https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93980
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93980
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
This linker patch:
iff --git a/ld/plugin.c b/ld/plugin.c
index 47c053e5a0a..5960df65243 100644
--- a/ld/plugin.c
+++ b/ld/plugin.c
@@ -1242,6 +1242,8 @@ plugin_object_p (bfd *ibfd)
ibfd->plugin_format = bfd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93980
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> >
> > It is because GCC 8 doesn't have early LTO debug.
>
> It does but section copying has been made more explicit about notes
> only in GCC 9 it seems.
GCC 8 h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85334
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Fixed for GCC 10, GCC 9.3 and GCC 8.4.
The fix is in GCC 8.5, not GCC 8.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |8.5
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Also fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56200
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||areg.melikadamyan at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-04-05 00:0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56245
Bug #: 56245
Summary: -fsanitize=address miscompiles GCC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56245
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2013-02-07 23:00:53
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 195404:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-01/msg00659.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56245
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56245
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56327
Bug #: 56327
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Revision 196009 breaks bootstrap on
x32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2013-02-14 18:47:12
UTC ---
-O3 and -fprofile-use turn on optimizations like -funroll-loops which
trigger false positive warnings.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56353
Bug #: 56353
Summary: libgcj should be listed on command line for
libjava.jni/invocation/PR16923.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56353
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2013-02-15 23:59:30
UTC ---
The command line is
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-intel64/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-intel64/bld/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-intel64/src-trunk/libjav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56431
Bug #: 56431
Summary: -lpthread should be added to -lgo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56431
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2013-02-27 16:59:17
UTC ---
The new GNU ld is complaining about an undefined weak reference because
it sees libpthread.so from DT_NEEDED in libgo.so. The old GNU ld just
silently adds libpthread.so from DT_NEEDE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56431
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2013-02-27 19:36:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Object OBJ has a weak reference to SYM.
>
> OBJ is linked against shared library S1. S1 does not define SYM.
>
> S1 happens to be linked against share
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56431
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2013-02-27 21:20:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I see. Interesting. I wonder if that is a bug in gold. I wonder what other
I think this is related to the gold bug:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2013-03-08 17:21:18
UTC ---
The caller info is lost by
(gdb) bt
#0 init_cumulative_args (cum=0x7fffc3f0, fntype=0x71472e70,
libname=0x0, fndecl=0x0, caller=1)
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2013-03-11 19:34:29
UTC ---
Created attachment 29645
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29645
A patch
This patch adds expand_args to track library calls to
expend arguments. We add vzeroupp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56603
Bug #: 56603
Summary: Different _MM_HINT_TX values from ICC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29645|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2013-03-25 22:07:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm a bit skeptical of that. Glibc malloc alignment is 2 * sizeof(void*), and
> void* in X32 is 32 bits. Unless X32 code uses the x86_64 libc, I am confus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56781
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2013-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57077
Bug #: 57077
Summary: [4.9 Regression] LTO bootstrap failure with
profiledbootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46250
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2013-04-29 17:09:22
UTC ---
TLS ABI only covers the small model. There is no demand to
extend TLS ABI to support medium/large models.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57077
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54204
Bug #: 54204
Summary: Wrong baseline_symbols.txt picked for x32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54204
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52449
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52449
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-*-linux |powerpc64-*-linux,x86_64-*l
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
Bug #: 54209
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Failed to build gcc for Android/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.v.chupin at gmail dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-09 19:08:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> >
> > Why isn't link.h in AOSP Bionic C library?
>
> ARM doesn't use eh_frame, so there is no need to create link.h at the
> beginning for the Android project,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54215
Bug #: 54215
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54228
Bug #: 54228
Summary: [4.6 Regression] 22_locale/num_put/put/char/9780-2.cc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54229
Bug #: 54229
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO is broken
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-11 14:37:30
UTC ---
Do we have a run-time testcase?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54228
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-12 19:50:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Do we have a run-time testcase?
