http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56096
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-01-24
08:54:44 UTC ---
"Bad" is ambiguous, it could mean "sub-optimal" or it could mean "incorrect" or
"wrong". In this case it means "sub-optimal", please change the PR summary to
reflect that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56087
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-01-24
09:31:20 UTC ---
I've checked and gcc-4.6 does miscompile this test case, but gets it right with
the PR52573 fix applied. Vanilla gcc-4.7 doesn't seem to miscompile this
particular test cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56087
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56076
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2013-01-24
10:30:29 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Jan 24 10:30:26 2013
New Revision: 195420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195420
Log:
gcc/
PR inline-asm/55934
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe 2013-01-24 11:34:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> Tested proposed patch from Comment 37 on x86_64-apple-darwin11 and
> x86_64-apple-darwin12 with Xcode 4.5.2 on both systems. No regressions are
> fou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-24 12:07:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I cant reproduce the crash with any version
Here is what I get with my mingw-64 gcc 4.8.0 20130120 (experimental):
"main.cpp||In function 'int main(int,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|LTO error: err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 12:21:06 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:20:57 2013
New Revision: 195421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195421
Log:
2013-01-24 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 12:21:33 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:21:24 2013
New Revision: 195422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195422
Log:
2013-01-24 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-24 12:45:44 UTC ---
> --- Comment #30 from Richard Biener 2013-01-23
> 16:49:05 UTC ---
> Is it still a regression from 4.7.x?
Not anymore, judging from my testcase:
tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56097
Bug #: 56097
Summary: Segmentation fault with -01 -ftree-vrp
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns -funswitch-loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
13:27:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 29264
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29264
gcc48-pr56078.patch
Patch I've bootstrapped/regtested. It seems in most places
constructo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #37 from William J. Schmidt
2013-01-24 13:30:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> Bill, tests in Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer are compiler-only tests
> and thus are mostly platform independent.
> The interesting part is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
13:33:13 UTC ---
Before my patch we got:
20030305-1.c:15:5: warning: excess elements in struct initializer [enabled by
default]
20030305-1.c:15:5: warning: (near initialization for ‘s2_array[0]’) [ena
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #23 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-01-24
13:37:05 UTC ---
You are right from the target maintainer point of view, as you understand what
really happens in the code. But this is not what the compiler sees as the
relations between
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #38 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-24
13:46:17 UTC ---
> OK. Please let me know if we can assist setting up a PPC bot in the future,
> to
> help maintain compatibility.
Oh, that'll be great even now.
If you can setup a bot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
--- Comment #3 from mirimiri66 at gmail dot com 2013-01-24 13:53:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29265
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29265
gcc-4.6.3 QA Notices
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
--- Comment #4 from mirimiri66 at gmail dot com 2013-01-24 13:54:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 29266
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29266
gentoo package systeme emerge --info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
mirimiri66 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirimiri66 at gmail d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
14:19:17 UTC ---
On a brief look, this doesn't look like using location of neighbouring
statement, given:
grep 66:1 pr56094.c.115t.cunroll | wc -l
0
grep 66:1 pr56094.c.119t.ivopts | wc -l
39
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 14:52:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Here is a patch to accept the test case in comment 0:
It fails on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/associate_6.f03 -O (test for excess errors)
asso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-24
14:54:02 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:53:56 2013
New Revision: 195425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195425
Log:
2013-01-24 Martin Jambor
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-24
14:54:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
My understanding from Nick's comments was that the ld64/dyld behavior is
now as follows. For performance reasons, weak coalescing is only done if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-01-24 14:58:58 UTC ---
Yes, it is not a very important thing, but it should not be harder to maintain
then -fuse-ld=bfd, -fuse-ld=gold options. It is not like I suggest to add
something completely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
15:06:28 UTC ---
So, the reason seems to be:
mod = build2 (INIT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (t), t, unshare_expr (val));
SET_EXPR_LOCATION (mod, EXPR_LOC_OR_HERE (val));
in:
#0 internal_get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #41 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-24
15:23:54 UTC ---
Iain,
I believe the current behavior of dyld in darwin10/11/12 is clearly
described in...
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#releasenotes/DeveloperTools/RN-dyld/_ind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-24
15:34:28 UTC ---
Since you haven't provided a use case or explained why you want it, and
maintainers have said they don't want it, I think the onus is on your to
justify it and/or provide a te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-24
15:41:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:41:04 2013
New Revision: 195429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195429
Log:
2013-01-24 Martin Jambor
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56057
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-24
16:18:35 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:18:26 2013
New Revision: 195430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195430
Log:
2013-01-24 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn 2013-01-24
16:37:23 UTC ---
It does not matter if the scheduler knows that insns 17, 20, 26 and 29 really
are calls. The clobbers express everything important.
insn 15 produces r3.
