http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55016
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-23 06:12:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> For the application I have in mind a global flag will such as -ffaster-math
> will not be suitable
> as it would affect also places where full "single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54902
--- Comment #4 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org 2012-10-23 05:35:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 28512
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28512
gdb backtrace
Root cause:
PRE bases on the result of value numbering (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55016
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-10-23 05:19:37 UTC ---
For the application I have in mind a global flag will such as -ffaster-math
will not be suitable
as it would affect also places where full "single precision" is still requi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54918
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54918
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-23
05:01:31 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Oct 23 05:01:24 2012
New Revision: 192706
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192706
Log:
PR go/54918
libgo: Set libra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55019
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55019
--- Comment #3 from xuepeng guo 2012-10-23 03:49:21
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Tue Oct 23 03:49:17 2012
New Revision: 192703
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192703
Log:
gcc/
PR target/55019
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55031
Bug #: 55031
Summary: Documentation on RTL GCSE pass is outdated
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-23
01:05:29 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue Oct 23 01:05:25 2012
New Revision: 192701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192701
Log:
PR middle-end/55030
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Bug #: 55030
Summary: [4.8 Regression]:
gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution,
-Os (et al)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55029
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55029
Bug #: 55029
Summary: constexpr bug: lvalue required?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #29 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-22
22:47:31 UTC ---
Indeed, if we have to do something about that, we need to know those profiles.
That's my point. Otherwise, blindly, it could be anything, ie, not necessarily
rehashes which are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55008
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55008
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2012-10-22
22:09:29 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 22 22:09:22 2012
New Revision: 192696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192696
Log:
gcc:
2012-10-22 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #28 from Martin Cracauer 2012-10-22
22:04:27 UTC ---
I should clarify that I was pointed to this problem (with insert) by profiling
and for us nothing pops up as faster (or smaller for that matter). Hence the
question.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55028
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-22
21:12:07 UTC ---
Looks like some debug mode symbols need exporting, nothing particularly
complex.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36772
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #27 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-22
21:05:41 UTC ---
I can only recommend profiling (by gprof or other means).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55028
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at redhat dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55028
Bug #: 55028
Summary: _GLIBCXX_DEBUG is broken when using v7 namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Martin Cracauer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cracauer at cons dot org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28882
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28925
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54560
Etienne Le Sueur changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||elesueur at vmware dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37680
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32381
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54888
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-22
19:59:44 UTC ---
With your patch and my incremental patch on top of it bootstrap/regtest
passed on both x86_64-linux and i686-linux btw.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53701
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026
--- Comment #4 from Mans Rullgard 2012-10-22 19:37:58
UTC ---
For the record, clang/llvm gets this right.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53701
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-10-22
19:34:41 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Mon Oct 22 19:34:35 2012
New Revision: 192693
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192693
Log:
Backport from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026
--- Comment #3 from Mans Rullgard 2012-10-22 19:34:25
UTC ---
It has actually got worse over time. With 4.3 I get this:
f:
sub sp, sp, #8
mov r2, r0
stmia sp, {r0, r1}
add r0, r1, r2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55027
Bug #: 55027
Summary: simplify vector multiplication by 1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55016
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-22 18:56:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> void v() {
> for(int i=0; i!=1024; ++i)
> v0[i] = rsqrtf(v1[i]);
> }
Doesn't writing
v0[i] = 1 / sqrtf(v1[i])
work with suitable fast-math
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-22
16:41:09 UTC ---
I think I already filed this bug about 4 years ago or so.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026
Bug #: 55026
Summary: [Multiple targets] Inefficient code with structs
passed by value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55025
Bug #: 55025
Summary: reg_nonzero_bits_for_combine/get_last_value: missing
mode check for hardware registers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-22
16:19:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28510
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28510
gcc48-pr54971-incremental.patch
Incremental patch that makes the pr46571.c testcase pass.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #11 from Pat Haugen 2012-10-22
15:50:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 28482 [details]
> Candidate patch.
>
> Could you both please test this patch?
The patch fixes the issue for me too, on both the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55008
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-10-22
15:41:41 UTC ---
Simple enough. The statement has two interpretations and one looks like a
basis for the other. Surprised this never came up before. Adding a check to
avoid letting a sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55024
Bug #: 55024
Summary: cse_process_notes_1/equiv_constant: missing mode check
for hardware registers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-22
15:14:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Can you say what -fcompare-debug failures you saw (or was it a bootstrap
> problem already)?
