https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87252
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Abrahm Scully from comment #9)
> Either way, building gcc-4.7.4 first and then building gcc-10 with that
> produces a compiler without the problem.
>
> Again, sorry for the noise.
Please,
-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target: arm-eabi, cris-elf, aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-14
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
For various targets and gcc versions I've noticed this bug as far back as
gcc-4.7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> The Arm AAPCS has detailed rules for operations on individual volatile
> bit-fields, but not for this case where the whole struct is volatile and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87252
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> (Note: no cross-binutils or anything needed, just gcc sources and a native
> gcc-4.4. This is an *old* installation which identifies itself as "gcc
> v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93372
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
In https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545452.html I mentioned a
performance-regression with coremark, from 5227456 cycles (with cc0) to 5238564
(CC_REG), which is about 0.21%.
: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As seen on gcc202 at LAST_UPDATED:
Fri Jun 26 21:36:32 CEST 2020
Fri Jun 26 19:36:32 UTC 2020 (revision
0fce12c0920:2873383514d:0801f419440c14f6772b28f763ad7d40f7f7a580)
(a.k.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77510
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Can you provide a test case or a translation unit?
You're aware that the report is for bootstrap stage2 on a CompileFarm machine?
>From the look of it, somet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 48810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48810&action=edit
tree-ssanames.ii.gz
Beware, gzippped file.
Repeat with /home/hp/combcheck/o0/./prev-gcc/cc1plus -fpreproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > From the look of it, something is already miscompiled.
>
> No, not at all, it's just warnings turned into errors.
Not obvious, but I see from the comment
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
dup
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 96194 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96194
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael at michaelmarley dot
com
-
bitrange dot com |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |MOVED
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Thanks for the report. This is a binutils bug; a bug in the assembler, so I'm
"resolving" this one the way such bugs are usuall
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: cris-elf
This is a placeholder tracking all cris-specific performance-regressions
related to work of getting rid
||2020-01-22
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52516
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2013-02-09
18:19:28 UTC ---
I suggest this be marked as xfail, referring to PR45586.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2013-02-17
00:33:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I'm getting back to this because I think that we should reinstate the original
> patch, now that the blockage patch has been installed.
*wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2013-02-18
22:21:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The original patch was the patch you reverted in comment #1 and the fix for
> the
> original issue. As far as I can see, you didn't put it ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56371
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|3.4.0 |3.1.2
Resolution||FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2013-03-16
13:20:38 UTC ---
There
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38026
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38026
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2013-04-20
01:54:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I can't repeat it
> with a revision near ToT,
I tested using r175148 on the 4.3-branch, in case it was unclear.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crowl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54261
Bug #: 54261
Summary: reverse sync/atomic operators when only
sync_compare_and_swap_optab libfuncs implemented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
||2012-08-14
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-14
19:55:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28017
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-14
22:16:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> ,,,
> In fact, the compiler implements __atomic_is_lock_free() by (paraphrased):
ITYM *will* implement. :) Right now we still have PR54004.
> So if a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54266
Bug #: 54266
Summary: atomic / sync preprocessor macros inconsistent with
(does not reflect) functionality of atomic / sync
support.
Classification: Unclassified
Product
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54261
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54261
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-16
22:03:39 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Aug 16 22:03:33 2012
New Revision: 190454
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190454
Log:
PR middle-end/54261
* optabs.c (expand_at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54261
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-16
22:05:37 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Aug 16 22:05:32 2012
New Revision: 190455
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190455
Log:
PR middle-end/54261
* gcc.dg/torture/pr54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-16
22:23:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Actually, that's the way __atomic_is_lock_free() has always been implemented
> (even in 4.7).
There's miscommunication here. The point of this PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54261
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-17
00:18:42 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Fri Aug 17 00:18:35 2012
New Revision: 190463
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190463
Log:
PR middle-end/54261
* optabs.c (expand_at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54261
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54308
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54308
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-19
18:29:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I was unable to build 4.1.2-27.fc7 from the SRPM.
I'm not sure it would have helped, seeing as the breakage was in
rs6000-specific parts.
> So, I've g
||2012-08-22
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-22
19:59:16 UTC
||2012-08-25
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-25
13:47:55 UTC ---
This should have been fixed; libiberty is longer a target library. Try any
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373
Bug #: 54373
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression]: build fails for
mmix-knuth-mmixware libobjc GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
||2012-08-25
Version|4.7.0 |4.7.2
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-26
04:23:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Some time after the 4.6 branch building binutils separately (not in a combined
> tree) broke.
