Hi,
We are implementing a new context-sensitive algorithm for pointer
analysis in GCC-4.5.0.
Can anyone please suggest some good benchmarks for testing it ?
Thanks,
Swaroop.
On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Dave Korn dave.korn.cygwin@ writes:
What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader
interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting object
format independence equally everywhere for no extra cost.
I know this sounds like it might be better answered in gcc-help, but
if I am right this is a bug report.
I'm using gcc 4.5 branch, rev. 165881 (a week old), on x86-64 Linux.
This testcase is derived from a larger program. I have looked at the
assembly and was puzzled.
#include set
#include
On 29 Oct 2010, at 09:56, Dave Korn wrote:
This implements an object file reader/writer which does everything
required by LTO and gccgo. The ELF code works. I have not tested
the
Mach-O and COFF code at all beyond compiling it; I hope that somebody
else can test those targets and fix them.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:56:02AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Dave Korn dave.korn.cygwin@ writes:
What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader
interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com writes:
What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader
interface between lto and go (and the lto-plugin), thereby getting object
format independence
On 29/10/2010 14:31, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
This patch requires approval from the LTO maintainers. I don't need
approval for the libiberty changes (if the code stays in libiberty) but
of course I would appreciate it if
On 29/10/2010 14:18, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:56:02AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Dave Korn dave.korn.cygwin@ writes:
What would be even nicer would be if we could share the same code-reader
interface between lto and go (and
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
Doesn't the go compiler require functional split stack support? Mike Stump
left me with the impression that split stack support would require additional
linker support on darwin.
The Go compiler can work without split stack support. The effect
roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com writes:
How are they split before register allocation or scheduling. We've
said that in any case only the combiner does the splitting.
No, we haven't said that. Or, if we did, we made a mistake. The
documentation I see says There are two cases where you should
Hi
I am working on a tool for building all the possible variants of C
code form the unpreprocessed file in order to perform an analysis on
those files proving some sort of correctness. The idea is to make sure
that any combination of preprocessor flags would produce a correct (in
terms of some
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:49:51AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
Doesn't the go compiler require functional split stack support? Mike
Stump
left me with the impression that split stack support would require
additional
linker support
On 10/28/2010 6:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
This patch requires approval from the LTO maintainers. I don't need
approval for the libiberty changes (if the code stays in libiberty) but
of course I would appreciate it if somebody could look it over. I think
the configure and Makefile
Zeev Tarantov zeev.taran...@gmail.com writes:
I know this sounds like it might be better answered in gcc-help, but
if I am right this is a bug report.
You can send bug reports to gcc-help also.
For this case please file an optimization bug report at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla with your test
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
Is split stack support unique to the go compiler or might it eventually
be leveraged in the other compilers as well? We could submit a radar for
the addition of split stack support for the linker in Xcode 4.0 or later
but it would helpful if
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
On 10/28/2010 03:10 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
Georg Lay schrieb:
This code is not nice.
;; d8 = d4 * d6
;; d8 = d2
;; d2 = d8
;; return d2
this should be
;; d2 = d4 * d6
;; d8 = d2
;; d2 = d8
;; return d2
It seems to me that some of your peepholes should
On 10/29/2010 05:08 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
As far as I understand the internals, peephole2 matches due to predicates and
condition, it does not care for constraints (except for optional match_scratch)
Yes, I was referring as using constraints in the define_insn. But
you're dong that as far as
Artem Shinkarov artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com writes:
That is why now I want to use a gcc code-base for solving the same
task. And the main problem for me at the moment is to build a cpp
binary which would be able to handle options for preprocessor but
which would not pull so many code from
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:45:43 +0100
Artem Shinkarov artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, you are right the goals are of course separable but my concern is
the following. All that I want to implement is a different behaviour
for handling conditional an macros. So basically all the
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
On 10/29/2010 05:08 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
As far as I understand the internals, peephole2 matches due to
predicates and
condition, it does not care for constraints (except for optional
match_scratch)
Yes, I was referring as using constraints in the define_insn. But
On 10/29/2010 06:18 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 register_operand )
(and:SI (match_operand:SI 1 register_operand )
(match_operand:SI 2 const_int_operand )))
(clobber (match_operand:SI 3 register_operand ))]
...
Hi Fred,
If you have access to a lm32 toolchain, can you test if gcc.c-
torture/execute/built-in-setjmp.c passes at different optimization levels?
For a SVN snapshot from yesterday, patched so it fixes the problem Nathan
mentioned:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/built-in-setjmp.c execution,
I have collected most papers and presentations for this year's GCC
summit at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/summit2010
Authors: please check and make sure that I uploaded the right content.
If you find a problem and can edit the wiki, please fix it yourself.
If not, contact me and I will fix it for
Artem Shinkarov artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com writes:
So my idea is to create just a light version of cpp binary. I'm not
saying that we need to replace an existing approach of preprocessing
used in gcc (cpp is basically gcc -E). I'm just saying that it could
be a nice thing to have.
I am
I see documentation for TARGET_VALID_POINTER_MODE, and I see ports that define
it... but I don't see any code that uses it.
Did I miss it?
paul
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
I see documentation for TARGET_VALID_POINTER_MODE, and I see ports that
define it... but I don't see any code that uses it.
