http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54463
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-06
07:03:49 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Sep 6 07:03:42 2012
New Revision: 191012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191012
Log:
2012-09-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/5446
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54463
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54467
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54455
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-06
07:29:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 6 07:29:12 2012
New Revision: 191013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191013
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54455
* sel-sched-ir.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-06
08:08:21 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Thu Sep 6 08:08:09 2012
New Revision: 191014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191014
Log:
2012-09-06 Andrew Pinski
PR tree-opt/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54500
Bug #: 54500
Summary: While(TRUE) loop optimization of global struct
variables
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-06 08:53:36 UTC ---
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-06 09:05:23 UTC ---
It happened because gfortran >= 4.6 uses this function and GDB cannot
reverse-step-over such jmp-only function.
(gdb) disass _gfortran_transfer_real_write
Dump of assembler code for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376
--- Comment #17 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-06 09:27:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 6 09:27:10 2012
New Revision: 191016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191016
Log:
2012-08-26 Marc Glisse
Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54500
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24314
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-06
10:21:36 UTC ---
Testing
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c(revision 191016)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54501
Bug #: 54501
Summary: infinite recursion on illegal code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39572
Jonathan Gray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsg at openbsd dot org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39572
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54502
Bug #: 54502
Summary: g++ 4.6 -std=c++0x ICE (segfault)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54502
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604
--- Comment #12 from Paul Scruby 2012-09-06
13:03:17 UTC ---
I just tried Matt Hargett's patch from Bug53572 with gcc4.7.1 and it still has
not fixed the problem we're having. I'll continue test these issues in our
codebase with new versions of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27396
Jonathan Gray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsg at openbsd dot org
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-06
13:51:45 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Thu Sep 6 13:51:37 2012
New Revision: 191025
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191025
Log:
2012-09-06 Andrew Pinski
PR tree-opt/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #38 from Jack Howarth 2012-09-06
14:04:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 28140
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28140
revised patch tested against clang on darwin12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54503
Bug #: 54503
Summary: debug: Consider using the beginning of the main
program as locus for the set_* calls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54504
Bug #: 54504
Summary: Link failed when I move the GCC to another directory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #39 from Jack Howarth 2012-09-06
14:11:49 UTC ---
The attached revised patch is Ulrich's original with the change of the test in
configure.ac from...
AC_TRY_COMPILE(, [void f(void){asm("rdrand %eax");}],
[ac_cv_x86_rdrand=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-06
14:15:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The attached revised patch is Ulrich's original with the change of the test in
> configure.ac from...
>
> AC_TRY_COMPILE(, [void f(void){asm("rdrand %ea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-06
14:15:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The attached revised patch is Ulrich's original with the change of the test in
> configure.ac from...
>
> AC_TRY_COMPILE(, [void f(void){asm("rdrand %ea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-06
14:17:18 UTC ---
Ah, actually not completely, the
#if defined __i386__ || defined __x86_64__ && defined _GLIBCXX_X86_RDRAND
line in your patch is wrong, there should be () like in the other two
prepro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #43 from Jack Howarth 2012-09-06
14:31:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> Sorry if I'm saying something naive - I didn't follow the whole discussion -
> but I don't understand why - assuming indeed we want to do something at
> con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54490
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53958
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-06
14:47:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 6 14:47:42 2012
New Revision: 191030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191030
Log:
2012-09-06 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53650
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #44 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-06
14:47:57 UTC ---
Unless there are very special and compelling technical reasons, please use the
autotools.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54482
Ollie Wild changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aaw at gcc dot gnu.org
|gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-06
14:58:25 UTC ---
Well, it is using autotools, the decision whether to put the stuff into
autoinclude.m4 and reference in configure.ac, or put in full just into
configure.ac is pure esthetical thing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54408
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-06 15:04:53
UTC ---
Thanks for the explanations.
One goal would be, in C++, to be able to write a single function template:
template T f(T x){return x+sqrt(x);}
which would work for float, double, long d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53667
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54498
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-06
15:20:29 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 6 15:20:24 2012
New Revision: 191031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191031
Log:
2012-09-06 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #46 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-06
15:31:52 UTC ---
I would say not just esthetical, because normally the maintainers know that the
configury code is in acinclude.m4 and in case of issues look into it. If we
start randomly adding non-t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54501
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-09-06 16:01:09 UTC ---
The test in comment #20 is
/* end confdefs.h. */
int
main ()
{
void f(void){asm("rdrand %eax");}
;
return 0;
}
I have compiled it with clang 1.7 and gcc 4.4.6, 4.5.3, 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-06 16:03:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Who expands the 8-bit loads? Is there an implicit memcpy, expanded in
> movmem*?
