http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
Bug #: 54487
Summary: [4.8 Regression] profiledbootstrap broken by r190952
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54486
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54485
Thiago Macieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43122
SergeyN changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nenakhov.sergey at gmail
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54483
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46843
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|rtl-optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53964
--- Comment #6 from Anton Shterenlikht 2012-09-05
08:44:00 UTC ---
on 4.7 the error is slightly different:
gmake[3]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc47/work/build/libcpp'
/usr/ports/lang/gcc47/work/build/./prev-gcc/g++
-B/usr/ports/lang/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54461
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-09-05
08:48:00 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Sep 5 08:47:50 2012
New Revision: 190967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190967
Log:
PR target/54461
* configure.ac (noconfigdi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54485
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54483
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54481
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
--- Comment #6 from Benedict Geihe
2012-09-05 09:30:05 UTC ---
I originally reported that using a C array instead of STL's vector solves the
problem. I am afraid that was wrong. I can also not remember what lead me to
this conclusion.
Anyway I a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43122
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-05 09:32:11
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02098.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Benedict Geihe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27816|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-09-05 09:39:17 UTC ---
> Er, why should this test ever be run with the system compiler? libstdc++
> should
> only ever be built by a newly built g++.
The problem is not with the compiler, but with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54481
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Bilka 2012-09-05 09:42:27
UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:30:04AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54481
>
> Richard Guenther changed:
>
>What|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43122
--- Comment #8 from SergeyN 2012-09-05
09:42:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02098.html
That's nice, but I would really prefer to define my own comparison operator,
because the actual comparison
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #31 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-09-05 09:45:08 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-09/msg00025.html
clock ticking;-(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54191
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-05 10:14:43 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:14:37 2012
New Revision: 190969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190969
Log:
/cp
2012-09-05 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54488
Bug #: 54488
Summary: tree loop invariant motion uses an excessive amount of
memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54463
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-05
10:21:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This bug report should be closed. Combining
> -fexternal-blas and -fdefault-real-8 would
> add needless complexity to the compiler.
I think a patch like m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-05
10:25:16 UTC ---
I think we should identify when this changed and why. Then, we can certainly
add the export (please send a regular patch to the library mailing list) but at
a new minor version, thus C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54191
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54489
Bug #: 54489
Summary: tree FRE uses an excessive amount of memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
Se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36041
José Salavert Torres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsalavert at gmail dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #32 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-05
10:46:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> > Er, why should this test ever be run with the system compiler? libstdc++
> > should
> > only ever be built by a newly built g++.
>
> The problem is not w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #22 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-05 10:50:00 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:49:56 2012
New Revision: 190970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190970
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-04 mainline r19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #23 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-05 10:54:11 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:54:08 2012
New Revision: 190971
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190971
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-04 mainline r19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #36 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-05
10:59:52 UTC ---
If I fix that (PR54489) by iterating over immediate dominators when querying
AVAIL_OUT
instead of accumulating then other loop opts quickly take over in compile-time,
but memory us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54483
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-09-05 11:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is invalid as per [class.static.data]/3 :
On C++11 level it should be valid, because odr-usage does not happen here
according to [basic.def.odr] p3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54483
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54462
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-05
11:46:24 UTC ---
Indeed the patch in comment #1 fixes the PR without regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54484
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-09-05 11:48:38 UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> did you also take a look at the warning about lessthan_ in the clang messages?
No. Clang's output wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54490
Bug #: 54490
Summary: ICE: Spill failure in newlib build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54490
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54461
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-09-05
12:19:54 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Sep 5 12:19:47 2012
New Revision: 190973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190973
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-05 mainline r190697.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54461
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43122
--- Comment #10 from SergeyN 2012-09-05
12:24:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Then put it into a class and add overloaded comparison operators for the
> wrapper class. That is the same thing as with float/double, you can't
> overload
> fl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #33 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-09-05 12:31:06 UTC ---
> Er, did you read comment #26?
Do comments #24 and #25 answer this question?
> Jack says the configure test is being run with
> clang, which if true looks like a bug.
It i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-05
12:40:49 UTC ---
No, the #c24 and #c25 comments make no sense at all.
In void f(void) { asm ("rdrand %eax"); } rdrand shouldn't be optimized out, at
least not by gcc, asm in this case is implicitly vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #35 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-09-05 12:59:09 UTC ---
> No, the #c24 and #c25 comments make no sense at all.
My only claim is that they allow to bootstrap again my platform of choice.
> In void f(void) { asm ("rdrand %eax"); } r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54461
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j at uriah dot heep.sax.de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54491
Bug #: 54491
Summary: interval membership optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #36 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-09-05
13:25:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> What will happen if the assembly accept rdrand, but not the CPU?
The code at runtime checks for the feature bit. There will be no problem.
This is *exc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54474
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2012-09-05
13:27:08 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Sep 5 13:26:58 2012
New Revision: 190977
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190977
Log:
2012-09-05 Dominique Dhumieres
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54492
Bug #: 54492
Summary: [4.8 Regression] SLSR takes ages
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #37 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-05
13:29:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 5 13:29:13 2012
New Revision: 190978
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190978
Log:
2012-09-05 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54493
Bug #: 54493
Summary: -fguess-branch-probability takes ages
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54492
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-05
13:30:55 UTC ---
Use -fno-guess-branch-probability.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54474
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54489
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-05
13:52:25 UTC ---
Testcase:
int foo (int a)
{
int b = 0;
#define X if (a) b = b + 1;
#define XX X X X X X X X X X X
#define XXX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
#define XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX X
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #37 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-09-05
13:57:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (though,
> apparently insufficient for i?86 - it should use either __get_cpuid, or
> __get_cpuid_max before __cpuid).
I fixed that. The code now should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54491
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54491
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-05
14:54:50 UTC ---
I'm suprised PR46309 doesn't handle this. Will look at it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54463
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl
2012-09-05 14:56:36 UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:21:53AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54463
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-05
> 10:21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718
--- Comment #13 from Joerg Wunsch 2012-09-05
15:08:27 UTC ---
All this is fighting the symptoms though.
My point (as outlined in comment #8:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718#c8 )
is:
When operating as a C compiler, *all* user-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18747
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54441
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.2 |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36041
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-05 15:41:18
UTC ---
Also happens with revision 190982 on Fedora 18/x86-64.
I configured GCC with
--prefix=/usr/local --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-shared
--with-demangler-in-ld --with-build-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-05 15:46:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28133
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28133
bad .gcda file
I've attached a bad .gcda file.
Please note that both H.J. and I use --with-bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54484
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-05 16:17:01
UTC ---
I can reproduce it with only
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld
--enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/usr/local --enable-gnu-indirect-function
--with-fpmath=sse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.4 |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54486
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-05
16:28:27 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 5 16:27:55 2012
New Revision: 190986
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190986
Log:
PR middle-end/54486
* builtins.c (fold_buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54486
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-05
16:29:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 5 16:29:42 2012
New Revision: 190987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190987
Log:
PR middle-end/54486
* builtins.c (fold_buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54484
--- Comment #7 from Diego Novillo 2012-09-05
16:34:54 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Sep 5 16:34:42 2012
New Revision: 190988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190988
Log:
PR bootstrap/54484
* vec.h (vec_t::lower
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54484
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-09-05 16:38:21 UTC ---
On 2012-09-05 12:11 , glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I meant the one in this PR's description. The second overload of lower_bound
> takes an argument lessthan_ but us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54462
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-05
16:40:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 5 16:40:48 2012
New Revision: 190989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190989
Log:
2012-09-05 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54462
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Bug #: 54494
Summary: Missing store to volatile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54491
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-05
17:52:53 UTC ---
> integer overflow
Note there is never any integer overflow with unsigned types but always
wrapping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54495
Bug #: 54495
Summary: gcc gives a false warning in
kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-05
18:23:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 28134
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28134
Patch which fixes the problem
Here is the fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54496
Bug #: 54496
Summary: [M32C] - Improve address costs estimations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-05
19:02:51 UTC ---
I finally got a reproducer for the error that H.J. reported. I will work on
fixing that first.
Markus, I looked at the gcda file you sent but don't see anything obviously
wrong with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-05 19:20:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Markus, I looked at the gcda file you sent but don't see anything obviously
> wrong with it. gcov-dump reports that most of the counts in that file ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont 2012-09-05
19:41:21 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Sep 5 19:41:16 2012
New Revision: 190991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190991
Log:
2012-09-05 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Ralf Baechle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #3 from Ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54490
Eric Weddington changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54490
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-09-05
21:24:40 UTC ---
I see hundreds of spill fails riunning the test suite -- with AVR-Libc. Some
months ago, 2 or 3 pathological test cases failes with spill fails. Now there
are hundreds of fails fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51840
Timo Kreuzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timo.kreuzer at reactos dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
Bug #: 54497
Summary: Revision 190015 causes 22% degradation on 172.mgrid on
PowerPC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
Bug #: 54498
Summary: incorrect code generation from g++ -O on x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54495
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-09-05
22:43:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28137
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28137
proposed patch
Proposed patch using the simulate-thread harness.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54499
Bug #: 54499
Summary: GCC produces wrong debugging information, failure
while assembling generated .s file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
