http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-12-01 07:16:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28842
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28842
testcase
% c++ -fPIC -fno-exceptions -std=gnu++0x -flto -fprofile-use
-fprofile-cor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-12-01 07:14:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 28841
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28841
gcda testfile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-01
07:12:24 UTC ---
Hmm, I'm not sure how that assert can be hit, since we would have
returned earlier if none of the files being merged has any profile
runs. Presumably any profile run should hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-12-01 06:51:14 UTC ---
With your patch applied, Firefox fails to build:
/var/tmp/moz-build-dir/_virtualenv/bin/python
/var/tmp/mozilla-central/config/pythonpath.py -I../../../config
/var/tmp/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #14 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-12-01 06:43:07
UTC ---
Thanks for the additional info.
#1 0x77bb53be in build_address_map (addrs=0x7fffc710,
data=0x7fffcf1c,
error_callback=0x77ad51f0 , is_bigendian=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39820
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leledumbo_cool at yahoo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45247
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55521
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth 2012-12-01
01:50:37 UTC ---
Note that fixing this by replacing mach_override with interpose will require
FSF gcc to be enhanced to provide the missing blocks support (which was
developed after the GPLv3 tra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216
Nick Kossifidis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mickflemm at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-30
23:51:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:51:26 2012
New Revision: 194010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194010
Log:
PR c++/55542
* pt.c (make_ith_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-30 22:20:43 UTC ---
On 2012.11.30 at 22:05 +, tejohnson at google dot com wrote:
> Found the issue. Doing final testing, but the patch is below. FTR, I
> couldn't do a slim-lto-bootstrap,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-30
22:05:22 UTC ---
Found the issue. Doing final testing, but the patch is below. FTR, I
couldn't do a slim-lto-bootstrap, it appears this config file is not
yet committed to trunk? Reproduced wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-11-30
22:03:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Created attachment 28779 [details]
> > Patch to use libbacktrace
>
> I have to apply the following patch on your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-11-30
21:56:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Why are there no line numbers in the backtrace from gdb? You said you
> > compiled
> > with -g. Are you sure that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55539
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55539
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #13 from wbrana 2012-11-30 20:23:40 UTC
---
It seems it is caused by 182844
182839
ASSIGNMENT : 64.374 : 244.96 : 63.54
182844
ASSIGNMENT : 57.697 : 219.55 : 56.95
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54502
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
Bug #: 3
Summary: Segmentation fault when calling vector::push_back with
an initialized list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55521
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-30
18:01:28 UTC ---
This issue is further analyzed and a potential fix to mach_override proposed in
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-November/056478.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54470
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
17:49:07 UTC ---
The problem is that whereas on other platforms, hiphip4 looks like:
hiphip4 (struct S s)
{
void (*) (struct S *) _2;
:
_2 = s.f;
_2 (&s);
return;
}
on hpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Bug #: 2
Summary: --enable-gold=default doesn't work with in-tree
binutils
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-30
17:38:07 UTC ---
Working on reproducing right now. Teresa
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:20 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55451
--- Comment #3 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-30 17:34:44 UTC ---
I am entirely following the explanation of the failure, but the patch fixes the
testsuite regression and the assembly generated for libgcc/_ssnegSQ.o seems
correct:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #1 from Luc 2012-11-30 17:25:28 UTC ---
If I manually unfold the loop to 2 stages and use collapse(2), or if I unfold
it to 1 stage and use just a "parallel for" it gives the same error.
The whole loop works fine without this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55465
--- Comment #13 from Juno Krahn 2012-11-30 17:21:08
UTC ---
This issue was once discussed by members of the Fortran standards committee. I
don't recall if that was on usenet or somewhere in the committee meeting notes.
The conclusion was t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
Bug #: 1
Summary: Revision 193999 breaks lto/profiledbootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Bug #: 0
Summary: internal compiler segmentation fault on openmp for
collapse
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-30 16:56:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> As far as I know, mingw64 also uses SjLj, doesn't it? When creating a 64 bit
> executable with it, it runs correctly. Only the 32 bit binaries show this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #14 from Eric Batut
2012-11-30 16:20:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 28840
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28840
Second repro case with source code, build script, assembly files and binary
files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #13 from Eric Batut
2012-11-30 16:16:36 UTC ---
Richard,
After a clean checkout of gcc's trunk and of the Android NDK r8b package and
tools, I rebuilt arm-linux-androideabi-gcc on a Ubuntu VM using gcc 4.5.1. I
then rebuilt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55415
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55448
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:44 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:41 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking
2012-11-30 15:56:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 28839
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28839
simplified sample code
I simplified the sample code a little bit by removing the static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-30 15:53:02 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM, kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
>
> --- Comment #2 from Kyrill Tkac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #2 from Kyrill Tkachov 2012-11-30
15:38:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > Target: arm-none-eabi
> >
> > gcc.dg/sms-7.c:17:1: internal compiler error: in schedule_reg_moves, at
> > modulo-sched.c:725
>
> Can you show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #12 from Eric Batut
2012-11-30 15:16:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Something else to check is that you are using the version of arm_neon.h that
> comes with gcc-4.8. This file has to match the version of GCC it was de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-30 15:14:10 UTC ---
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:25 AM, kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
>
> Bug #: 55486
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:55:25 UTC ---
Something else to check is that you are using the version of arm_neon.h that
comes with gcc-4.8. This file has to match the version of GCC it was designed
for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:40:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Do you think rebuilding arm-linux-androideabi-gcc on Linux to check if the
> generated code is the same is worth the time or is there no chance wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55549
Bug #: 55549
Summary: zero_extend and vectors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #9 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
14:29:11 UTC ---
Richard,
I double-checked (update + rebuild), the end of my assembly files correctly
states :
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20121130 (experimental)"
Since -O1 is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-30
14:19:40 UTC ---
The patch is OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44102
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55548
Bug #: 55548
Summary: SYSTEM_CLOCK with integer(8) provides nanosecond
resolution, but only microsecond precision (without
-lrt)
Classification: Unclassified
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
14:00:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Richard,
>
> I apologize, building at -O0 (and handrolling an assembly routine to do the
> same computation) proves me wrong : your values are t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48549
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51062
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.0 |4.8.0
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
--- Comment #5 from Jörg Richter 2012-11-30 13:47:24
UTC ---
-ffloat-store works. But I dont want to use it in our project.
-msse2 -mfpmath=sse does not work.
I still see fildll,fnstcw,... instructions in the assembler listing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #7 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
13:21:13 UTC ---
Richard,
I apologize, building at -O0 (and handrolling an assembly routine to do the
same computation) proves me wrong : your values are the correct ones, and -O1
is also broken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
13:16:36 UTC ---
Oh, and 1080x seems to be what ulimit -t is for these jobs - thus this are
endless loops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
13:15:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems to be compiling build-disjuncts.c btw.
which is from 197.parser - where the compiler currently is after two hours
(but in schedule_block
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-30
13:14:24 UTC ---
For C++ you can use -ffloat-store (of course, the penalty for that is quite
big).
Or better -msse2 -mfpmath=sse if you don't need to support prehistoric HW.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
Bug #: 55547
Summary: Alias analysis does not handle AND addresses correctly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
13:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you also have revision numbers in those logs?
Unfortunately not, but I can see that rev. 193357 was definitely ok
and rev. 193534 definitely br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Jörg Richter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55546
Bug #: 55546
Summary: Static functions that are fully inlined can end up in
the object file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-11-30
13:00:46 UTC ---
Do you also have revision numbers in those logs?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55545
Bug #: 55545
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Incredibly large compile-time
performance regression on IA64 compiling 253.perlbmk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-11-30
12:37:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> double d = (double)v1;
Doesn't this overflow and provoke undefined behaviour when v1 is
9223372036854774781LL (0x7bfd)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55124
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2012-11-30
12:33:03 UTC ---
This issue is latent and papered over heavily by find_or_generate_expression
which does
static tree
find_or_generate_expression (basic_block block, tree op, gimple_seq *stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54170
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking
2012-11-30 12:30:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, I noticed this regression recently on 4.8 too. There is already a
> smaller
> testcase and it has to do with SjLj exception-mechanism.
> Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55544
Bug #: 55544
Summary: invalid optimisation long long->double->long long
(with -m32)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54975
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #6 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
11:05:18 UTC ---
Building the test case at O1 (which I tend to trust slightly more than O2 in
the present case) gives the same set of values than the previous "OK" case :
root@android:/data # ./r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Bug #: 55543
Summary: diamond shaped inheritance involving strings leads to
crashing executables (MinGW, 32 bit)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #5 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
10:14:00 UTC ---
Since this comes from several hours of stripping down a texture generation
engine to the single function that provided different results, I must admit I
have no idea what the corre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-11-30
09:58:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hello Richard
>
> I updated my working copy of gcc to rev 193943, rebuilt the compiler, rebuilt
> the testcase I originally attached to this bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55451
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-30
09:56:02 UTC ---
I can't reproduce it with a cross-compiler, for me it optimizes into
:
_2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(a_5(D));
if (_2 == -2147483648)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
z_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55073
--- Comment #3 from Eric Batut 2012-11-30
09:52:19 UTC ---
Hello Richard
I updated my working copy of gcc to rev 193943, rebuilt the compiler, rebuilt
the testcase I originally attached to this bug report, and I am still getting
differe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |---
--- Comment #4 from Paolo C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etlverified at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55520
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #5 from Manjunath S Matti 2012-11-30
09:28:04 UTC ---
The "define_insn_and_split "neon_vld1_dupv2di" contains the DI move pattern
as second instruction in split. The pattern generated for the move are
subreg:DI (Reg:VDI) to s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55248
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55426
--- Comment #4 from Manjunath S Matti 2012-11-30
09:26:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 28836
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28836
Proposed fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55248
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-30
09:25:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 28835
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28835
mainline errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43566
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flamaros.xavier at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55542
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
