http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-17
00:19:18 UTC ---
unless this is recategorised as a diagnostic enhancement request this is
clearly invalid, the compiler is not required to give an error for this code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55360
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-16 23:46:25
UTC ---
Is this related to PR 28831?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-16
23:06:09 UTC ---
Likewise EDG as used by Intel. clang errors out. From the user point of view,
to make debugging easier, the earlier errors are produced the better, but this
is just a general pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-16 23:03:47
UTC ---
Created attachment 28713
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28713
Tweak on the patch of PR48037
This is a slight extension of Richard's patch for PR 48037. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
Target Milestone|4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-16
22:38:47 UTC ---
I don't think this is a gcc bug as access control is always done only at
template-instantiation time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-16
22:32:03 UTC ---
The Comeau C/C++ online tester does not error out on this testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
Bug #: 55361
Summary: Access control in templates only happens when
instantiating a method
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55329
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
22:05:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 22:05:32 2012
New Revision: 193577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193577
Log:
PR tree-optimization/55329
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 21:43:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I guess we should either set attr.referenced in gfc_match_namelist (match.c),
> or check for attr.in_namelist in generate_local_decl (trans-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-16 20:54:40 UTC ---
Answering my own question: we can get static linking with
-Wl,-Bstatic -lasan -Wl,-Bdynamic -ldl -lpthread
>> For TLS, you can just use -ftls-model=initial-exec
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55360
Bug #: 55360
Summary: [TileGX] Passing structure by value on stack
needlessly writes to and reads from memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
20:46:35 UTC ---
For TLS, you can just use -ftls-model=initial-exec or __attribute__((tls_model
("initial-exec"))). libasan from what I can see doesn't use TLS at all, and
you really can't just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
--- Comment #12 from Tom Tromey 2012-11-16 20:46:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Tom, do you have any idea what's going on in comment 6 and comment 8 of this
> bug?
Not offhand.
If you send me the failing executable(s) I can tak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-16 20:28:34 UTC ---
You have been warned (especially about tsan performance. tsan run-time heavily
depends on TLS, and TLS is much slower with -fPIC than with -fPIE).
Do we have a flag tod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-16 20:03:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I don't think we can ever support vector size of non power 2 size.
I don't think we *will* ever support them (too much work, too little benefit),
but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-16 19:36:26 UTC ---
I'm not sure if it's related, but with gcc built with clang's
-fsanitize=address I get:
markus@x4 ~ % /var/tmp/gcc_sani_clang/usr/local/bin/g++ -flto t.cpp 2>&1 |
asan_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55359
Bug #: 55359
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg accessing an
unaligned subvector
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #29 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16 18:57:41
UTC ---
>
> I'm confused - that is essentially what it is doing today (although
> comparing against the first merged file instead of the last merged
> file). It isn't expecting all the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
Bug #: 55358
Summary: Valgrind errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
18:28:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 28712
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28712
assign.c
Assignment extracted into a self-contained testcase, does this also make a
simila
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-16
18:18:16 UTC ---
I don't think we can ever support vector size of non power 2 size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55297
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55357
Bug #: 55357
Summary: -Wshadow warns about lambda function parameters
matching variables in outer scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55356
Bug #: 55356
Summary: ICE with TRANSFER of C_NULL_PTR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-16
18:14:02 UTC ---
Tom, do you have any idea what's going on in comment 6 and comment 8 of this
bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-16
18:03:08 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
--- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
18:00:54 UTC ---
And at -O3 the testcase does not look really good indeed
:
# cstore_51 = PHI <0(5), 2147483647(6)>
# prephitmp_82 = PHI <1073741823(5), 3221225470(6)>
# prephitmp_83 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #3 from Richard Perrin 2012-11-16
17:50:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this on x86_64-linux, neither -m64 nor -m32. Tried 4.6.3,
> current 4_6-branch, 4_7-branch and mainline.
I have tried 4.7.1 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55339
--- Comment #4 from anton.katilin at gmail dot com 2012-11-16 17:44:16 UTC ---
> Why did you do that?
We copied the configuration of gcc 4.1.2 available on the system (Yellow Dog
Linux) out of the box. It had been configured with
--disabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
17:42:26 UTC ---
/* Now merge each file. */
for (gi_ptr = gcov_list; gi_ptr; gi_ptr = gi_ptr->next)
{
// Open existing gcda file for gi_ptr
// Find program summary corr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
17:32:50 UTC ---
Martin, any news here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-16
17:30:55 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this on x86_64-linux, neither -m64 nor -m32. Tried 4.6.3,
current 4_6-branch, 4_7-branch and mainline.
Somebody can?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-16
17:27:50 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-11/msg00259.html
Covers why this still invalid code.
See also 13935.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #1 from Richard Perrin 2012-11-16
17:23:11 UTC ---
Oops:
s/3.4.6/4.6.3/ on all above.
