http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51113
--- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell 2011-12-06
07:25:47 UTC ---
Thanks for confirming. I 'fixed' it by reverting part of the new feature set I
was implementing (hence the new xfail and removed testcases). What's the
precedence here? Should a n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51113
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #3 from Andy Nelson 2011-12-06
06:40:07 UTC ---
ok for priority modification. I don't know what the system is. This bug 'only'
breaks my code build, not any gcc build, so far as I know.
The code is trying to establish a storage area
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-06 06:31:17 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:26:29AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Can you explain what you think the code is doing,
> because I believe that it may not be doing what
> you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
Bug #: 51434
Summary: internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51420
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-12-06
05:36:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26000
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26000
Try that again.
Last patch broke several test cases.
This one works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51433
Bug #: 51433
Summary: constexpr caching leads to incorrect dynamic
initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
--- Comment #6 from Gregory Maxwell 2011-12-06
04:51:47 UTC ---
Still failing in r182038
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51420
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-12-06
04:45:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 25999
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25999
Check that the return of OVL_NEXT is a function_type.
Check that the r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #20 from Alan Modra 2011-12-06 03:47:40
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Dec 6 03:47:37 2011
New Revision: 182040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182040
Log:
PR target/50906
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra 2011-12-06 03:41:49
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Dec 6 03:41:44 2011
New Revision: 182039
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182039
Log:
PR target/50906
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51432
Bug #: 51432
Summary: [4.6 regression] ICE in -flto -std=c++0x -g with
cross-compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51117
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Bug #: 51431
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid use of
abstract class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51430
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51430
Bug #: 51430
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with array as static const member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51429
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51429
Bug #: 51429
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid use of overloaded
member function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51426
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-06
00:32:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The below code can be compiled (with -std=C++0x option).
By the way, the program compiles without -std=c++0x, GCC has supported extern
templates since at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51428
Bug #: 51428
Summary: Some code after SSA expand does nothing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51426
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-12-05
22:29:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 25998
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25998
Candidate fix
I am currently bootstrapping this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #5 from John Regehr 2011-12-05 22:07:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 25997
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25997
smaller again
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51319
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05 22:04:45 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Mon Dec 5 22:04:40 2011
New Revision: 182029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182029
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-12-05 Fab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: |[4.6 Regression] ICE: in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51396
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51410
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.5/4.6 Regression]
|d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe 2011-12-05 21:01:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think that later versions of the vendor's tools make some of the ObjC
> sections merge-able - so that's a possibility
Unfortunately, not the _image_info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51418
--- Comment #2 from John.Harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz 2011-12-05 21:01:09 UTC
---
Thank you. I have had absolutely no luck trying to build GCC (I got as
far as configure appearing to complete OK but make ended with
checking whether ln -s works...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51396
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-05
20:56:18 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 5 20:56:14 2011
New Revision: 182028
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182028
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51396
* tree-ssa-math-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont 2011-12-05
20:55:59 UTC ---
The problem is in the hash policy, while computing _M_prev_resize the max load
factor is not always considered. The result is that when max load factor is
lower than 1 the hashtable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-05
20:56:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I have a patch:
With a couple of fixes above that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
Bug #: 51427
Summary: Less-than-useful error message when union/struct tags
conflict
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-05
20:51:58 UTC ---
I have a patch:
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c(revision 182017)
+++ expr.c(working copy)
@@ -10563,15 +10563,24 @
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51410
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-05
20:51:10 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 5 20:51:07 2011
New Revision: 182027
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182027
Log:
PR debug/51410
* c-decl.c (pop_scope): Don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51339
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-05
20:49:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 5 20:49:38 2011
New Revision: 182026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182026
Log:
PR c/51339
* c-decl.c (c_finish_incomplete_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51399
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51399
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-05 20:44:54 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Dec 5 20:44:50 2011
New Revision: 182025
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182025
Log:
/cp
2011-12-05 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-05
20:40:59 UTC ---
/* If this is an equality or inequality test of a single bit, we can
do this by shifting the bit being tested to the low-order bit and
masking the result with the constant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
Mans Rullgard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mans at mansr dot com
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51338
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig 2011-12-05
20:11:53 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Dec 5 20:11:44 2011
New Revision: 182024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182024
Log:
2011-12-05 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/51338
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
--- Comment #3 from Toon Moene 2011-12-05 20:04:21 UTC
---
At first I thought that gfortran would initialize small local arrays to
whatever -finit-real indicated by making them static, instead of stack based.
