--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-04 14:17 ---
Subject: Re: Missed optimization with power
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2006-09-04 14:10 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Looking
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-09 20:37 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C fails
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-09-09
18:45 ---
Subject: Re
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-30 11:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization
causes wrong-code
On Sat, 29 Sep 2006, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-29 22:13
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-09-30 11:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] memcpy optimization
causes wrong-code
On Sat, 29 Sep 2006, mrs at apple dot com wrote:
--- Comment #8 from mrs at apple dot com 2006-09-29 23:15 ---
If it is a VAR_DECL
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-11-06 12:04 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into
loops
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 11:51
---
Have you tried
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-11-06 12:37 ---
Subject: Re: Missed constant propagation into
loops
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-02-20 22:52 ---
Subject: Re: Variable sized storage allocation
should be promoted to stack allocation
--- Comment #4 from falk at debian dot org 2006-02-20 22:35 ---
This would be incredibly difficult to detect reliably
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-03-23 13:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests
c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing enabled
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This shows a bunch of bugs actually:
PTA
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-03 14:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Insane amount
of memory needed at -O1 and above because of salias
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:43 +, bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-03 16:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong final value
of induction variable calculated
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
(In reply to comment #6)
I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-05 10:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to
determine # of iterations for a simple loop
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
Subject: Re: Unable to determine # of iterations
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-05 10:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to
determine # of iterations for a simple loop
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
Umm. Correct :/ I guess the only way to fix
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-05 10:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to
determine # of iterations for a simple loop
would be much better here. The question is of course, if the programmer
is allowed to write
x + (size_t)-1
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-10 08:10 ---
Subject: Re: loop header should also be pulled
out of the inner loop too
On Mon, 9 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #11)
I updated the patch
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 14:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in
find_lattice_value() for complex operands.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
richi: if bD.1520 does not have a default def because it is unused, your fix
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Linux matroxfb_probe
miscompiled
--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:12 ---
running a 4.1 bootstrap.
It's been in our SUSE tree for some while and so
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 15:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in
find_lattice_value() for complex operands.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch wrote:
I'll bootstrap test the obvious patch then.
It's
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-20 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: VRP/DOM does not like TRUTH_AND_EXPR
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, law at redhat dot com wrote:
Richard -- is there any chance you could pick up the ball on this PR? I
really
need to focus on some non-GCC
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-27 16:09 ---
Subject: Re: -fivopts producing out of bounds
array refs
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
Stripping useless type conversions during biv discovery and folding after
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 13:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #10 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:18
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #14 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:40
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13:11
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-06-03 20:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] segfault in
ipa-inline.c, if (e-callee-local.disregard_inline_limits
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
I was using revision 114238. Do you know if there has been a change
--- Comment #107 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-22 16:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Tue, 22 May 2007, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
- we
--- Comment #124 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 09:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Tue, 22 May 2007, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
--- Comment #116 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #126 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 14:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #125 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
--- Comment #128 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 15:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, ian at airs dot com wrote:
--- Comment #127 from ian at airs dot com 2007-05-23 15:23
--- Comment #131 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 16:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, ian at airs dot com wrote:
--- Comment #130 from ian at airs dot com 2007-05-23 16:43
--- Comment #142 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 21:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
--- Comment #140 from mark at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #144 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 21:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
void f(int *p
--- Comment #153 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-24 09:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Thu, 23 May 2007, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #151 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
--- Comment #154 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-24 10:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
--- Comment #155 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-24 10:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Thu, 24 May 2007, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
So I did some benchmarking with my two proposed patches
--- Comment #157 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-24 10:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Thu, 24 May 2007, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #156 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-11-29 09:26:31 UTC ---
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53952
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-12-04 09:00:29 UTC ---
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-12-04 09:02:00 UTC ---
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, mpreda at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #7 from Mihai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-12-10 12:26:21 UTC ---
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55752
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-12-20 13:07:20 UTC ---
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55752
--- Comment #1 from Uros
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55525
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-07 14:55:31 UTC ---
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55525
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-14 14:45:48 UTC ---
On 1/11/13 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-14 18:23:21 UTC ---
ian at airs dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-24 18:37:30 UTC ---
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #6 from Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-24 19:30:54 UTC ---
manu at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-28 13:39:28 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #5 from Marek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-29 09:01:23 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #10 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-29 09:10:25 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, sje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-29 09:52:12 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #9 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-30 10:34:29 UTC ---
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #5 from Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-02-01 08:48:32 UTC ---
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #24 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
congh at google dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58686
--- Comment #2 from Cong Hou congh at google dot com ---
I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19831
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19831
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, dodji at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, congh at google dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
Cong Hou congh at google dot com changed:
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58941
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, thomas.moschcau at web dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58941
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Moschcau thomas.moschcau at web
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59409
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
hjl.tools at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59409
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59409
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
hjl.tools at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59409
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59409
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59409
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59417
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59417
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
dominiq at lps dot ens.fr gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On 12/17/13 9:29 AM, amker.cheng at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
amker.cheng at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-09 08:05:51 UTC ---
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-15 09:29:02 UTC ---
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, chip at pobox dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg chip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #51 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-16 14:06:06 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #50 from stevenb.gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #56 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-21 07:55:14 UTC ---
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-21 09:59:41 UTC ---
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-22 13:01:53 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, dnovillo at google dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 07:13:13 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #29 from stevenb.gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 07:29:04 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 07:36:46 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 08:07:18 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 08:10:15 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #12 from stevenb.gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 09:19:04 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 09:22:54 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 11:00:29 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 11:22:19 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
Btw, another idea would be to make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-06 08:53:36 UTC ---
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-11 10:38:32 UTC ---
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-20 07:43:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-20 11:12:36 UTC ---
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, polacek at redhat dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Marek Polacek polacek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54634
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-20 13:43:33 UTC ---
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54634
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-24 08:52:06 UTC ---
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, polacek at redhat dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #3 from Marek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-09 18:35:53 UTC ---
markus at trippelsdorf dot de gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54876
Markus Trippelsdorf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54935
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-15 15:43:25 UTC ---
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54935
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-18 10:58:56 UTC ---
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-23 14:02:05 UTC ---
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-26 12:05:14 UTC ---
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-26 12:36:30 UTC ---
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, dnovillo at google dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-30 17:10:52 UTC ---
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
Peter Bergner bergner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-30 17:12:46 UTC ---
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
vries at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-02-08 09:07:09 UTC ---
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231
Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez manu
1 - 100 of 3211 matches
Mail list logo