http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
Bug #: 51940
Summary: Ada.Finalization of passed function return value
skipped if exception raised in routine
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51939
Bug #: 51939
Summary: ICE: in compute_affine_dependence, at
tree-data-ref.c:4103
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29333
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-22
00:47:00 UTC ---
This is the patch which I am testing:
Index: gcc/passes.c
===
--- gcc/passes.c(revision 183381)
+++ gcc/passes.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-01-22
00:46:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It's triggered by Joseph Myers' "Table-based default_options_optimization"
> change in r165823:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-10/msg01009.html
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-21
23:58:19 UTC ---
> You mean errors out? format attribute must have 3 arguments.
> Try leaf, or nothrow etc. attributes instead, format is a bad idea for a
> method
> that isn't printf/scanf li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-21
23:47:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Closing as fixed as 4.7 is stage 4 now.
>
> Before closing this, all pending patches from 4.7 should be moved to the 4.8
> m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-01-21
23:43:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Closing as fixed as 4.7 is stage 4 now.
Before closing this, all pending patches from 4.7 should be moved to the 4.8
meta-bug. Otherwise, they will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-21
23:30:25 UTC ---
You mean errors out? format attribute must have 3 arguments.
Try leaf, or nothrow etc. attributes instead, format is a bad idea for a method
that isn't printf/scanf like.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
--- Comment #6 from psmith at gnu dot org 2012-01-21 23:24:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 26407
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26407
Fix typo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-21
23:15:31 UTC ---
> The test just should use some attribute that is common to all targets, like
> __attribute__((noinline)) or similar, unless it didn't fail with that
> attribute
> before the f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-21
22:50:40 UTC ---
Well, actually Stage 3 ended while I was in vacations. Sorry about the
misleading note.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
Bug #: 51938
Summary: missed optimization: 2 comparisons
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51937
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51937
Bug #: 51937
Summary: [meta-bug] GCC 4.8 pending patches
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-21
22:11:12 UTC ---
This issue is starting to look like a darwin11-specific linker bug. If I build
the 30_threads/recursive_mutex/try_lock/1.cc test case under Xcode 4.2 on
darwin10 and
then run it under d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25530
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-30 07:12:30 |2012-01-21 0:00
--- Comment #9 from Andre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40987
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686|
Host|i686
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #54 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-21
21:27:57 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Jan 21 21:27:49 2012
New Revision: 183376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183376
Log:
PR libstdc++/50982
* testsuite/30_threads
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-01-21
21:15:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > Also broken on 4.6 and 4.5 branches ...
>
> Mikael can you confirm that the failures are due to the warning "'cdecl'
> attribute directive ignored"?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40454
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-21
20:32:14 UTC ---
Can someone try to get new numbers?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50362
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51936
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-21
20:23:27 UTC ---
The standard says in [expr.reinterpret.cast]
"A function pointer can be explicitly converted to a function pointer of a
different type. The effect of calling a function through a poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45771
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41600
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-21
19:57:07 UTC ---
(Those comments are for the example in comment 1)
The ICE happens for:
integer :: X = -999.0
where one calls gfc_trans_scalar_assign with ts.type == BT_INTEGER and fold
convert fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-21
19:22:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
One additionally needs the following - otherwise, e.g., PR 41600 comment 1
fails at resolve time claiming that the type is not the same.
--- a/gcc/fortran/cla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
--- Comment #5 from psmith at gnu dot org 2012-01-21 18:54:37 UTC ---
It's fine to close this bug as a dup as it's later than the other, but note
I've attached a fix to this bug (there's no fix attached to the other) so
please don't lose the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-21
18:40:23 UTC ---
That unfortunately slightly pessimizes it. E.g. on i686-linux bootstrap
on:
../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c ix86_memory_move_cost
../../gcc/config/i386/i386.c ix86_register_move_cost
../
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-21
18:27:18 UTC ---
The prerequisites page says:
"While any sufficiently new version of required tools usually work, library
requirements are generally stricter. Newer versions may work in some cases, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-01-21
18:23:20 UTC ---
*** Bug 51935 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
Summary|[4.7 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
--- Comment #2 from psmith at gnu dot org 2012-01-21 18:17:23 UTC ---
BTW, this is a duplicate of bug #50461
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
--- Comment #1 from psmith at gnu dot org 2012-01-21 18:15:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26406
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26406
Handle both old and new MPFR dir layouts
Added a new patch that works with both old and new la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
psmith at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||psmith at gnu dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48833
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2, 4.7.0
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51040
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51936
Bug #: 51936
Summary: template function not instantiated
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-21 17:37:40 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for the bug reports.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-21 17:32:15 UTC ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 21 17:32:12 2012
New Revision: 183370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183370
Log:
2012-01-21 Tobias Burnus
Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
Bug #: 51935
Summary: Configure fails on included mpc/mpfr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-21 17:02:36 UTC ---
Confirming it has fixed:
-XFAIL: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: info addr A::func() (PRMS gcc/45682)
+PASS: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: info addr A::func()
-XFAIL: gdb.cp/static-method.exp:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-21
16:15:52 UTC ---
> Also broken on 4.6 and 4.5 branches ...