Ok, there are two issues it seems. First it is used in target.def:
/* True if MODE is valid for
dear gcc programers:
I tried to use math lib's power by the following simple code
(actually I copy from
http://www.java2s.com/Code/C/Math/Howtousepow.htm
that site show this code should run, but I get compiler error about not define
pow, please help, Eric, in 4.4.3
-
that site show this code should run, but I get compiler error
Actually you get a *linker* (ie, ld) error. Try adding -lm to the command line.
Paolo
Ps: in the future please prefer gcc-help...
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
On 10/24/2010 07:40 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
configure.ac
Add libgo. If building Go, build C++ as a boot language.
Can you generalize this using something in gcc/go/config-lang.in?
I have now done this on the gccgo branch. If language X's
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
On 10/24/2010 07:40 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
configure.ac
Add libgo. If building Go, build C++ as a boot language.
Can you generalize this using something in
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
On 10/24/2010 07:40 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
configure.ac
Add libgo. If building Go, build C++ as a boot language.
Can you generalize
Quoting Mohamed Shafi shafi...@gmail.com:
On 29 October 2010 00:06, Joern Rennecke joern.renne...@embecosm.com wrote:
Quoting Mohamed Shafi shafi...@gmail.com:
Hi,
I am doing a port in GCC 4.5.1. For the port
1. there is only (reg + offset) addressing mode only when reg is SP.
Other base
+extern objfile_read *
+objfile_open_read (int descriptor, off_t offset, const char *segment_name,
+const char **errmsg, int *err);
...
+extern objfile_write *
+objfile_start_write (objfile_attributes *ATTRS, const char *segment_name,
+ const char **errmsg,
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
On 10/24/2010 07:40 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
configure.ac
Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46211
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46219
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-10-29 08:17:17
UTC ---
For some reason, memory operand is prohibited in a sibcall, see predicates.md:
;; Test for a valid operand for a call instruction.
(define_predicate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29 08:31:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Meanwhile I am puzzled by the patch. My understanding of
compare_type_rank and compare_type_rank_if is that these tests should be
symmetric:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46222
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE in grokdeclarator, at
cp/decl.c:9441
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46207
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-29
11:09:25 UTC ---
So this is part of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3164.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46223
Summary: gfortran.dg/bessel_7.f90 failures on
s390-ibm-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46212
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46190
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46217
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46216
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46221
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2010-10-29 13:01:34
UTC ---
I poked at this a little today. remove_unreachable_alias_pairs prunes the
alias_pair we need for some reason. I don't know my way around the cgraph code
well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46217
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
13:03:07 UTC ---
Actually we rewrite it into SSA form where we have no way to convince the
operand scanner to preserve the volatileness. I guess whoever uses automatic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224
Summary: Enhancement: Issue warning when matching placement
delete operator is missing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32469
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46225
Summary: Wrong code generated for certain constants
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39465
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40191
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
14:18:21 UTC ---
Comeau has a similar warning.
Here's a slightly smaller testcase that should produce a warning:
#include cstddef
#include new
void* operator new(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46213
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
Summary: asm goto may leave stack pointer invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46196
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46227
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vector-shift2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46219
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45270
Changpeng Fang changpeng.fang at amd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
16:56:26 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Oct 29 16:56:18 2010
New Revision: 166067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166067
Log:
PR rtl-opt/46226
* stmt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Summary: code produced for STL container is worse in 4.5.1 than
in 4.4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
16:58:43 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Oct 29 16:58:36 2010
New Revision: 166068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166068
Log:
PR rtl-opt/46226
* stmt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
17:12:51 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Oct 29 17:12:46 2010
New Revision: 166069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166069
Log:
PR rtl-opt/46226
Move test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46226
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
17:16:16 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Oct 29 17:16:11 2010
New Revision: 166070
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166070
Log:
PR rtl-opt/46226
Move test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41822
Paul Koning pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46229
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-?.c issues on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46230
Summary: Several SLP tests XPASS on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46231
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/slp-reduc-[36].c FAIL on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
Summary: [4.6 regression] 64-bit gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr14814.c
FAILs on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.2 |---
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46233
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed: control
flow in the middle of basic block 3 with
-foptimize-sibling-calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46233
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
20:56:43 UTC ---
Here is a simple testcase which shows the problem is not in the tail call
optimization pass:
int
foo ()
{
int i = 0;
while (1)
{
i += foo ();
}
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46233
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46204
Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46234
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_2 for va-arg-XXX tescases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #23 from sebpop at gmail dot com sebpop at gmail dot com
2010-10-29 21:44:09 UTC ---
Hi,
here is a preliminary patch (not tested yet other that the PR testcase).
This patch improves chrec_apply to also handle these very uncommon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
--- Comment #16 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2010-10-29 21:51:20 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 02:51:33PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
program hmm
doubleprecision, allocatable :: x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-10-29 21:58:46 UTC ---
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, sebpop at gmail dot com wrote:
here is a preliminary patch (not tested yet other that the PR testcase).
How
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #91 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-29 22:29:10
UTC ---
I just noticed that the latest patch is causing a failure of
gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 with -O1 on my ia64-hp-hpux11.23 platform.
Note that the original
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46222
Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #92 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-10-29 22:33:04
UTC ---
See followup here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01636.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #93 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-29 22:39:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #92)
See followup here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01636.html
Ah yes, that's better.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46233
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46207
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46227
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44569
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #2 from Ian Harvey ian_harvey at bigpond dot com 2010-10-29
23:20:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 22202
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22202
Possible patch for PR44265
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46234
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
23:22:24 UTC ---
So, what is it? please properly mark bugs as regression if you know a working
version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46231
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46230
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
