--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-19 08:29
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENE
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-19 08:28
---
Subject: Bug 29779
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Dec 19 08:28:46 2006
New Revision: 120045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120045
Log:
2006-12-18 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #12 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2006-12-06 22:22 ---
> By the way, you wrote 2006-11-17:
> > Should be submitted this weekend
> Any new ETA?
It was already submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00110.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 22:10 ---
> > I think this was fixed by:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-11/msg00427.html
> No it was not.
Thanks for checking. (This was actually the PR, for which I asked yesterday on
IRC whether it was commited or no
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-05 22:15
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think this was fixed by:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-11/msg00427.html
No it was not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-05 20:51 ---
I think this was fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-11/msg00427.html
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-17 15:11 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> indeed it does, thanks!
> are you going to submit it to mainline?
Should be submitted this weekend, today is a party day for me, launch and all
:).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Comment #7 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11-17 06:46 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> This patch should fix the problem:
indeed it does, thanks!
are you going to submit it to mainline?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29779
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 19:58 ---
This patch should fix the problem:
Index: config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===
--- config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 118728)
+++ config/rs6000/rs6000.c (
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 08:20 ---
I am going to try to fix this, it blocks my other work on getting altivec
builtins marked as const/pure.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:36 ---
I am going to look into this, this weekend and see why that patch caused a
difference.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29779
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:34 ---
*** Bug 29617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-11 00:32 ---
Actually I think this bug was caused by:
2006-10-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree.c (local_define_builtin): Replace calls to
lang_hooks.builtin_function with add_builtin_funct
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 20:04 ---
Dorit,
Nothing stands out in the gfortran patches in that interval, although I am not
sure what I am looking for. I base my remark on the fact that none of the
patches between 10/27 and 10/31 would appear to touch th
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, ice-on-valid-
|
15 matches
Mail list logo