I haven't investigated further into the issue. The logs in the original
desc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28140|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54253
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2012-09-06
16:24:25 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 6 16:24:10 2012
New Revision: 191033
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191033
Log:
PR c++/54341
PR c++/54253
* semantics.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-09-06
16:24:25 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 6 16:24:10 2012
New Revision: 191033
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191033
Log:
PR c++/54341
PR c++/54253
* semantics.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54253
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54253
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #49 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-06
16:24:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> I think this answer the concern expressed by Marc in comment
> #29: the bootstrapping compiler is not used for the tests in
> libstdc++-v3/configure
Thank y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54505
Bug #: 54505
Summary: RFE: Inline function tables
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-06
17:06:07 UTC ---
What about gcc.dg/pr52558-2.c and gcc.dg/tm/reg-promotion.c not handled by the
patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00390.html?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54505
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54505
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54506
Bug #: 54506
Summary: Defaulted move constructors and move assignment
operators are erroneously defined as deleted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54507
Bug #: 54507
Summary: libgo testsuite does not timeout compilation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson 2012-09-06
18:53:25 UTC ---
The combined patch set also looks ok.
Talking with bkoz, he would like to see more comments added,
since a reasonable testcase seems unlikely.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508
Bug #: 54508
Summary: Wrong debug information emitted if data members not
referenced
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-06
18:58:55 UTC ---
I think I have a solution for the issue that H.J. is encountering. Details
below. Markus and H.J., would you be able to try the following patch to see if
it addresses the failure you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54505
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-06
19:25:29 UTC ---
I think this optimization is only a benefit when the following happens:
1) all functions will be inlined (not just a wrapper though).
2) the table is small
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-06 19:34:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I think I have a solution for the issue that H.J. is encountering. Details
> below. Markus and H.J., would you be able to try the following patch to se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-06
20:02:30 UTC ---
That's good news. I will finish testing the patch and send it for review.
Thanks,
Teresa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-06 20:06:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I think I have a solution for the issue that H.J. is encountering. Details
> below. Markus and H.J., would you be able to try the following patch to see if
> it a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54509
Bug #: 54509
Summary: If Move constructor is templatized then it is invoked
else not
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54510
Bug #: 54510
Summary: If Move constructor is templatized then, that version
is invoked instead default move
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-06
20:23:50 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-06 20:06:55
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #12 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-09-06
20:31:13 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Sep 6 20:31:08 2012
New Revision: 191042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191042
Log:
2012-09-06 Thiago Macieira
PR libstdc++/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-06 20:49:02
UTC ---
It works for me now after syncing with revision 191037.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen 2012-09-06
21:05:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suppose the loop is no longer predicted to execute enough times?
I don't think that's the issue, I'm thinking it's somewhere in the data
dependence analysis.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54507
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-09-06 21:15:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> FYI: The compilation can finish in reasonable time with
> -fno-var-tracking-assignments option.
The difference in compile time with this particular test was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-06
22:13:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> For the __flash address space no preparation is needed, but a 32-bit read can
> use post-increment addressing whereas a split to 4 byte moves won't use
> po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54495
Toralf Förster changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54511
Bug #: 54511
Summary: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1147
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54512
Bug #: 54512
Summary: Assembler fails with error "fatal error: can't write
... file too big"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.5
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54504
--- Comment #2 from progmei 2012-09-07 01:10:41 UTC ---
My configuration as follow
/repo/yuhuamei/mips-linux-eglibc/bin/mips-linux-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/yuhuamei/mips-linux-eglibc/bin/mips-linux-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54512
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54504
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-07
01:15:46 UTC ---
So you are not using a sysroot?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
Carrot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
--- Comment #4 from Car
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54504
--- Comment #4 from progmei 2012-09-07 04:49:04 UTC ---
no，i'm not using a sysroot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54504
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |driver
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #14 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-07
05:19:10 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-06 20:49:02
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54509
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54510
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