However, perusing the assembler outp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #12 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05 19:15:11 UTC ---
This is a very old bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42204
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00783.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #11 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05 19:08:41 UTC ---
Sorry, wrong button was pressed.
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'm not going to be able to look at it anytime soon, but just some general
> thoughts:
I think that I'm ready t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-12-05 18:53:34
UTC ---
Other ports seem to work OK when the requirement for a frame pointer is
conditional on the size of the stack. It's not the most common case, but it
does come up in several ports.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51426
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-05
18:54:11 UTC ---
I don't see what that paragraph has to do with it - the explicit instantiation
definition appears zero times, zero is less than one.
The relevant text is 14.7.2 p11
"An entity that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51426
Bug #: 51426
Summary: explicit instantiation declaration without definition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
denisc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denisc at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51414
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51414
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-05 18:21:21 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Dec 5 18:21:18 2011
New Revision: 182017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182017
Log:
/cp
2011-12-05 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
Toon Moene changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25948|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50775
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51425
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51425
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51425
Bug #: 51425
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Compiler fails to produce SBIS/SBIC
instructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51396
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51128
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51128
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05 17:59:44 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Dec 5 17:59:32 2011
New Revision: 182016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182016
Log:
PR testsuite/51128
* gcc.dg/torture/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #48 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-12-05 17:58:13 UTC ---
> Fixed (fingers crossing).
So far, so good! The runtime for induct compiled with -fprotect-parens -Ofast
went down from 14.11s to 13.14s, and compiled with -Ofast from 14.62s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51381
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51410
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50775
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-12-05
17:02:59 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Dec 5 17:02:54 2011
New Revision: 182015
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182015
Log:
2011-12-05 Vladimir Makarov
PR other/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
lu_zero at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lu_zero at gentoo dot org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39480
lu_zero at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lu_zero at gentoo dot org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-05
16:27:07 UTC ---
I was assuming that since the public piecewise constructor takes them by value
the extra move would be elided ... that might not be true though.
I haven't written any tests for it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #9 from Chris Jefferson 2011-12-05
16:19:40 UTC ---
The only difference in the version I wrote was that I passed the arguments into
the explicit constructor as non-const references, rather than by value with
std::move, which should be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #10 from Chris Jefferson 2011-12-05
16:25:13 UTC ---
Oh, and one other tiny detail, I've about given up trying to understand corner
cases in the name look-up rules in C++, so I'd probably std:: qualify those
'get's, just to be on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51423
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51408
Kazu Hirata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-05
16:12:35 UTC ---
I suspected that. Thus, Jon, if you like, just test and commit! ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51408
--- Comment #1 from Kazu Hirata 2011-12-05 16:11:43
UTC ---
Author: kazu
Date: Mon Dec 5 16:11:35 2011
New Revision: 182014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182014
Log:
gcc/
PR target/51408
* config/arm/arm.md (*min
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-05
16:09:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51424
Bug #: 51424
Summary: [C++11] G++ should diagnose self-delegating
constructors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-05
16:06:57 UTC ---
Nice!
it should be pretty simple:
template
pair(piecewise_construct_t,
tuple<_Args1...> __first, tuple<_Args2...> __second)
: pair(std::move(__fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51275
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz 2011-12-05 16:02:10
UTC ---
As said, this would still require ugly fiddling with exception edges.
Getting rid of some of the clobbers a posteriori seems cleaner.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51275
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-05
15:49:44 UTC ---
Another approach is to not create CLOBBERs in the outermost scope at all
but re-create those during inlining when building the containing BLOCK.
That would probably avoid CLOBBERs f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51404
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51404
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-05 15:46:34 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Dec 5 15:46:30 2011
New Revision: 182011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182011
Log:
/cp
2011-12-05 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-05
15:30:42 UTC ---
Attached verbose assembly from x86_64-apple-darwin11 using gcc trunk at
r181974 with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00241.html generated
using...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-05
15:25:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 25992
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25992
verbose assembly for objc.dg/torture/strings/string1.m -O2 -flto
-flto-partition=none -fnext-runtime
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51245
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51350
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo