https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r218018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
> >
> > Andrew Haley changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
>
> Andrew Haley changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Suggested fix:
Index: gcc/java/class.c
===
--- gcc/java/class.c(revision 218005)
+++ gcc/java/class.c(working copy)
@@ -1084,8 +1084,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Simple patch to reproduce the issue:
Index: gcc/gimple-fold.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-fold.c (revision 218005)
+++ gcc/gimple-fold.c (working c
