Hi all
I found IVopts rewrite a memory access with a weird iv candidate,
which make it lost its original memory attribute.
a non-local memory access' base pointer was rewrite into a local one,
and it was deleted in pass_cd_dce since
it was recognized as a local memory access.
here is the case
Here are the new patches for adding -Aleon to binutils and to add -Aleon
as default asm-switch to gcc:
- [PATCH 1/1] sparc leon: add -Aleon architecture to GAS:
Binutils patch
- [PATCH 1/1] sparc leon: Use -Aleon assembler switch for -mcpu=leon arch
Gcc patch
Add -Aleon architecture selection to GAS. -Aleon supports [umul,smul] and
[casa,casl].
Signed-off-by: Konrad Eisele kon...@gaisler.com
---
gas/config/tc-sparc.c |3 ++-
include/opcode/sparc.h |1 +
opcodes/sparc-opc.c| 16 +---
3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8
Use -Aleon to enable binutils sparc-leon architecture. The leon-arch
binutils GAS has umul/smul and casa enabled.
Signed-off-by: Konrad Eisele kon...@gaisler.com
---
gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.h
Please post binutils patches with the binutils development list CC:'d.
David Miller wrote:
Please post binutils patches with the binutils development list CC:'d.
Is the binutils development list bug-binut...@gnu.org ?
David Miller wrote:
From: Konrad Eisele kon...@gaisler.com
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:19:04 +0100
David Miller wrote:
Please post binutils patches with the binutils development list CC:'d.
Is the binutils development list bug-binut...@gnu.org ?
No, it's binut...@sourceware.org
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
This is somewhat of a me-too message for the transactional-memory work. We
would also like it to be considered for merging with mainline before the end
of stage1.
We have a kept a wiki here:
2011/11/1 杜越海 duyue...@gmail.com:
Hi all
I found IVopts rewrite a memory access with a weird iv candidate,
which make it lost its original memory attribute.
a non-local memory access' base pointer was rewrite into a local one,
and it was deleted in pass_cd_dce since
it was recognized as
Hello,
I have one example with two very similar loops. cunrolli pass unrolls one loop
completely
but not the other based on slightly different cost estimations. The
not-unrolled loop
get SLP-vectorized, then unrolled by cunroll pass, whereas the other unrolled
loop cannot
be vectorized since
gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 01/11/2011 12:41:32 PM:
Hello,
I have one example with two very similar loops. cunrolli pass
unrolls one loop completely
but not the other based on slightly different cost estimations. The
not-unrolled loop
get SLP-vectorized, then unrolled by cunroll pass,
Ira,
Thank you very much for quick answer. I will check 4.7 x86-64
to see difference from our port. Is there significant change
between 4.5 4.7 regarding SLP?
Cheers,
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Ira Rosen [mailto:i...@il.ibm.com]
Sent: 01 November 2011 11:13
To: Bingfeng Mei
Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com wrote on 01/11/2011 01:25:14 PM:
Ira,
Thank you very much for quick answer. I will check 4.7 x86-64
to see difference from our port. Is there significant change
between 4.5 4.7 regarding SLP?
Yes, I think so. 4.5 can't SLP data accesses with unknown
On 01/11/11 02:43, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Not obvious or maybe I was unclear as to what I alluded?
In the below insn-bodies, sub is the insn that sets cc0 as a
side-effect.
Supposed canonical form :
(parallel
[(set cc_reg) (compare ...))
(set destreg) (sub ...))])
and:
(parallel
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 10:49 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
This is somewhat of a me-too message for the transactional-memory work. We
would also like it to be considered for merging with mainline before the end
of
On 11/01/2011 01:52 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Yes, we think so. Transactional Memory (TM) is a very easy-to-use
synchronization mechanism, which does not burden the programmer with
having to consider issues such as deadlocks or having to rely on
conventions regarding which locks cover which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/11 03:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
Given that you only recently merged with trunk again are you
really sure this is a great idea at this point in time? Does the
GCC 4.7 user community benefit from this in any way (or rather how
much
Er, the macro _GLIBCXX_NPROCS already handles
the case sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN).
It looks like you actually want to remove the macro
_GLIBCXX_NPROCS completely.
Fixed.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/src/thread.cc b/libstdc++-v3/src/thread.cc
index 09e7fc5..6feda4d 100644
---
I've put gcc-patches@ back in the CC list and removed gcc@
On 1 November 2011 15:35, niXman wrote:
Er, the macro _GLIBCXX_NPROCS already handles
the case sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN).
It looks like you actually want to remove the macro
_GLIBCXX_NPROCS completely.
Fixed.
No, this still
On 11-11-01 11:23 , Jeff Law wrote:
This stuff is fairly isolated in terms of what it touches and I'm sure
if anything goes wrong, Aldy, Richard Torvald will be available to
fix it.
The request to merge came in before the end of stage1, I don't see a
reason to delay things another 6-9 months.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that you only recently merged with trunk again are you really
sure this is a great
idea at this point in time? Does the GCC 4.7 user community benefit from this
in any way (or rather how much percentage
On 11/1/2011 12:59 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that you only recently merged with trunk again are you really
sure this is a great
idea at this point in time? Does the GCC 4.7 user community benefit from
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 17:19, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 11/1/2011 12:59 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that you only recently merged with trunk again are you really
sure this is a great
idea
Richard who? There are two Richards in this thread, and they seem to
have opposing views.
I am confused by the multiple levels of quotes I think (the feature
in mailers of easily allowing you to include an entire earlier thread
is evil! :-)
Anyway, I support merging this in ...
Diego.
Aldy, Richard, is there a patchset or master patch I could read?
I have made current diff as of today:
http://quesejoda.com/tm-branch-latest.bz2
On 11-11-01 14:44 , Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Aldy, Richard, is there a patchset or master patch I could read?
I have made current diff as of today:
http://quesejoda.com/tm-branch-latest.bz2
Thanks.
Diego.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/11 12:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Aldy, Richard, is there a patchset or master patch I could read?
I have made current diff as of today:
http://quesejoda.com/tm-branch-latest.bz2
Umm,
Have you looked at those diffs, there's a fair
Have you looked at those diffs, there's a fair amount of unrelated
Will clean up.
crud in there... It might help to break the blob into more easily
understood hunks for actual submissions. ie, runtime bits (libitm),
changes to existing runtime stuff, compiler proper, testsuite bits, etc.
Hi!
As the vgather* insns are designed to support both
unconditional and conditional gather loads, the current
pattern consume the previous content of the destination
register, so we end up with code like:
vmovaps .LC0(%rip), %ymm0
vmovdqa .LC1(%rip), %ymm5
vmovdqa
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that you only recently merged with trunk again are you really
sure this is a great
idea at this point in time? Does the GCC 4.7
Please, when replying, also send to me, not just the list.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On 01/11/11 02:43, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Not obvious or maybe I was unclear as to what I alluded?
In the below insn-bodies, sub is the insn that sets cc0 as a
side-effect.
I'd like to see some breakdown into subsystem patches. Can someone provide
those together with changelog entries?
I am doing another merge from trunk-branch, and will post a series of
patches by subsystem. I will do so after the merge is complete and tested.
Snapshot gcc-4.4-2001 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-2001/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:58:03AM -0500, Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
I have not yet been able to figure out if it's a libgcc issue or an
actual compiler issue.
It is a gcc bug. I've added a comment to the PR.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
While I really like machine-readable (and searchable) text online for the GCC
internals, there's still an atavistic streak in me that wants hard copy that I
can put post-it notes on, run a highlighter over relevant passages or read when
I'm not near a computer screen.
