http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56129
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-29 07:14:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Please, let me know if we are needed any additional info.
Yes, we need all relevant files to recreate the failure. If possible, please
create a min
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55996
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-29 07:01:24
UTC ---
[4.9 PATCH, alpha]: Switch alpha to LRA
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg01357.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56137
Bug #: 56137
Summary: std::initializer_list accepts invalid designated
initializers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFI
lla/attachment.cgi?id=29299
The code that causes compiler crash
Upon compiling the following code using GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.8.0 20130128
(experimental):
MODULE A_TEST_M
TYPE :: A_TYPE
CONTAINS
GENERIC :: ASSIGNMENT (=) => ASGN_A
PROCEDURE, PRIVATE ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56135
Bug #: 56135
Summary: [c++11] this incorrectly captured as null in template
member function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56134
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.8.0
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56134
--- Comment #1 from Tristan Wibberley
2013-01-29 01:00:44 UTC ---
$ g++ --version
g++-4.7.real (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-2ubuntu1) 4.7.2
Copyright © 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56134
Bug #: 56134
Summary: ICE: alias attribute on c++ static class member;
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-29 00:28:38 UTC ---
Using NOTE_BASIC_BLOCK instead of BLOCK_FOR_INSN on bb_note allows us to get
the bb.
This tentative patch:
...
Index: cfgrtl.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2013-01-28
23:34:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
With the patch from comment #7:
n=1000 6.18user 254976k maxresident
n=2000 16.76user 509184k maxresident
n=4000 54.23user 1432576l maxresident
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56112
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56112
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-28
23:07:59 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 28 23:07:35 2013
New Revision: 195520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195520
Log:
PR libstdc++/56112
* include/b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #27 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28 22:42:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> There is one case that remains to be handled. I suppose it is valid if the
> other are valid.
>
> function foo () result(bar)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56133
Bug #: 56133
Summary: [x86] align_loops, align_jumps and align_functions
are ignored
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2013-01-28 20:44:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> As of rev 195493 the test case for this PR is failing again.
In fact, now it doesn't work for little and big endian.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
--- Comment #8 from Václav Zeman 2013-01-28
20:12:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> What linker are you using? It seems to work for me with GNU ld 2.23.1.
>
> Using
>
> > ./xg++ -B. t2.ii -r -nostdlib -flto -std=c++11 -march=amdfam10 -mfx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53537
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-28
20:08:50 UTC ---
After revision 195506, the test in pr44830 compiles without error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55059
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-28 20:08:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > If we change gdb to cope with this, I think the effect will be to undo what
> > the patches here were attempting to accompl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44830
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-28
20:03:34 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 28 20:03:26 2013
New Revision: 195515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195515
Log:
PR other/54814
* reload.c (fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #26 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-28
19:46:01 UTC ---
Thanks for testing.
There is one case that remains to be handled. I suppose it is valid if the
other are valid.
function foo () result(bar)
procedure(foo), pointer ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #28 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-28 19:05:40
UTC ---
> > 1) Just add the check. We will then miss all devirtualization oppurtunities
> >through the construction vtable.
>
> The front end does devirtualization itself for call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56132
Bug #: 56132
Summary: Lengths incorrect on assignment to an allocatable
character scalar.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
Bug #: 56131
Summary: [4.8 regression] gcc.dg/pr56035.c ICEs gcc on
sparc-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55221
Thierry Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thierry at FreeBSD dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56117
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
16:50:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 28 16:50:22 2013
New Revision: 195513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195513
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/56117
* sch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-28
16:43:31 UTC ---
Unfortunately this patch causes a few FAILs, e.g.:
/home/polacek/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20020604-1.c: In
function ‘foo’:
/home/polacek/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28 16:04:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> > Draft patch for comment #4, to be tested.
>
> Thanks! Seems to work on comment 4 at least. I'll try a regtest.
Regtest went through
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #27 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-28
15:42:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> 1) Just add the check. We will then miss all devirtualization oppurtunities
>through the construction vtable.
The front end does devirtualiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35294
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35294
--- Comment #17 from Nick Clifton 2013-01-28
15:07:48 UTC ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Jan 28 15:07:41 2013
New Revision: 195510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195510
Log:
PR target/35294
* config/arm/ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] -O2|[4.7 Regression] -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-28 14:56:12
UTC ---
> perhaps making them hidden whenever possible is really desirable.
Yes, this seems fine to me. Just to be sure I understand the problem fully.
I believe there is still problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
14:45:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 28 14:45:46 2013
New Revision: 195508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195508
Log:
2013-01-28 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
14:43:07 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 28 14:43:03 2013
New Revision: 195507
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195507
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56125
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53537
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-28
14:37:26 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Jan 28 14:37:20 2013
New Revision: 195506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195506
Log:
2013-01-28 Tobias Burnus
Mik
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
14:33:18 UTC ---
Should be fixed now on the trunk, but keeping the PR open, so that we don't
forget to revert and do a better fix instead.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2013
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
14:28:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 28 14:28:16 2013
New Revision: 195505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195505
Log:
PR testsuite/56053
* c-c++-comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-28
14:06:35 UTC ---
> Created attachment 29295 [details]
> gcc48-pr56053.patch
>
> Untested fix.
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, with the patch
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="asan.exp --targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
14:05:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 28 14:05:40 2013
New Revision: 195504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195504
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56094
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
14:03:18 UTC ---
When propagate_rhs_into_lhs alters the CFG from
if ()
{
if ()
exit_loop;
}
to
if ()
{
exit_loop;
}
it fails to fixup loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-28 13:48:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created attachment 29294 [details]
> Draft patch for comment #4, to be tested.
Thanks! Seems to work on comment 4 at least. I'll try a r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
13:48:29 UTC ---
BB 12 does not belong to loop 1 but is marked so. Broken by late phicprop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-28
13:42:51 UTC ---
Yeah, on the second thought, that is nonsense, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-28 13:39:28 UTC ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Bonzini 2013-01-28 13:36:36
UTC ---
--disable-target-libsanitizer should work:
# Handle --disable- generically.
for dir in $configdirs $build_configdirs $target_configdirs ; do
dirname=`echo $dir | sed -e s/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-28
13:35:15 UTC ---
Maybe just remove the assert? We know, that dfs_enumerate_from can sometimes
return bogus number.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55270
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-28
13:33:47 UTC ---
The problem here is in dfs_enumerate_from, which wrongly detects the number of
BBs in a loop. get_loop_body_with_size calls dfs_enumerate_from with reverse =
1, thus we go agai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56130
--- Comment #1 from chen3feng 2013-01-28 13:17:52
UTC ---
Tested on gcc 4.1.2 4.5.3 4.6.3 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56130
Bug #: 56130
Summary: __attribute__((deprecated)) does not affect C++
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-28 12:40:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The original testcase is a dup of PR33562, it's a missed dead store
> elimination, not "constant propagation".
Ah, thanks, I am not very familiar wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
12:34:15 UTC ---
Seems to fortify by default and thus expose a builtin anyway.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56129
Bug #: 56129
Summary: Seg fault on 256.bzip2 from spec2000 with -lto and
pre-reload scheduler for x86 Atom
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-28
12:31:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 29294
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29294
Draft patch for comment #4, to be tested.
As I said on @fortran, I don't think it's possibl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
12:21:14 UTC ---
13:17 < jakub> richi: libgomp defines FUTEX_{WAIT,WAKE} on its own rather then
including linux/futex.h, guess the googlers could consider such
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-28
12:16:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 29293
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29293
preprocessed source for global-overflow-1.c
> Can you attach preprocessed source ple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
Bug #: 56128
Summary: [4.8 Regression] No way to disable build of
libsanitizer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
12:07:12 UTC ---
The optimization is sound without -fno-builtin-memset. Otherwise not - why
would that not be in effect for darwin? Can you attach preprocessed source
please?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
11:57:25 UTC ---
We have the producer of the loop closed PHI use not in the last partition
as it is designed to happen. I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48659
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Starke
2013-01-28 11:53:14 UTC ---
I can confirm this bug for gcc 4.7.2 mingw64. The -mstackrealign command-line
flag can be used as workaround as described on
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6716654/segmentat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56127
Till changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
11:27:51 UTC ---
I meant the ABI checkers only. Anyway, on the other side given comments like:
This mangling isn't part of the ABI specification; in the ABI
specification, the vtable gro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56127
--- Comment #3 from Till 2013-01-28 11:20:46 UTC
---
Thank you for checking. You are right, this seems to be a version-specific
problem for Sourcery CodeBench. I don't see an obvious bug in the assembly
code produce by these compilers:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-xilinx-eabi
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56127
--- Comment #1 from Till 2013-01-28 10:20:48 UTC
---
Created attachment 29291
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29291
exp_results.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56127
Bug #: 56127
Summary: Incorrect code with -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
10:04:46 UTC ---
Moving ->points_to to a separate obstack might also help (performing
label_visit
in topological order we could then free ->points_to once we have visited
all successors of a n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
09:45:06 UTC ---
label_visit () seems to collect recursively points_to bits over the predecessor
graph, thus using a quadratic amount of memory. It does so to optimize
variables that point to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener 2013-01-28
08:55:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 29272 [details]
> gcc48-pr56094.patch
>
> input_location is used heavily in the gimplifier, gimplify_expr sets it from
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56117
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
08:51:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 29289
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29289
gcc48-pr56117.patch
Untested fix. For MEMs, sched-deps.c is calling cselib_lookup_from_ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-28
08:19:43 UTC ---
Because -gstabs etc. are still supported on most of the primary and secondary
targets, and (to my surprise) some projects are still using it (I believe e.g.
some Mozilla builds
91 matches
Mail list logo
