We are experimenting on the custom sparc-based core for embedded applications.
The big headache that I am facing these days is that -mcpu=v8(gcc-sparc-v8)
does not support little-endian. After web searching, it seems that
gcc-sparclet supported V8 engine but it seems that it's now deleted(?).
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
Lawrence == Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com writes:
Lawrence Hm. I haven't thought about this deeply, but I think SFINAE may
Lawrence not be less of an issue because it serves to remove candidates
Lawrence from potential
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov
dtemirbula...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We noticed some performance gains if we are not using jump over some
simple switch statements. Here is the idea: Check whether the switch
statement can be expanded with conditional instructions. In that
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
The error in 252.eon was due to incorrect setup. Also if (count
3*PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_SWITCH_JUMP_TABLES_BB_OPS_LIMIT)) does not look
correct, and probably it is better to move
Yes, the binary size is 8-10% smaller. Unfortunately there are no performance
improvements.
LTO+PGO-disable-plugin:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 markus markus 15025568 Mar 25 15:49 cc1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 markus markus 16198584 Mar 25 15:49 cc1plus
-rwxr-xr-x 1 markus markus 13907328 Mar 25 15:49 lto1
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26 März 2013 um 12:13:26 Uhr
Von: Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz
An: Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de
Betreff: Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)
Yes, the binary size is 8-10% smaller. Unfortunately there are no
Hi, sorry for the delay of this reply but just returned from paternity leave.
Have you had a look at the SH backend? SH cores have a T Bit
register, which functions as carry bit, over/underflow, comparison
result and branch condition register. In the SH backend it's treated as
a fixed
Hi, sorry for the delay of this reply but just returned from paternity leave.
-Original Message-
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson [mailto:h...@bitrange.com]
Sent: 05 March 2013 01:45
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Modeling predicate registers with more than one bit
Hi everyone,
While working with some splitters I noticed that the RTL optimisation
passes do not optimise away a no-op wrapped in a cond_exec.
So for example, if my splitter generates something like:
(cond_exec (lt:SI (reg:CC CC_REGNUM) (const_int 0))
(set (match_dup 1)
I was playing with adding support of the various modes of widening
multiplies on my backend, and hit some restrictions in the expansion
code that I couldn't explain to myself. These restrictions only impact
the signed by unsigned version.
The first limitation was about the detection of widening
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Paulo Matos wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson [mailto:h...@bitrange.com]
Sent: 05 March 2013 01:45
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Modeling predicate registers with more than one bit
Except for CCmodes being dependent
While working on having the divisions by constants optimized by my GCC
targeting, I realized that whatever *muldi3_highpart my backend
provides, it would never be used because of the bounds checks that
expmed.c does on the cost arrays. For example:
choose_multiplier (abs_d, size, size - 1,
Hello everyone,
I am trying to clone a git repository and I am getting the following
error. Can someone please tell me what this error could be and how I could fix
this? It worked for me a while back but not now.
I tried the following command:
git clone http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
On 2013.03.26 at 18:28 +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello everyone,
I am trying to clone a git repository and I am getting the following
error. Can someone please tell me what this error could be and how I could
fix this? It worked for me a while back but not now.
I tried the
Richard Did you consider using clang?
Richard runs...
We may look at it after re-examining g++.
I think there are some reasons to prefer gcc.
Tom
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
Richard Did you consider using clang?
Richard runs...
We may look at it after re-examining g++.
I think there are some reasons to prefer gcc.
Yes, obviously :-)
-- Gaby
-Original Message-
From: Markus Trippelsdorf [mailto:mar...@trippelsdorf.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:16 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'; Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com)
Subject: Re: GIt Issue
On 2013.03.26 at 18:28 +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello
On 3/25/13, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the intro text of this message provides the best summary
of the approach:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-07/msg00284.html
Are the symbol searches specific to the scope context, or does it
search all globally defined symbols?
The big headache that I am facing these days is that
-mcpu=v8(gcc-sparc-v8 does not support little-endian. After web
searching, it seems that gcc-sparclet supported V8 engine but it seems that
it's now deleted(?).
I'm not sure that SPARClet was V8. In any case, the SPARC V8 architecture is
Iyer, Balaji V balaji.v.i...@intel.com writes:
I tried the following command:
git clone http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git gcc.git
Please try the git protocol instead of http:
git clone git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git gcc.git
Thanks for your help Markus. Unfortunately, http is the only option
Hello everyone,
I am trying to understand the points-to analysis (pta) ipa pass, but
I am not able to match the information generated by the pass and that
in structure SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO.
