http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40568
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
07:44:13 UTC ---
And expr.c's check_inquiry needs to be updated. I think except for some F95 vs.
newer checks, most items should be handled via flags in add_symbol
(intrinsic.c) as one easily forgets t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45808
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40569
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at pci
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45773
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Haley 2010-09-28 09:54:30
UTC ---
Author: aph
Date: Tue Sep 28 09:54:27 2010
New Revision: 164679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164679
Log:
2010-09-27 Andrew Haley
PR java/45773
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
Summary: error: '-fsplit-stack' currently only supported on
GNU/Linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
=/opt/sw64
--with-quad=/opt/sw64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20100928 (experimental) [trunk revision 164677p2] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-mmacosx-version-min=10.6.4' '-c' '-v' '-mtune=generic'
/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45805
--- Comment #3 from belagod at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-28 10:58:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Created attachment 21897 [details] [details]
> > Fix register specifier in instruction template for vmovl.
>
> I tri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44554
--- Comment #15 from Christian Eggers
2010-09-28 11:01:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created attachment 21901 [details]
> A patch that should fix it
>
> Please verify whether this fixes it.
Hasn't it already been fixed in comment #11?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure! for
powerpc-apple-darwin9 with --enable-checking=release
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45352
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev 2010-09-28
11:47:33 UTC ---
Thanks for the test, it shows one more case of using issue_rate that I have
missed. We need to distinguish between the stalls caused by data dependencies
and by lack of functiona
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45817
Summary: __aeabi_uidiv broken when built with -Os (5/3 == 3)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-28 12:06:39 UTC
---
Hi,
the contant folding in tree-ssa-ccp has several bugs in it concerning to arrays
with non-0 low bounds. This happens in Ada and fortran and since fortran
produces array constructors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-28 12:07:54 UTC
---
Hi,
I would really apprechiate the answer to comment #6. Since the patch should
only
introduce more (valid) inlining this must be latent bug somewhere
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hainque at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-09-28 12:13:01 UTC ---
Fine, thanks. Let me know if you need Solaris/SPARC testing before
commit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-09-28 12:16:53 UTC
---
I think I will just commit it as the patch fixes known problems anyway and let
you know then. If it won't help in this case, it is not difficult to make
patch to dump folding that happe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45817
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2010-09-28
12:34:28 UTC ---
> Eric, Olivier,
>
> could you please have a look at Jan's question in Comment #6? This bug
> currently breaks Ada bootstrap on Solaris 2/SPARC and hampers my Solaris
> testing.
So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45570
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-28
13:38:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > For single-file programs -fwhole-program and -flto should be basically
> > equivalent if the Frontend provides correctly merg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-09-28 13:58:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Sure. As with all performance related bugs this needs analysis and is
> unlikely an "LTO" problem - LTO does not (not-)optimize, optimization
> passes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44554
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45773
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-28
14:07:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Sure. As with all performance related bugs this needs analysis and is
> > unlikely an "LTO" problem - LTO does not (not-)opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-09-28 14:19:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> No, -fdump-tree-all works
great... I forgot to look in /tmp, and -save-temps also works fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0 |*-darwin10.4.0
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Severity|critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
14:57:34 UTC ---
Using -fno-inline-functions, the program recovers the speed of the no-LTO
version.
Notes from #gcc:
(dominiq) For fatigue the key for speed-up is inlining of
generalized_hookes_law an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-28
15:19:29 UTC ---
> That shouldn't happen, because flag_split_stack is initialized to -1, and you
> should only see that error if flag_split_stack != -1 in decode_options. Can
> you find out wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45805
--- Comment #4 from Khem Raj 2010-09-28 15:22:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > Created attachment 21897 [details] [details] [details]
> > > Fix register specifier in instruction tem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2010-09-28 15:25:08
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Sep 28 15:25:03 2010
New Revision: 164685
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164685
Log:
PR target/45807
* config/rs6000/aix.h (SETUP_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45818
Summary: Missing message-ids in Bugzilla messages
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45819
Summary: [4.5 Regression] unexpected unaligned access to
volatile int
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-09-28 15:32:01 UTC ---
> Hi,
> I would really apprechiate the answer to comment #6. Since the patch should
> only
> introduce more (valid) inlining this must be latent bug somewhere
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45756
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
15:34:01 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Sep 28 15:33:56 2010
New Revision: 164686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164686
Log:
2010-09-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/45
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45756
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #7 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-28
15:34:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It should be as this is likely a problem with unaligned access
> support. I think you can't generally expect unaligned volatile
> accesses to work (on ia64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45819
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-09-28
16:04:38 UTC ---
As a matter of clean implementation I suggest to do
struct st {
int ptr;
} __attribute__ ((packed,aligned(__alignof__(int;
(why use packed if the int is always aligned?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45820
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr45728.c at -O1 and above
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44452
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2010-09-28 16:24:17 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Sep 28 16:24:11 2010
New Revision: 164687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164687
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR target/44452
* gcc.target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45805
--- Comment #5 from belagod at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-28 16:25:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > > Created attachment 21897 [details] [details] [details
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45819
--- Comment #2 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-28
16:26:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (why use packed if the int is always aligned?)
