http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16
20:23:20 UTC ---
The problem seems to be that PARM_DECLs are not marked as REG_USERVAR_P.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-16
21:57:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 27806
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27806
Proposed fix: Distinguish between a user variable and a function argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-15
21:08:30 UTC ---
FWIW, as far as I understand the ia64 data speculation semantics, it is OK to
use a speculated load, but the check must then be done on the use, i.e. in t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-15
21:17:34 UTC ---
What does the recovery code at 4404710 look like?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-15
22:52:31 UTC ---
Ah, of course the move branch register instruction faults if the NaT bit of
the source register is set. So the recovery code is irrelevant, and this could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29533
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21998
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53955
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53944
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12
18:23:33 UTC ---
Try obj-c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53924
Bug #: 53924
Summary: unhelpful diagnostic in invalid declaration list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53924
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53887
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53547
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53887
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-09
18:53:39 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jul 9 18:53:35 2012
New Revision: 189389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189389
Log:
gcc/
PR tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53887
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-08
20:23:40 UTC ---
Test case:
$ cat testsuite/g++.dg/pr53690.C
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options -std=c++11 }
extern C int printf (__const char *__restrict __format
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |tromey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-07
12:35:49 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Jul 7 12:35:44 2012
New Revision: 189349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189349
Log:
gcc/
PR tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-06
23:28:55 UTC ---
The problem is that the switch is not fully cleaned up, there are multiple case
labels going to the same target basic block:
(gdb) p debug_bb(e-src
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53818
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804
Bug #: 53804
Summary: branch reordering missed optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29
10:43:19 UTC ---
On x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, this case is optimized because the second branch
condition is combined for both foo1 and foo2:
bb 3:
D.1723_4 = b_3(D) 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53791
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-28
12:05:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The other trivially obvious possibility is to pattern-match this open-coded
switch/case and transform it back to switch/case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45891
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53791
Bug #: 53791
Summary: Branches not re-ordered using profile-information
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-26
10:47:05 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Tue Jun 26 10:47:01 2012
New Revision: 188983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188983
Log:
PR other/33190
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-26
11:27:47 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Tue Jun 26 11:27:41 2012
New Revision: 188984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188984
Log:
PR other/33190
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-26
22:21:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Learned some more. (For reference, this is all from Fr 17 Aug 21:29:16 UTC
2007 (revision 127595).)
Not defined by any target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #15 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-30
18:52:18 UTC ---
This bug results in real warnings being introduced unnoticed, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg02005.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-27
23:14:03 UTC ---
If this is fixed for GCC 4.7, why leave the bug report open? Do you plan to
back-port a similar fix to older release branches?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53321
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53321
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-26
19:42:26 UTC ---
Note, btw, that verify_cgraph() doesn't catch this. Honza, you loved checkers
so much a few years ago -- maybe this checker (also yours??) should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-21
23:15:31 UTC ---
What does clang report for this:
#include stdio.h
void f() {
printf(
%.
*d);
}
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53442
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-21
22:32:38 UTC ---
Have you compared the linker command lines (using gcc -v)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-21
23:21:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27466
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27466
Pass around the location of the format string
First, admittedly rather
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18927
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-17
17:55:01 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu May 17 17:54:52 2012
New Revision: 187633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187633
Log:
PR rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-17
19:09:14 UTC ---
Mikael, is it possible for you to test if this is caused by this patch, please?
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=142443
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-17
21:19:28 UTC ---
To fix this properly, the input location should be tracked for the format
string. The location of the format string as argument to printf is available in
c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-10
22:17:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 27369
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27369
Compute REG_LIVE_LENGTH smarter
The way local_live is used to compute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
19:03:01 UTC ---
From gcc61:
$ /lib/libc-2.7.so
GNU C Library stable release version 2.7, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-07
13:57:49 UTC ---
Duh!
Index: gimplify.c
===
--- gimplify.c (revision 187219)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-07
14:40:43 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon May 7 14:40:33 2012
New Revision: 187248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187248
Log:
PR middle-end/53245
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #14 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-06
21:40:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27328
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27328
Remove unused sched_branch_type stuff from m68k
Patch speaks for itself
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-05
10:06:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 27315
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27315
Avoid diving deep through generated IOR trees for EQ_ATTR
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-05
10:13:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 27316
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27316
Difference in insn-attrtab.c before/after applyin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-04
20:04:56 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Fri May 4 20:04:47 2012
New Revision: 187181
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187181
Log:
PR other/29442
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37733
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36732
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31603
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53168
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-03
08:31:54 UTC ---
I don't remember. Did you look at the paper/thesis to see if it says anything
about this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53178
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-02
12:57:17 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Wed May 2 12:57:10 2012
New Revision: 187048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187048
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
17:11:15 UTC ---
This is the early forwprop eliminating the promotion cast from char to int. I
don't think this is a valid transformation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-30
21:43:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27272
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27272
Eliminate unreachable case labels
This is basically what the code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Poor code for conversion|[powerpc] Poor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-23
20:13:29 UTC ---
Smaller test case:
_Bool
foo (long unsigned int a)
{
return (((1L a) 217579583UL) != 0);
}
==
.file t.c
.section.toc,aw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Bug #: 53087
Summary: Poor code for conversion from _Bool to int
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-23
17:13:28 UTC ---
Expected code:
foo:
.quad .L.foo,.TOC.@tocbase,0
.previous
.type foo, @function
.L.foo:
lwz 9,0(3)
cmplwi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Bug #: 53034
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] tree-switch-conversion is
too aggressive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
20:25:45 UTC ---
The gimple switch conversion pass is much too aggressive, worse code is
generated for the examples that were used to introduce the implementation of
switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-29
21:00:32 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Mar 29 21:00:23 2012
New Revision: 185977
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185977
Log:
PR java/52730
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52783
Bug #: 52783
Summary: Go front end emits assembly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
701 - 800 of 1050 matches
Mail list logo