http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54935
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-11-27
08:40:44 UTC ---
What do you think about the way we can relax this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27 08:58:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Why are there no line numbers in the backtrace from gdb? You said you
compiled
with -g. Are you sure that libbacktrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54935
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
09:20:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 27 09:20:02 2012
New Revision: 193839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193839
Log:
2012-11-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
09:23:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 27 09:23:15 2012
New Revision: 193840
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193840
Log:
2012-11-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
09:27:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 28789
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28789
gcc48-pr55467.patch
The following patch tweaks the testcases to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
09:32:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 28779 [details]
Patch to use libbacktrace
I have to apply the following patch on your patch in order
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #12 from Fran Martinez Fadrique fmartinez at gmv dot com
2012-11-27 09:49:20 UTC ---
After readign the standard carefully again (I have the formal version for f2k3,
not the draft for f2k8) I cannot really see how the need for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
09:56:12 UTC ---
Note it isn't just call arg info, also NOTE_INSN_VAR_LOCATION for variable l.
Without any of the patches we have (testcase from previous comment):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
10:38:13 UTC ---
I'd bet the problem is that for the volatile asms (and setjmp call) cselib.c
doesn't call the hook at all. var-tracking.c doesn't call cselib on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
10:41:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 28790
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28790
reduced testcase
Reduced testcase attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28789|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
10:55:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 28792
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28792
patch
This is patch I am going to test. It copies open64' notion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
11:02:39 UTC ---
More reduced testcase, fails when compiled at -O2 with the C++ frontend,
passes compiled with the C frontend ...
typedef signed char int8_t;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-27
11:02:42 UTC ---
Never mind, it's very easy, it's the following change, the fix for PR53821:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=189176
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55472
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55430
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46453
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||35634
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
Bug #: 55486
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-7.c (internal compiler error)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55467
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
11:39:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
even volatile asm can't
clobber registers it doesn't describe to be clobbered, and memory it doesn't
describe to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
11:54:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
This patch broke bootstrap on s390x.
Please open a new PR, assigned to me, and attach preprocessed code.
Make it depend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55487
Bug #: 55487
Summary: ICE in mark_jump_label_1, at jump.c:1134 compiling
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51447.c at -O2 and above
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55110
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
13:34:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 27 13:34:11 2012
New Revision: 193845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193845
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
13:38:40 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 27 13:38:32 2012
New Revision: 193846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193846
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55110
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
13:39:57 UTC ---
Well, the loop isn't unrolled until late cunroll after which there is no
SRA / FRE to fix things up. No, DOM doesn't get it by implementation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #2 from Manjunath S Matti mmatti.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-11-27
13:43:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Reverting the definition of CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS introduced on 2012-10-22
at rev #192687 avoids the ICE too.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #27 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
13:56:37 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 27 13:56:31 2012
New Revision: 193848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193848
Log:
Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55474
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
13:56:38 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 27 13:56:31 2012
New Revision: 193848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193848
Log:
Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55488
Bug #: 55488
Summary: Implement cold calls in tsan run-time
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
Bug #: 55489
Summary: [4.7 regression] insane PRE memory usage with PIE
(translate.i)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-27
14:08:41 UTC ---
Also seen in...
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010525-1.c -O0 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20010525-1.c -O0 (test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.6,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
14:35:39 UTC ---
Hmm, OK. I wonder how google's branch handles this correctly...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-11-27
14:48:24 UTC ---
On x86_64 Fedora 15, these failure back trace as...
$ gdb /home/howarth/work-gcc/gcc/cc1
...
(gdb) r -quiet -v -iprefix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35634
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
14:56:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 28794
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28794
first patch updated
With the first patch updated to apply again
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
Bug #: 55490
Summary: wrong function argument evalution ?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-11-27 15:46:07 UTC ---
Does revision 193846 fix this PR or not?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.8.0 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53992
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #25 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-27 15:54:30 UTC
---
One more question: Do you know why cc1plus and cc1 have around 300 Mb after I
build them ? I just did configure and make on the official sources.(now other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |c
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
Bug #: 55491
Summary: Segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
16:10:29 UTC ---
The following even more reduced testcase is not fixed by the patch pending
for PR35634.
typedef signed char int8_t;
#define SIZE 13
static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55492
Bug #: 55492
Summary: __atomic_load doesn't match ACQUIRE memory model
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
16:13:51 UTC ---
The Obfuscated C Contest is this way: http://www.ioccc.org/
Why should anyone bother trying to work out what that does?