All references to gcc 3.4.6 should actually be gcc 4.6.3. I'm apparently
dyslexic or something today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-11-16
17:20:43 UTC ---
> Not much better performance.
Sole -fPIE vs -fPIC gives us 20% speedup on real programs. Indirect call will
add another 10%.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Bug #: 55355
Summary: internal compiler error: in tree_low_cst, at
tree.c:6415
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Andre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
Bug #: 55354
Summary: [asan] by default, the asan run-time should be linked
statically, not dynamically
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55297
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 17:02:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Nov 16 17:02:02 2012
New Revision: 193568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193568
Log:
2012-11-16 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55353
Bug #: 55353
Summary: [asan] the flag for asan should match the one used in
clang
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-16
16:32:08 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 16 16:32:02 2012
New Revision: 193567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193567
Log:
2012-11-16 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Summary|Powe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55345
--- Comment #2 from Juno Krahn 2012-11-16 15:56:24
UTC ---
Abstract interfaces and rename aliasing are both seldom used, plus there is a
work-around, so I agree that there is no need for back porting.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-16 15:38:42
UTC ---
BTW, it works for me with
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.8.0
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --enable-gnu-indirect-function
--disable-multilib --wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-11-16
15:20:11 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Nov 16 15:20:03 2012
New Revision: 193562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193562
Log:
PR c++/54875 - Error with alias templa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Wyderski 2012-11-16
15:06:45 UTC ---
IMO this case is not covered by the linked paragraph,
so please wait and let me create a thread on
compl.lang.c++.moderated and then proceed accordingly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7 Regression] SciMark
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|mgrid r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-11-16 14:42:33 UTC ---
> Fatigue now gets all inlining with -O3 -fwhole-program, with -O3 it gets only
> half of inlining because jump functions are not able to track array
> descriptors
> in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55337
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
14:33:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 14:33:44 2012
New Revision: 193558
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193558
Log:
PR c++/55337
* tree.c (cp_tree_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
14:17:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> so a "better" c case is
> float * mem;
> void sumN(int n) {
> float * a=mem;
> /*const*/ float * b=mem+n;
> /*const*/ float * c=mem+2*n;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-16
14:15:34 UTC ---
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-11/msg00241.html
Daniel, do you agree?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #12 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-11-16 13:58:33 UTC ---
so a "better" c case is
float * mem;
void sumN(int n) {
float * a=mem;
/*const*/ float * b=mem+n;
/*const*/ float * c=mem+2*n;
for (int i=0;i!=n;++i)
a[i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
13:55:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> actually looking into the generated code I do not see any trace of "runtime
> check"
> even in presence of "const"
The vectorizer creates the ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-11-16 13:46:13 UTC ---
actually looking into the generated code I do not see any trace of "runtime
check"
even in presence of "const"
c++ -O3 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1 -c alias.cc
Analy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
--- Comment #1 from AstroFloyd 2012-11-16
13:43:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 28710
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28710
Verbose output from compilation of example source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
Bug #: 55352
Summary: Erroneous gfortran warning of unused module variable
when variable is only used in namelist
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
13:29:05 UTC ---
Ah, on the #c5 testcase the problem seems to be const float * vs. float *,
/* If the references do not access the same object, we do not know
whether they alias or not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
13:19:51 UTC ---
The C testcase is simiar - in the mgrid case we are probably able to derrive
useful loop bounds now and the dependency analysis could use them (but
doesn't). I will try to look in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-16 12:57:37 UTC ---
I candidate patchlet has been submitted for this at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01375.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 12:33:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> One way to reject the abstract case in comment 11, would be to just do the
> checking, but not add the procedure to the operator list:
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 12:04:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > Comment 12 is fixed with r189022, but comment 11 is still accepted without
> > error.
One way to reject t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55333
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55333
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
12:02:33 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Nov 16 12:02:29 2012
New Revision: 193557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193557
Log:
Define/use hardware pointer type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55351
Bug #: 55351
Summary: can't build libgcc for -m5-compact variant in SH64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55297
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-16
11:40:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 11:40:39 2012
New Revision: 193554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193554
Log:
PR target/54073
* config/i386/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-11-16 10:56:11 UTC ---
is the problem similar to what described in PR55213?
or here
float mem[3*1024];
void sum() {
float * a=mem;
const float * b=mem+1024;
const float * c=mem+2*1024;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
10:37:30 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Nov 16 10:37:25 2012
New Revision: 193553
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193553
Log:
PR tree-optimization/54717
* t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855
Steinar Midtskogen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stemidts at cisco dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
Bug #: 55350
Summary: verify_gimple failed with invalid (pointer) operands
to plus/minus
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-16 09:11:36 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-16
> 01:06:20 UTC ---
> Does this still happen?
It does. I've a local patch in my tree to allow bootstrappin
94 matches
Mail list logo
