https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 3:56 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Certainly possible. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Damn, while I was away, the one thing that came to mind was to ask you for the
preprocessed source so that the issue could be analyzed with a cross compiler.
If indeed this is fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 3:21 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
r220868 was ok and r220883 bad.
My guess is that the problem was introduced in r220875.
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Certainly possible. We ought to be able to see the problem at the assembly
level with a cross compiler, which will help greatly with debugging :-)
I wonder if the ICF framework
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 2:36 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed
