http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression]|[4.7 Regression] ICE with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
Bug #: 51447
Summary: global register variable definition incorrectly
removed as dead code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51441
Alex Makov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
--- Comment #4 from Alex Makov 2011-12-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37130
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-07
06:49:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Did you build with checking enabled?
Yes, I am bootstrap with --enable-gold --with-plugin-ld=/usr/bin/gold
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto - which matc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49772
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-12-07 05:37:04
UTC ---
Created attachment 26014
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26014
autoreduced testcase
$ gcc -O -fipa-pta testcase-min14.ii
testcase-min14.ii: In member function 'VAL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49772
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45416
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target|arm-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-07
04:01:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> There is still the old loop re-rolling pass from the rtlopt-branch. I am not
> sure if there were any good reasons for not including it in GCC.
Maybe re-ro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-07 02:17:48 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:25:00PM +, andy.nelson at lanl dot gov wrote:
>
> Any guess when this ICE might get some attention and into a release version?
>
Unfortunately, the only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
Bug #: 51446
Summary: -fno-trapping-math generates NaN constant with
different sign
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51440
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
01:32:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> In file included from test.cpp:1:0:
> test.h:4:16: warning: '__Named' has a field '__Named::u' whose type uses the
> anonymous namespace [enabled by defaul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51095
--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn 2011-12-07 00:46:18
UTC ---
> we may as well resume the discussion here
"there", not "here", sorry for any confusion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=864
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at grondar dot org
--- Comment #21 from Da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51095
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=864
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51445
Bug #: 51445
Summary: g++ sometimes miscompiles code for the avr target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51444
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51444
Bug #: 51444
Summary: [4.4 Regression]: Spurious "is used uninitialized"
warning for structure with bitfields
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443
Bug #: 51443
Summary: [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm
of trans-mem.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38388
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-gnu-linux|
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #7 from Andy Nelson 2011-12-06
22:25:00 UTC ---
Seems it doesn't work in general. My attempt at getting it to work (perhaps
messed up, but still an attempt) on intel generated an error about length not
being the same or some such, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-12-06
22:07:53 UTC ---
> Hmmm, you debug where it is segfaulting?
Here it what I get with gdb
f_recip d_recip f_div d_div vec_f_recip vec_d_recip vec_f_div vec_f_div2
vec_f_div53 vec_d_div vec_d_di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #9 from iant at google dot com 2011-12-06
21:33:33 UTC ---
> As I understand it, -fno-strict-overflow also affects optimizations for
> pointer overflow in any of the three -fwrapv/-ftrapv/default modes (those
> modes only relate to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Conoboy 2011-12-06
21:12:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26010
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26010
Only use BLKmode for volatile accesses which are not naturally aligned.
Per Julian Brown's origina
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
--- Comment #1 from Brendan Conoboy 2011-12-06
21:02:22 UTC ---
This bug is in reference to the patch that Diego Novillo accepted into 4.7
about 10 months ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01477.html
The issue is still present i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51442
Bug #: 51442
Summary: volatile bitfields broken on arm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #18 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-06
20:53:35 UTC ---
The actual binaries for atomic-load-int128.c at -O1 and higher run fine on
x86_64-apple-darwin64 at -m64. However they take around 16 seconds to execute
on a...
Model Name: Mac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51441
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-12-06 20:17:36 UTC ---
Please identify the target for which the compiler is configured. If
32-bit x86, then note that in accordance with FLT_EVAL_METHOD you have
double rounding (two doubl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51441
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-12-06 20:12:12 UTC ---
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, iant at google dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
>
> --- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com
> 2011-12-06 18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51441
--- Comment #1 from Alex Makov 2011-12-06
20:05:39 UTC ---
The references to binary32 should be read as binary64, of course--just a typo.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-06 20:03:29 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 6 20:03:25 2011
New Revision: 182064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182064
Log:
2011-12-06 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51441
Bug #: 51441
Summary: Incorrect FP rounding on addition of doubles
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51430
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51430
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-06
19:52:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 6 19:52:39 2011
New Revision: 182063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182063
Log:
PR c++/51430
* pt.c (tsubst_decl): Don't ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51440
Bug #: 51440
Summary: C++ compiler produces warning for an unnamed struct
member: TYPE has a field FIELD whose type uses the
anonymous namespace
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #17 from Uros Bizjak 2011-12-06 19:29:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created attachment 26009 [details]
> log of FAIL: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-load-int128.c -O1 -g thread
> simulation test failure on x86_64-apple-darwi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-06
19:26:48 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 6 19:26:44 2011
New Revision: 182062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182062
Log:
2011-12-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-06
19:13:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 26009
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26009
log of FAIL: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-load-int128.c -O1 -g thread
simulation test failure on x
||med.uc.edu
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-06
19:08:22 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin11, we are seeing the following failures at -m64 (but not
-m32)...
Running
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1/gcc-4.7-20111206/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/simulate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #13 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-06 18:42:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 26008
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26008
Simplified testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
--- Comment #8 from sebpop at gmail dot com
2011-12-06 18:40:43 UTC ---
Hi Maxim,
Thanks for pointing me to this problem.
I would recommend that you disable the code in loop flattening by
early returning false in flatten_all_loops. I'm pre-app
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com 2011-12-06
18:40:58 UTC ---
> I don't know about -fstrict-overflow, but maybe that should be separate
> (controlling whether, in cases where the default semantics are in effect,
> certain optimizations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner
2011-12-06 18:21:48 UTC ---
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 03:52:47PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51390
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
>Wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-06
18:10:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 6 18:10:01 2011
New Revision: 182059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182059
Log:
2011-12-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51426
--- Comment #4 from Marcin Pytel 2011-12-06 17:49:06 UTC
---
I did some more testing. I was using eclipse and it adds some compilation
flags. The cause is optimization. When you add empty ctor there's the linker
error. But when you compile with -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-06
17:48:25 UTC ---
I meant _GLIBCXX_USE_NOEXCEPT of course.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50622
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-06
17:16:28 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 6 17:16:19 2011
New Revision: 182057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182057
Log:
2011-12-06 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51354
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-06
17:15:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 6 17:15:11 2011
New Revision: 182056
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182056
Log:
PR target/51354
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.7 |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
Bug #: 51439
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE(SIGFPE) in
good_cloning_opportunity_p
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-06 17:12:35 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 6 17:12:17 2011
New Revision: 182055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182055
Log:
/cp
2011-12-06 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-06
17:10:46 UTC ---
Or we could put noexcept on ~nested_exception()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51438
Bug #: 51438
Summary: std::exception and derived classes are not compatible
with std::nested_exception and C++11 in general
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51315
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-12-06
16:41:38 UTC ---
> Note that in the end it's always us transforming
>
> a->b.c
>
> to (effectively)
>
> T *tem = &a->b.c;
> *tem
>
> which expand unfortunately handles differently. So whenever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-12-06 16:35:02 UTC ---
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > The combination -fwrapv -ftrapv is not particularly meaningful; it ought
> > to act exactly the same as -ftr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-06 15:59:17 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:40:07AM +, andy.nelson at lanl dot gov wrote:
>
> Can you recommend a better way to solve this problem, besides redefining the C
> standard to accept 'scal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2011-12-06 15:47:41 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:40:07AM +, andy.nelson at lanl dot gov wrote:
>
> character(c_char) :: raidnum(lenname) = &
> & (/ 'r','a','i','d','n','u','m',. /)
>
> Is this wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-06 15:13:10 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 6 15:13:04 2011
New Revision: 182054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182054
Log:
2011-12-06 Jonathan Wakely
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51345
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-06
15:04:17 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Dec 6 15:04:09 2011
New Revision: 182052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182052
Log:
libgcc/
Forward-port from gcc-4_6-branch r1819
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-06
15:04:17 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Dec 6 15:04:09 2011
New Revision: 182052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182052
Log:
libgcc/
Forward-port from gcc-4_6-branch r1819
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-06
14:53:05 UTC ---
Nope, doesn't. I'm going to test and commit a version with the constructor
private. Thanks to both of you! By the way, it would be nice at some point to
actually analyze the assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51409
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #18 from Chris Jefferson 2011-12-06
14:41:19 UTC ---
2011-12-06 Chris Jefferson
PR libstdc++/51183
* include/std/tuple (pair::pair): Add two constructors which
use delegating constructors
(pair::__cons, pair::__do_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-06
14:40:50 UTC ---
Does the new constructor need to be public?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-06
14:39:30 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Dec 6 14:39:25 2011
New Revision: 182051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182051
Log:
PR target/51409
PR target/49868
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51409
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-12-06
14:39:30 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Dec 6 14:39:25 2011
New Revision: 182051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182051
Log:
PR target/51409
PR target/49868
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51132
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-06
14:33:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 6 14:32:54 2011
New Revision: 182050
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182050
Log:
PR libgomp/51132
* testsuite/libgomp.graphi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51183
--- Comment #16 from Chris Jefferson 2011-12-06
14:25:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26006
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26006
Piecewise patch
Patch to make piecewise_construct work properly on std::pair.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51416
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51402
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51361
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51370
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51430
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51406
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51431
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51403
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51369
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51398
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51325
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51384
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51262
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51354
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51327
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51328
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