I have two bound
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
--- Comment #9 from Rolf Pfister pfister at pci dot uzh.ch 2011-11-01
07:25:53 UTC ---
Am 31.10.11 21:38, schrieb manu at gcc dot gnu.org:
I sincerely hope you are not doing something important with your code. Relying
No, I dont use this code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #10 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
07:55:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I indeed do not know everything about the OS and what it does when I
allocate
an array. But that's exactly the purpose of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50939
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
Bug #: 50940
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2137
during bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50941
Bug #: 50941
Summary: [C++0x] user-defined string literals provide incorrect
length for wchar_t, char16_t, and char32_t
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50941
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-11-01 10:24:59 UTC ---
I need to make a correction in regard to the actually provided length values:
a) The following assertions incorrectly hold:
static_assert(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-11-01 10:55:21 UTC ---
Testcase:
% cat test.ii
typedef long int ptrdiff_t;
extern C {
typedef struct _IO_FILE FILE;
extern int fprintf (FILE *__restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50942
Bug #: 50942
Summary: Bootstrap failure on mingw32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50937
--- Comment #11 from fwi at inducks dot org 2011-11-01 12:00:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Sometimes abstractions leak, unfortunately. There's really not anything
gfortran can do about that. And, it's not unique to gfortran either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50943
Bug #: 50943
Summary: asm goto in templated code causes internal compiler
segfaults
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01 12:42:06 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Nov 1 12:42:01 2011
New Revision: 180737
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180737
Log:
2011-11-01 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50943
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50944
Bug #: 50944
Summary: gcc-4.6.x regression with complex.h on
i386-pc-solaris2.10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50944
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
13:34:23 UTC ---
(N.B. you could have just reopened PR 48949 and provided the requested info
there)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50500
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
13:48:21 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 1 13:48:16 2011
New Revision: 180738
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180738
Log:
PR c++/50500
DR 1082
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50910
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
14:10:23 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Nov 1 14:10:13 2011
New Revision: 180739
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180739
Log:
PR target/50910
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50910
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50918
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50197
Artem V. Andreev Artem.Andreev at oktetlabs dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-11-01
16:53:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I can confirm that the proposed patch resolves the build failures in xplor-nih
without regressions in the xplor-nih testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
Bug #: 50945
Summary: ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01 17:53:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 25676
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25676
Preprocessed source for failure case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01 17:55:48
UTC ---
WORKS: -O0 -msoft-float
FAILS: -O1 -msoft-float
FAILS: -O2 -msoft-float
WORKS: -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50944
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01
18:16:49 UTC ---
*** Bug 50944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46686
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc-rtems4.11 |sparc-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
--- Comment #12 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01 18:38:45 UTC ---
Author: jules
Date: Tue Nov 1 18:38:42 2011
New Revision: 180740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180740
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/47918
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47918
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50869
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Bug #: 50946
Summary: ICE on armhf with webkitgtk+
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-11-01 20:06:25
UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Nov 1 19:48:34 2011
New Revision: 180742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180742
Log:
PR target/50940
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50940
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50947
Bug #: 50947
Summary: ICE on armhf with llvm-2.x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50948
Bug #: 50948
Summary: ICE on armhf with neon code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50949
Bug #: 50949
Summary: ICE on armhf with neon code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50948
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50949
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50947
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50949
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Margaritis konstantinos.margaritis at linaro
dot org 2011-11-01 21:05:42 UTC ---
This is the full cmd line used:
gcc -g -O -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=hard -march=armv7-a -mthumb -fpermissive -c
matrix.i
This is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50948
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Margaritis konstantinos.margaritis at linaro
dot org 2011-11-01 21:07:59 UTC ---
This was the actual cmd line used:
gcc -O -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=hard -march=armv7-a -mthumb -fpermissive -c
matrix2-min.i
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Margaritis konstantinos.margaritis at linaro
dot org 2011-11-01 21:15:29 UTC ---
This is the actual cmd line used:
g++ -O2 -mfpu=vfpv3 -mfloat-abi=hard -march=armv7-a -mthumb -fpermissive -w -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50950
Bug #: 50950
Summary: warning missed when OR'ing to an uninitialized
variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50947
--- Comment #2 from Konstantinos Margaritis konstantinos.margaritis at linaro
dot org 2011-11-01 21:18:19 UTC ---
This is the actual cmd line used:
g++ -O2 -mfpu=vfpv3 -mfloat-abi=hard -march=armv7-a -mthumb -fpermissive -w -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01 21:48:26 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Nov 1 21:48:22 2011
New Revision: 180746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180746
Log:
2011-11-01 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.hope at linaro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50941
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2011-11-01
21:52:13 UTC ---
Divide by sizeof, then subtract 1.
Working on a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50951
Bug #: 50951
Summary: state of subtract_with_carry_engine not saved
correctly to output stream
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952
Bug #: 50952
Summary: libquad relocation R_X86_64_32S failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50952
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-01 22:42:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 25683
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25683
install log
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