To wit, a build with in-tree binutils works. But, it wor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-26
05:30:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Thus, for in-tree binutils, support for .hidden is turned off (*)
It's yet another configure bug that .hidden is turned on for the linker: it's
turned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-28
21:59:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Andrew I'll revert
Then please set the object pointer to NULL in the __atomic_is_lock_free
call.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54474
Bug #: 54474
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gfortran.dg/coarray_poly_3.f90
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54474
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-04
16:52:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Apparently Tobias is not around today. I have posted a potential fix at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-09/msg8.html
Though I'm not an appr
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54573
Bug #: 54573
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.dg/builtin-object-size-8.c
execution test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54570
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-14
01:03:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> *** Bug 54573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry, but bugzilla just didn't find this for me when doing due diligence.
Putting "built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54570
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-14
01:30:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Sorry, but bugzilla just didn't find this for me when doing due diligence.
Update: now it does. Weird. I guess the database wasn't updated or somethi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54572
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-16
23:16:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > You need unwind frames present for this to work,
> How is this different from the current backtracing implementation in
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54584
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-18
23:30:23 UTC ---
This seems to be just a problem with flawed elf2flt linker placement of
orphaned sections. But, I can't find where -elf2flt is handled in FSF
binutils; you need to talk to whomev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54645
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54645
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-25
23:27:34 UTC ---
Looks fixed. Maybe reporter or fixer would like to close it.
,
||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-26
15:21:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I am not sure where the sources
> for the web pages are. Are they in the GCC source tree somewhere?
> I didn&#
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-27
00:36:43 UTC ---
Closing, as reporter confirmed the issue being fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54787
Bug #: 54787
Summary: Inconsistent -Wtype-limits warning for different-sized
bitfields
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54787
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-02
20:47:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 28336
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28336
test-case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54787
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-03
03:31:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> ...need to turn it off per-file (by adding "-Wno-error=type-limits" to
> compilations using the common idiom of -Werror together with warnings th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54762
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
Bug #: 54860
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: build fails on cris-elf configuring
libgfortran due to recent "attribute" changes in core
gcc
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-08
22:46:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> $ ./f951 -quiet ../../prtests/test.f -ffixed-form
> $
>
> I am not seeing the crash.
Does running valgrind on that show anything suspicious
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
01:48:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'll try a few other hosts here.
Build also fails for x86_64 Fedora 8 (gcc-4.1.2-33) and Debian squeeze 6.0.4
"gcc version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
03:25:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I'll try a few other hosts here.
>
> Build also fails for x86_64 Fedora 8 (gcc-4.1.2-33) and Debian squeeze 6.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
20:43:11 UTC ---
The patch fixes the problem for cris-elf with no regressions in test-suite
results. Thanks!
But, the new tests introduce some new failures:
+g++.sum g++.dg/cpp0x/gen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54879
Bug #: 54879
Summary: gcc/combine.c:12018: warning: comparison always false
due to limited range of data type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #16 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
21:57:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 28407
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28407
Excerpt from g++.log with the mentioned new errors
I would have attached the whole of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #17 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
22:02:22 UTC ---
To be absolutely clear: I don't really care about the new errors, it was just
appropriate to mention them. Don't let any investigation hold up your
break-fixing commit...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54882
Bug #: 54882
Summary: build fails for rl78-elf building libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Bug #: 54897
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: 23_containers/bitset/45713.cc (test
for excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11
01:36:30 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Oct 11 01:36:24 2012
New Revision: 192345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192345
Log:
PR target/54373
* configure.a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54373
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11
01:38:52 UTC ---
Related configury bits committed on trunk; will keep PR open until tested and
fixed for 4.7 as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11
10:55:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Actually, I was wrong about 32-bit HWI, the actual problem is
> In cris case that is MIN (32 + 3 + 1, 32), while i?86/x86_64 have 64 resp. 128
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |testsuite
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-11
11:36:49 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Oct 11 11:36:39 2012
New Revision: 192354
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192354
Log:
PR testsuite/54897
* testsuit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54897
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Bug #: 55030
Summary: [4.8 Regression]:
gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution,
-Os (et al)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-23
01:05:29 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue Oct 23 01:05:25 2012
New Revision: 192701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192701
Log:
PR middle-end/55030
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55122
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55132
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55167
Bug #: 55167
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: g++.dg/other/vector-compare.C, ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55168
Bug #: 55168
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr44119.c ICE,
all but -O0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55167
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-01
19:52:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Since the error happens in expand, I assume this is a dup of PR 55001, for
> which I posted a patch earlier today.
It could be; that PR lacks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55168
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55167
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||55001
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
Bug #: 55186
Summary: gcc.dg/const-uniq-1.c fails due to vector expected but
not being in the constant pool
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
reconfirmed||2012-11-03
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55168
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55209
Bug #: 55209
Summary: gdb reports 'No symbol "" in current context.' at
-O0 -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55209
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-05
01:20:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 28616
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28616
pr55030-chk.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55209
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-05
01:21:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Set a breakpoint on line 5084
...in cse.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-05
22:17:18 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Mon Nov 5 22:17:14 2012
New Revision: 193194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193194
Log:
PR testsuite/55186
* gcc.dg/c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55188
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
1 - 100 of 1135 matches
Mail list logo