insn 16 produces r4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
16:59:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:59:44 2013
New Revision: 195432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195432
Log:
PR c/56078
* c-typeck.c (set_no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
17:26:48 UTC ---
--- gimplify.c.jj2013-01-11 09:02:55.0 +0100
+++ gimplify.c2013-01-24 18:15:54.246157569 +0100
@@ -8600,6 +8600,7 @@ force_gimple_operand_1 (tree expr, gimpl
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55856
--- Comment #6 from simonb at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 18:10:44 UTC ---
Author: simonb
Date: Thu Jan 24 18:10:26 2013
New Revision: 195435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195435
Log:
svn merge -c 194864
svn+ssh:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #36 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
18:12:41 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 24 18:12:23 2013
New Revision: 195436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195436
Log:
PR go/46986
libgo/Makefile,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56098
Bug #: 56098
Summary: conditional write through volatile pointer produces
unintended read
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-24 18:37:30 UTC ---
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
>
>--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-24
>17:26:48 UTC ---
>---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-01-24
18:39:18 UTC ---
> During original gimplification, I can understand the OR_HERE (aka
> input_location) part there, or in passes that maintain input_location.
I thought gimplification happens af
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Bug #: 56099
Summary: Empty static noinline functions aren't called from
optimized code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
--- Comment #16 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-24 18:50:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> In my case the issue seems to be weird debuginfo emitted by gcc;
> look at what the breakpoint reports:
>
> Breakpoint 1, _GLOBAL__sub_I__Z4makem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2013-01-24
18:54:47 UTC ---
Re-confirmed with: g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20130124 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #2 from Yuri 2013-01-24 19:06:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 29267
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29267
asm of the testcase showing there is still no noinline function
I am trying 'noclone' with gcc-4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54793
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #4 from Al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-24
19:11:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 29267 [details]
> asm of the testcase showing there is still no noinline function
You need the inline-asm also to force the cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #4 from Yuri 2013-01-24 19:16:10 UTC ---
You are saying I also need to place some __asm__ into this noinline function?
Doesn't this look like working around some bugs in gcc? User doesn't need to
know how gcc is doing this insid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55887
Tilo Schwarz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@tilo-schwarz.de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-24
19:22:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> You are saying I also need to place some __asm__ into this noinline function?
> Doesn't this look like working around some bugs in gcc? User doesn't n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #6 from Yuri 2013-01-24 19:24:43 UTC ---
I think 'noinline' flag should be factored into the removal decision.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56099
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-24
19:28:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think 'noinline' flag should be factored into the removal decision.
No because this is not about inlining. This is about side effects on the
fun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-24 19:30:54 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
>
>--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez
>2013-01-24 18:39:18 UTC ---
>> During
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56066
--- Comment #1 from Solomon Gibbs
2013-01-24 19:42:15 UTC ---
I'm looking at the objdump -x output for the c++ object and I note that there's
a separate section for the inlined function. It appears to be annotated with a
COMDAT field value of 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #37 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
19:44:31 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 24 19:44:23 2013
New Revision: 195438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195438
Log:
PR go/46986
all: prepend #_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-24 20:24:18
UTC ---
It seems that I read the wrong frame info in my original report.
However, the bug still exists. Here is a new and hopefully more
correct example showing the bug.
I used a relat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-01-24
20:49:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
>
> Input_location should only be used from parsing. Other places reuse the
> variable and those happen to eventually pick up stale values, such as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
Bug #: 56100
Summary: spurious -Wshadow warning with local variable in
template class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-24
21:14:51 UTC ---
I think this is an artifact of warning during instantiation rather than at
definition time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56100
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach 2013-01-24
21:25:09 UTC ---
I guess many warnings can only be given correctly during instantiation because
they depend on the actual arguments.
But shadowing is not one of them as the set of identifie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2013-01-24 21:52:04
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:51:58 2013
New Revision: 195444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195444
Log:
PR libgomp/51376
PR libgomp/56073
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51376
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra 2013-01-24 21:52:03
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:51:58 2013
New Revision: 195444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195444
Log:
PR libgomp/51376
PR libgomp/56073
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56101
Bug #: 56101
Summary: pthread program abort
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56081
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 23:58:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 24 23:58:12 2013
New Revision: 195447
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195447
Log:
2013-01-24 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55994
--- Comment #6 from Janis Johnson 2013-01-25
00:26:43 UTC ---
Author: janis
Date: Fri Jan 25 00:26:34 2013
New Revision: 195458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195458
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-01-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
Bug #: 56102
Summary: Wrong rtx cost calculated for Thumb1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
--- Comment #1 from bin.cheng 2013-01-25
03:46:59 UTC ---
I have investigated this issue.
GCC uses function init_lower_subreg to initialize costs of MOVE insn with
different mode, then uses this information to decompose multi-word pseudo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56102
--- Comment #2 from bin.cheng 2013-01-25
07:25:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29270
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29270
correct test case
The previous test case is not appropriate, because gcc won't split even with
86 matches
Mail list logo