Bootstrap actually passes. I's gcc.dg/pr46571.c that f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-22
15:09:05 UTC ---
Can you say what -fcompare-debug failures you saw (or was it a bootstrap
problem already)?
Generally, differences in DECL_UIDs between -g and -g0 should be ok as long as
the de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-22
14:55:35 UTC ---
Unfortunately, the patch causes -fcompare-debug issues. The problem
is that with it we create some declarations only when producing debug
info which can affect UIDs which then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54988
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Macieira 2012-10-22 14:43:11
UTC ---
This might be as I pointed out in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231:
(Node "Function attributes"):
On the 386/x86_64 and PowerPC backends, the inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
Bug #: 55023
Summary: hppa: wrong code generated with tail call optimisation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-22
14:24:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 28507
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28507
compressed archive for the test
The attachment contains the original source air_main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55020
--- Comment #3 from marktbremen45 at gmail dot com 2012-10-22 14:20:39 UTC ---
ok - no bug
thanks for the hint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-22
14:14:19 UTC ---
> I think your bisection is wrong ...
Indeed I meant r192559 (see /opt/gcc/gcc4.8p-192559/bin/gfortran in comment#0).
Thanks for the quick fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-10-22
14:10:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 14:10:06 2012
New Revision: 192691
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192691
Log:
2012-10-22 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Richar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
Bug #: 55022
Summary: [4.8 Regression] air.f90 is miscompliled with -m64 -O2
-fgraphite-identity after revision 190619
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-22
13:48:27 UTC ---
> I get
>
> > ./gfortran -B. -B ../x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/.libs t.f90
> > -ffree-line-length-none
> t.f90:20.28:
>
> call check_i8(i8**43_8,3_8**43_8)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55008
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54921
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55011
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-10-22
13:26:52 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 22 13:26:48 2012
New Revision: 192689
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192689
Log:
2012-10-22 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
Bug #: 55021
Summary: [4.8 Regression] The tests
gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_5.F90 and
masklr_1.F90 are miscompiled with -flto after revision
192529
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55005
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-22
13:08:40 UTC ---
In .jump there's
;; Function main (main, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=1727, cgraph_uid=2) (executed
once)
Deleted 22 trivially dead insns
3 basic blocks, 1 edges.
(note 5 0 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
--- Comment #12 from Wolfgang Bangerth 2012-10-22
13:05:36 UTC ---
Thanks, Jakub!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wunused-function gives |[4.8 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54888
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-10-22
12:56:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
> > And I actually don't understand teh issue: Optimizing for size does not
> > require
> > to produce slow code. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55005
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-22
12:53:47 UTC ---
$ gcc -O2 -funroll-loops -fPIC testcase.c && ./a.out
$ gcc -O2 -fpeel-loops -fPIC testcase.c && ./a.out
seem to be fine with current trunk. The others are failing though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54888
--- Comment #3 from mojo at world3 dot net 2012-10-22 12:40:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> And I actually don't understand teh issue: Optimizing for size does not
> require
> to produce slow code. The code may run fast.
-O3 is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55020
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-22
12:36:04 UTC ---
Documented at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Length.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55020
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55020
Bug #: 55020
Summary: 4.7.2 allow array init wih non-const argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
zerotype at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zerotype at yahoo dot c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-22
12:03:45 UTC ---
It has been fixed a week ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01538.html
but the patch hasn't been reviewed yet. I'll ping it today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
--- Comment #10 from Wolfgang Bangerth 2012-10-22
11:58:58 UTC ---
Given that this bug has been found 3 times already (and I extracted my testcase
from the widely used BOOST library), is there an ETA for a fix?
W.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55019
--- Comment #2 from Terry Guo 2012-10-22 11:23:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 28505
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28505
case to reproduce this bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54889
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54988
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55011
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-10-22
10:03:56 UTC ---
We are iterating between
Visiting PHI node: s_56 = PHI <_53(3), _12(12)>
Argument #0 (3 -> 4 executable)
_53
Value: [63740, +INF] EQUIVALENCES: { _19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55008
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55019
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-eabi
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55019
Bug #: 55019
Summary: Incorrectly use live argument register to save high
register in thumb1 prologue
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55011
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-22
09:26:26 UTC ---
I bet this regressed with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189885
together with one of r188728, r188776 or r188780 (in between r188700 and
r188800
it started t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55008
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|Intern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55001
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55005
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.4
Target Milestone|4.7.3
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