At least fix the warnings
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
16:15:22 UTC ---
Oh sorry I missed it causes an ICE, I thought the segfault was from the program
- apologies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
Bug #: 55493
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO always ICEs on i686-w64-mingw32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
--- Comment #1 from fanael4 at gmail dot com 2012-11-27 16:25:58 UTC ---
Forgot to mention:
4.7.2 - works
4.8.0 r193777 - fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 17:32:01 UTC
---
I'll rewrite the test to add a loop that hopefully triggers it as hot at -O3
(and gets unrolled). shouldn't it inline at -O2 since DCE would eliminate the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 17:37:01 UTC
---
I'll add a loop to the test that hopefully triggers the inlining (and does the
unrolling).
Adding both variants (renamed main and with loop) to the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
17:44:06 UTC ---
Can they be lowered to regular setjmp/longjmp calls?
If yes, then the run-time library interceptor should take care of them.
The purpose of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot
com 2012-11-27 17:52:02 UTC ---
For what purpose would any one avoid longjmp call, other than for performance?
Under asan, performance already drops by 2x, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
18:01:17 UTC ---
Are you sure this isn't a false-positive?
The way I read this code, it is certainly possible for the optimizer
(or the processor) to prefetch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
18:06:58 UTC ---
For what purpose would any one avoid longjmp call, other than for
performance?
Under asan, performance already drops by 2x, so using calls will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48076
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
--- Comment #5 from tom.day at amlin dot co.uk 2012-11-27 18:20:09 UTC ---
Thanks for comments and sorry if original post was at all unclear. The error I
got was from gcc hosted on mingw32 and, as per Mikael's comment, I noticed that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
dennis ddcc at ontooo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
18:37:10 UTC ---
Also, GCC 4.3 is no longer supported, there's no point reporting bugs in old
discontinued releases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
Bug #: 55494
Summary: ICE for char array or int in variadic template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55490
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #26 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-27 18:55:08 UTC
---
One more question: Do you know why cc1plus and cc1 have around 300 Mb after I
build them ? I just did configure and make on the official sources.(now other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55494
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
18:55:34 UTC ---
ICEs even with 4.7 branch. With 4.6:
/home/marek/rh/tests/pr55494.C:6:19: warning: variadic templates only available
with -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #27 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-27 19:00:53 UTC
---
I have put gmp 4.3.2 and still I get the errors when it builds libstdc++-v3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55491
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-27
19:09:34 UTC ---
Actually my tests were with -O2 -m32 -mrtd; I only mentioned the -m32 -mrtd
part because the 64-bit target ignores -mrtd, one has to explicitly select
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55476
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
19:21:09 UTC ---
Too simple patch. It won't work in the following case:
module m
integer, pointer :: p
contains
subroutine test
integer, target :: t
p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55476
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
19:23:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Too simple patch. It won't work in the following case:
… and it shouldn't: That's actually a case where the warning is correct!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55495
Bug #: 55495
Summary: internal compiler error: in write_array_type, at
cp/mangle.c:3124
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2012-11-27 20:27:09
UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Nov 27 20:26:57 2012
New Revision: 193867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193867
Log:
2012-11-27 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55489
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2012-11-27 20:29:24
UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Nov 27 20:29:15 2012
New Revision: 193868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193868
Log:
2012-11-27 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #28 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
20:42:06 UTC ---
Is the executable size due to debugging information? Do the RPMs contain
stripped executables?
I do not know why your build is failing. It looks like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55448
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
20:45:50 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02265.html
It still needs a testcase from this bug but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55415
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
20:46:11 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02265.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
20:46:58 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02265.html
Any testing, especially on strict-alignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27
20:47:21 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02265.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54560
--- Comment #3 from Etienne Le Sueur elesueur at vmware dot com 2012-11-27
21:25:47 UTC ---
Ping. Any chance we can get this triaged? It breaks both ccache and distcc...
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo