--- Comment #17 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 02:24 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 00:07
---
Subject: Bug 23714
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-16 00:07:18
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog builtins.c expr.c expr.h tree-cfg.c
--- Comment #15 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-14 21:40 ---
... work on a better solution.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ass
--- Comment #14 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-14 21:40 ---
Open to...
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:57 ---
.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:12 ---
Oh, and for the record, if you don't care about compile time, fine, but SAY SO
and say it in public so people know that even the top gcc hacker doesn't give
shit about compile time, and so that I can stop wasting my
--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:11 ---
I think I have every right to complain after what happened to
e.g. the CD-DCE patch, thank you very much. FY.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:05
---
Steven is not the only one who is complaining about it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:04 ---
... so it's his. Revert the patch and do what you like.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:03 ---
Steven's complaining about the solution...
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-06 00:08 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-06 00:03
---
Subject: Bug 23714
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-06 00:02:58
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-cfg.c tree-flow.h
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
16:27 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from steven:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-06/msg00294.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-16
23:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> One could probably replace the assert with a run-time invocation of abort().
Or really __builtin_trap() which is better.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23714
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12
12:41 ---
The problem is that the array is mapped to a single SFmode register.
One could probably replace the assert with a run-time invocation of abort().
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23714
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12
12:35 ---
reduced testcase, also failing with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions
void run (void) {
float stack[1];
*(stack - 1) = 0.0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23714
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-03
12:02 ---
I should mention this really undefined code, I did not mean it to be used for
any good example at
higher optimization than -O0.
Anyways confirmed. This has been failing since at least 20050822.
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