The original problem was found with this structure in linux ehci_def.h:
struct ehci_caps {
u32hc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2010-09-28 16:32:16
UTC ---
Dominique: yes, but flag_split_stack should be -1 going into that code, so the
effect of that should be to set flag_split_stack to 0. Can you confirm that
the generated file option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45818
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45817
--- Comment #2 from enrico.scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz.de 2010-09-28
16:49:57 UTC ---
sorry; my fault. Caused by broken patch for #43999
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43999
enrico.scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enrico.sch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45817
enrico.scholz at informatik dot tu-chemnitz.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44452
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2010-09-28 16:53:53 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Sep 28 16:53:49 2010
New Revision: 164690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164690
Log:
PR target/44452
* gcc.target/i386/abi-2.c: XFAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44452
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2010-09-28 16:55:43 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Sep 28 16:55:40 2010
New Revision: 164691
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164691
Log:
PR target/44452
* gcc.target/i386/abi-2.c: XFAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44452
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-28
17:01:07 UTC ---
> Dominique: yes, but flag_split_stack should be -1 going into that code, so the
> effect of that should be to set flag_split_stack to 0. Can you confirm that
> the generated f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44452
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor 2010-09-28 17:14:04
UTC ---
I'm sorry, I said options.h, but of course I meant options.c. Can you check
options.c?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45821
Summary: no warning when returning a local variable address
within a statement expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45821
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Gaul 2010-09-28 17:51:21 UTC
---
The web form truncates all my attachedments at 244 bytes. Here is the source
inline:
/*
* GCC warns about returning a local variable address within a function but not
* within a stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45822
Summary: [4.6-regression] Qt 4.7.0 declarative build fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
--- Comment #8 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-28
18:22:19 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Sep 28 18:22:13 2010
New Revision: 164695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164695
Log:
PR target/45815
* opts.c (decode_opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45815
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45805
--- Comment #7 from Khem Raj 2010-09-28 18:30:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 21903 [details]
> vmov[l,n] fix
yes the 'w' constraint will do the trick.
this patch works well for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427
--- Comment #19 from Damian Rouson 2010-09-28
18:38:12 UTC ---
Could someone please comment on the relevance (or lack thereof) of the
component being public in the example I submitted? My real goal is to have all
data components private, but I l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45823
Summary: Bogus warning for intrinsic module procedures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45824
Summary: Update expr.c's check_inquiry for C_SIZEOF,
compiler_version/_options, etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40569
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
19:51:42 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Sep 28 19:51:38 2010
New Revision: 164698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164698
Log:
gcc/
2010-09-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40568
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
19:51:43 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Sep 28 19:51:38 2010
New Revision: 164698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164698
Log:
gcc/
2010-09-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40569
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
19:52:55 UTC ---
Close as FIXED (for 4.6).
Separately tracked follow ups:
For updating check_inquiry, cf. PR 45824.
For the bogus warning, cf. PR 45823
(In reply to comment #9)
> this is nice..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40568
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2010-09-28
19:53:01 UTC ---
Close as FIXED (for 4.6).
Separately tracked follow ups:
For simplify of array valued arguments, cf. PR36437.
For updating check_inquiry, cf. PR 45824.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40569
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40568
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45825
Summary: The operator ? : doesn't work when Class::attr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45825
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||derzuomaia at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45822
--- Comment #3 from Ruben Van Boxem
2010-09-28 20:34:48 UTC ---
This also happens later in the build process, with this command and output:
g++ -c -O2 -frtti -fexceptions -mthreads -Wall -DUNICODE -DQT_LARGEFILE_SUPPORT
-DQT_DLL -DQT_NO_DEBUG -DQ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45186
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-09-28
20:50:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created attachment 21902 [details]
> A patch which should fix it
>
> Please verify whether this patch fixes it.
I did a C-only bootstrap of 4.6 r1624
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45816
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-09-28
20:52:27 UTC ---
> I don't think I have access to that type of machine.
If you send me a public key, I can give you access to my machine.
> Can you help narrow it down as was done in PR45445
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45800
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44526
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45800
--- Comment #2 from dj at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-28
22:01:58 UTC ---
Author: dj
Date: Tue Sep 28 22:01:54 2010
New Revision: 164705
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164705
Log:
PR target/45800
* config/m32c/m32c.c (m32c_sub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
--- Comment #3 from Darren Jenkins 2010-09-28
23:07:08 UTC ---
unsigned short ReadLE16U( volatile unsigned char * ptr )
{
unsigned short value;
unsigned char * bytes = (unsigned char *)&value;
bytes[0] = ptr[0];
bytes[1] = ptr[1]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-09-28
23:21:27 UTC ---
Please show us the output of "gcc -v", we want to see how the compiler was
configured (wrt certain defaults etc). Also, when you invoke the compiler we
want to see the exact optio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45826
Summary: NOT bug but web link error?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45826
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-28
23:34:50 UTC ---
Forgot to mention anyone can edit the wiki too. So the uploaded binaries are
not supported via this form at all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45808
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at pfeifer dot com
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45826
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
--- Comment #5 from Darren Jenkins 2010-09-29
03:33:27 UTC ---
> Please show us the output of "gcc -v", we want to see how the compiler was
> configured (wrt certain defaults etc). Also, when you invoke the compiler we
> want to see the exact op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45813
--- Comment #6 from Darren Jenkins 2010-09-29
03:55:39 UTC ---
Also if I don't use -fno-omit-frame-pointer the code seems to be generated
correctly
94 matches
Mail list logo