>
> I attached three compile-time test cases that check if the generated RTL
> refers
> to TImode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #27 from H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-13 02:17:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > Please try this patch:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
> > index c4d85b7..6c4c2ce 100644
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54242
Bug #: 54242
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Testsuite failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53836
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from H.J
||2012-08-14
CC||areg.melikadamyan at gmail
||dot com, hjl.tools at gmail
||dot com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54257
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-14 15:57:34
UTC ---
The problem is -m64 overrides -mx32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27836|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-14 23:43:24
UTC ---
We must make sure that
---
union S160
{
long double a;
};
extern union S160 check160 (void);
extern void checkx160 (union S160);
void
test160 (void)
{
checkx160 (check160 ());
}
---
c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 01:23:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Note that for the test case in comment #34 (and comment #9) to fail that the
> MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE patch has to be applied, and likely GCC internal checking
> ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 13:58:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> (In reply to comment #36)
> > (In reply to comment #35)
> > > Note that for the test case in comment #34 (and comment #9) to fail that
> > > the
> > > MAX_FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #43 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 14:21:05
UTC ---
The problem is we return a TI union in XF register
because the x86-64 psABI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 14:34:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I actually wonder how could target attribute work the way it is implemented
> right now so far.
It works by miracle. See PR 37565.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #46 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 16:01:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> Changing this is generally very risky for ABI incompatibilities, many targets
> base some of the decisions how to pass parameters or return values on the type
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #47 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-16 00:00:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 28028
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28028
A patch
Here is a patch which should be applied on top of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53839
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-16 13:46:24
UTC ---
It was triggered by revision 176549:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-07/msg00816.html
But ICE is always there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52495
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-17 01:13:29
UTC ---
I also run into this. The bug is in rs6000.h:
#ifdef HAVE_GAS_WEAK
#define RS6000_WEAK 1
#else
#define RS6000_WEAK 0
#endif
#if RS6000_WEAK
/* Used in lieu of ASM_WEAKEN_LABEL. */
#defin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-18 16:10:43
UTC ---
With -maccumulate-outgoing-args, GCC 3.4 will also make
a copy.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54315
Bug #: 54315
Summary: Unnecessary copy of return value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54315
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-18 17:42:58
UTC ---
-m32 also causes extra copy:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr54315]$ gcc -S -O2 -m32 y.i
[hjl@gnu-6 pr54315]$ cat y.s
.file"y.i"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globltest160
.typetest160
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54315
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-18 17:45:43
UTC ---
The difference between -m32 and -m64 is
- struct S160 D.1692;
+ struct S160 D.1719;
;; basic block 2, loop depth 0
;;pred: ENTRY
- D.1692 = check160 (); [return slot optim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54327
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54327
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54257
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-20 16:27:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Looks good to me... HJ?
Looks good to me too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Bug #: 54332
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB
memory to compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||areg.melikadamyan at gmail
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-20 21:18:00
UTC ---
Revision 190401 takes 512MB virtual memory to compile module_domain.fppized.f90
while revision 190402 takes 10GB. This is a 20x increase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335
Bug #: 54335
Summary: -dm doesn't work
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 02:59:15
UTC ---
It was introduced between revision 189101 and revision 189664
on cxx-conversion branch. Unfortunately, since branch was broken
between those 2 revisions, I can't bisect further.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 13:58:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> If it's related to the hash table, then comparing rev 188059 vs rev
> 188129 may show the regression.
>
Neither rev 188059 nor rev 188129 will build:
../../
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54347
Bug #: 54347
Summary: REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE shouldn't be used in
i386
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 16:20:37
UTC ---
Revision 188059 is bad:
f951: out of memory allocating 36872 bytes after a total of 583266304 bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-08-20 00:00:00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 17:10:09
UTC ---
It can be reproduced with -frecord-marker=4 -O -funswitch-loops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 17:41:10
UTC ---
It failed even with
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
index 3d650bf..30ac4b5 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ tree_ssa_lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 17:57:59
UTC ---
It failed with
diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c
index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.c
+++ b/gcc/passes.c
@@ -1449,7 +1449,6 @@ init_optimization_passes (void)
NEXT_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:03:17
UTC ---
There are:
opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */
opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p);
opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap);
opts-global.c:typedef const char *const_char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:08:49
UTC ---
There are:
opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */
opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p);
opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap);
opts-global.c:typedef const char *const_char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:54:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> It failed with
>
> diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c
> index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644
> --- a/gcc/passes.c
> +++ b/gcc/passes.c
> @@ -1449,7 +1449,6 @@ in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:27:50
UTC ---
This seems to work:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 35100d1..39f444f 100644
--- a/gcc/df-scan.c
+++ b/gcc/df-scan.c
@@ -4392,6 +4392,7 @@ df_bb_verify (basic_block bb)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:53:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
>
> The problem with this is that you are switching a stack vec into a heap
> vec. This may not always be what the caller wanted.
My patch just restores the ol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54347
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-22 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-22 22:10:51
UTC ---
This may be related to PR 54315.
401 - 500 of 7760 matches
Mail list logo