Mikael can you confirm that the failures are due to the warning "'cdecl'
attribute directive ignored"?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51913
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51913
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-21
16:11:55 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 21 16:11:47 2012
New Revision: 183369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183369
Log:
2012-01-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #4 from Thorsten Glaser 2012-01-21 16:04:41
UTC ---
Mikael, you are amazing! I’m sort of sorry that I’ve led you to so much
effort and fighting against bugs and build system issues.
I’ve only ever built gcj with fastjar, even in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-21
15:57:23 UTC ---
Completely untested fix:
--- gcc/ree.c.jj2011-12-28 10:52:44.0 +0100
+++ gcc/ree.c2012-01-21 16:55:27.290731139 +0100
@@ -776,6 +776,23 @@ add_removable_extension (rtx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Bug #: 51934
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C -O0 (test for excess
errors) on powerpc*-*-*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51924
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-21
15:24:26 UTC ---
Consider following 3 routines:
unsigned long
foo (unsigned short *s, int i)
{
unsigned short x = s[i];
if (x < 0x211)
return (unsigned char) x;
asm volatile ("");
return 6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51913
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-21
15:12:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 21 15:12:31 2012
New Revision: 183368
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183368
Log:
2012-01-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-21
15:04:31 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Jan 21 15:04:25 2012
New Revision: 183367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183367
Log:
PR ada/46192
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-21
15:01:56 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Jan 21 15:01:48 2012
New Revision: 183366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183366
Log:
PR ada/46192
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-21
14:58:39 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Jan 21 14:58:33 2012
New Revision: 183365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183365
Log:
PR ada/46192
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51932
nospam.kotarou.dono at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51932
nospam.kotarou.dono at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
Bug #: 51933
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Wrong-code due to -free
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51924
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51932
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51932
--- Comment #2 from nospam.kotarou.dono at gmail dot com 2012-01-21 14:10:15
UTC ---
So then std::errno shouldn't compile, according to the standard? Because,
googling "std::errno" shows me some people attempting to use std::errno.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51932
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-21
14:06:51 UTC ---
errno is required to be a macro, you can't use std::NULL either
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51932
Bug #: 51932
Summary: Cannot use std::errno with
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51924
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-01-21
12:29:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 26403
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26403
reduced testcase
Reduced testcase.
Configured with :
--target=arm-linux-gnueabi --with-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-21
11:57:42 UTC ---
Great, thanks. I would recommend trying to do that before Stage 3 ends.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #26 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-21 11:41:15 UTC ---
Running the regression test suite gives:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_poly_1.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_poly_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-21 11:34:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 26402
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26402
patch to fix problem in comment 4
(In reply to comment #12)
> Tom, are you handling this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51931
Bug #: 51931
Summary: No support for MIPS16 long branches
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Bug #: 51930
Summary: Explicitly instantiated template gets hidden
visibility
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51929
Bug #: 51929
Summary: ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed with -O2
-fno-guess-branch-probability -fipa-cp-clone --param
ipa-cp-eval-threshold=0 --param
max-inline-insns-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-21 10:34:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> ... so this is a build/config issue - or, alternatively, the segment name can
> be specified as above since it is ignored for non-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51928
Bug #: 51928
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in lookup_fnfields_idx_nolazy
(search.c:1384) with -fgnu-tm on invalid code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29333
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
