:29 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 18
--- Comment #14 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 22:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 04:36 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-03 01:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] jump threading
causing excessive code duplication
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 18:56 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 03:43 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-04 20:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] jump threading
causing excessive code duplication
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 18:56 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 03:43 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-04 20:11 ---
Band-aid applied for 4.1; Steven's prototype patch may be a better solution as
it only simulates those statements which affect the conditional and doesn't
count those statements (they're likely going to disappear
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:03 ---
The SSA optimizers clean this testcase enough to no longer emit a bogus
uninitialized warning. It is (of course) possible to create more complex tests
which would still generate bogus uninitialized warnings.
--
law
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5035
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:18 ---
No plans exist to address these issues in the 3.x series. It works as expected
in GCC 4.1.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:23 ---
Bogus warning no longer issued with GCC 4.1 based compilers.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:47 ---
Just an interesting tidbit.
This testcase exposes a much more difficult/interesting long term problem.
Namely, how should we handle uninitialized warnings for variables which are
exposed by optimization.
ie, in this case
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-09 00:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=10181)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10181action=view)
Proposed patch and new testcases
I'm not comfortable self-approving this patch; the option processing code is
totally new
--- Comment #16 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-10 18:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:32 +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
Hmm, perhaps restricting the reassociation + simplification
--- Comment #17 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-10 18:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:32 +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
Hmm, perhaps restricting the reassociation + simplification
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-12 20:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with
computed goto and constants
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:45 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-13 00:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with
computed goto and constants
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 23:46 +, spark at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-13 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with
computed goto and constants
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 23:46 +, spark at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-19 19:52 ---
Fixed with today's patch to tree-cfg.c.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-19 20:04 ---
Fix committed to mainline, gcc-4.1 and gcc-4.2 branches
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30984
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-29 23:18 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading/bypassing
optimization with loop and % (or ands)
IMHO, this PR should simply be closed.
This is a case where aggressive threading is going to explode codesize
with marginal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
Bug #: 55936
Summary: Missed VRP optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55996
Bug #: 55996
Summary: [meta-bug] GCC 4.9 pending patches
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-01-18 04:28:01
UTC ---
Thanks. The fact that -fno-rename-registers does not affect the result
indicates this is a separate code generation issue than the one I'm working
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52631
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-01-20 06:16:21
UTC ---
I must have been looking at something else; the 4.6 and trunk loops are
effectively the same, so this is no longer a regression.
We might will want
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Duplicate cause size|Duplicates
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54410
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-01-29 17:37:12
UTC ---
On 01/29/2013 10:26 AM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
May be related to trying to thread through 2 loop headers. ie,we're starting
the jump thread path outside any loops. On the jump thread path we find a loop
header, then the loop header
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
We're ending up with latches from two different loops going to the same
destination due to the jump thread path passing through multiple loops. This
ultimately causes the unroller to go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Fix going through bootstrap and regression testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58759
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58759
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58918
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 58488, which changed state.
Bug 58488 Summary: -Wuninitialized is useless for a variable whose address is
later taken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58455
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58236
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58183
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57156
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
OK, making a conditional no-return call into an unconditional no-return call
would have the same problem. Ugh.
The problem I see where is we're going to have to run some kind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58984
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Always considering trap-if as ending a BB appears to be a bit of a rathole.
Every time I squash one issue, another raises its head.
I did find that combine.c already has some bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Oleg, I just worked through an independent problem that I saw locally that
probably explains your SH issue as well. I expect to have a fix in the trunk
shortly. I'll let you know so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I need a compilable/complete testcase.
If a program is faulting with -fisolate-erroneous-paths, then that program is
faulty in one way or another. It's dereferencing a null pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I need testcases. the kernel or x.org isn't sufficient for a variety of
reasons.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Should be fixed via recent commits. Specifically, we preserve the *0 for code
that wants to catch the null pointer deref.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I ran the testcase you sent. It worked fine for me.
THe problems we're having are within the realm of normal development and they
will be resolved one way or another.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Damn it. Tested the wrong compiler.
The problem with your testcase Markus is you're simply not allowed to pass a
null pointer to sprintf, memcpy and a variety of other functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I'll note further, that an implementation of sprintf, memcpy, etc could check
for a NULL pointer internally and raise a trap on their own rather than
dereferencing the invalid pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Richi,
No doubt about *0 = 1 and the like. While it's clearly undefined, I think
we've got to continue to support catching the SIGSEGV/SIGBUS from a QOI
standpoint. That's why I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Markus,
For the kernel case, note the qsort prototype and the non-null attribute. That
explicitly states that the pointer arguments must not be null. Any code which
then passes null
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Yes, the glibc guys have already found real bugs that they've fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59119
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59119
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Ah nuts.
While pondering this a bit more, I realized we have the same problem in this
code that we do in DOM. Namely that we can have references to SSA_NAMEs that
have been released
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59102
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59119
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59102
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59109
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Most likely it is. However, the actual failure message is different, so until
I verify the fix addresses both instances, let's keep this open.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59127
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59109
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
This has gone latent. Regardless it's relatively easy to fix things up in
combine -- which does similar kinds of things when it's able to collapse a
conditional jump to an unconditional
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59160
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30368
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c has the necessary logic to catch a lot of this kind
of stuff now. From what I can tell, it would catch everything properly in the
attached testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Just adding a quick warning_at at the points where we optimize erroneous uses
of NULL I get:
j.c: In function 'test1':
j.c:10:9: warning: Erroneous NULL pointer use (explicit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 20968, which changed state.
Bug 20968 Summary: spurious may be used uninitialized warning (conditional
PHIs)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arequipeno at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 58698, which changed state.
Bug 58698 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Spurious may be used unitialized
warning when compiling with -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794
Bug 19794 depends on bug 58698, which changed state.
Bug 58698 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Spurious may be used unitialized
warning when compiling with -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
What|Removed
301 - 400 of 3054 matches
Mail list logo