For the code segment,
--
int var1, var2, var3, var4, *ptr1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56712
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-03-26 06:13:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Works for me with 4.7/4.8/4.9, and 4.5 and older, but fails with 4.6.
The bug was fixed for 4.7.0 by r180700; that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56712
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2013-03-26 06:15:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29724
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29724
backport of the above mentioned fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56734
Bug #: 56734
Summary: Even simple exceptions cause a segmentation fault in
my build of gcc on Solaris 10.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56734
--- Comment #1 from Marc Girod marc.girod at gmail dot com 2013-03-26
07:53:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 29726
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29726
the main function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56734
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-03-26
09:09:18 UTC ---
Works for me on Solaris 2.10/SPARC, gcc-4.7.2 configured w/ Sun not GNU
binutils:
g++ -O -c Core.ii
g++ -O -c CoreTest.ii
g++ Core.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56730
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-03-26
10:04:17 UTC ---
AFAICT this has been fixed by revision 187192 (pr41600). I don't think this is
a regression: I get the ICE for 4.5.3, 4.6.3, and 4.7.2 (CLASS is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26 10:06:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I don't know the best way to resolve this PR: WONTFIX or FIXED?
FIXED I would say (provided the behavior on trunk is ok).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
Bug #: 56735
Summary: Namelist Read Error with question marks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #52 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
10:09:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #51)
(struct mem_ref): Replace mem member with ao_ref typed member.
RTL gcse (-O2) suffers from the same slowness in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56608
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-03-26
10:17:25 UTC ---
It works for me (x86_64-apple-darwin10) from 4.4.6 up to the latest trunk
(197095). On which platform do you see this problem (post the output of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-03-26 10:18:00 UTC ---
Unfortunately, Andrew Pinski's patch from PR debug/51471 doesn't help
this time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56736
Bug #: 56736
Summary: Broken link in http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56712
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-03-26
10:24:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created attachment 29724 [details]
backport of the above mentioned fix
Don't base your backport on the original patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
10:24:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 29727
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29727
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-03-26
10:26:04 UTC ---
Note that essentially by definition an ICE per se cannot be a library issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
--- Comment #2 from Adam Williams madawilliams at gmail dot com 2013-03-26
10:26:43 UTC ---
Hi Dominique
Cheers for the quick response. Here is my gfortran -v info:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56736
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #18 from Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
10:48:18 UTC ---
Sure. But I'm not quite sure which change you are referring to. I see 2
related patches (well, 3 but one is the reversal of the first one). I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-03-26
10:56:53 UTC ---
ce-index is a CONST_DECL in mainline and 4_8-branch, an Ok INTEGER_CST in
4_7-branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa*-*-* |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2013-03-26 11:10:50
UTC ---
Probably fixed by:
From 96a1fa3ac96f6b9339091249b40fd72783532397 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: law law@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Tue,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56650
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
11:22:54 UTC ---
Probably due to not simplifying c_sizeof(), cf. PR 36437. Related PR46641 and
PR45824
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56737
Bug #: 56737
Summary: Bizarre Hollerith edit descriptor errors (valgrind
shows uninitialized value in libgfortran)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56738
Bug #: 56738
Summary: ICE in c-c++-common/torture/vshuf-v4di.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56738
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56736
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56738
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-03-26
11:57:58 UTC ---
I see a similar error on powerpc-*-* (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-03/msg02572.html ) for
c-c++-common/torture/vshuf-v2di.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56738
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26 12:07:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I see a similar error on powerpc-*-* (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-03/msg02572.html ) for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56735
--- Comment #5 from Adam Williams madawilliams at gmail dot com 2013-03-26
12:14:01 UTC ---
Cheers Dominique,
Unfortunately the code in question is ~25years old with an existing user base
and the namelist is used to set a vast number of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038
--- Comment #5 from Kai Koehne kai.koehne at digia dot com 2013-03-26
12:26:04 UTC ---
Can confirm that the patch fixes the issue when applied locally.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56738
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56739
Bug #: 56739
Summary: FreeBSD ia64:
gcc49/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd10.0/libstdc++-v3
/include/mutex:781:41: internl compiler error:
Segmentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-03-26
13:35:30 UTC ---
Started with http://gcc.gnu.org/r188742 or http://gcc.gnu.org/r188743.
With r188742 I get:
In file included from ploaderhook.c:25:0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56740
Bug #: 56740
Summary: duplicat DW_TAG_const_type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56741
Bug #: 56741
Summary: Why not to perform 128-bit vector iteration when
vectorizing loop by 256-bit
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56741
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56729
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54359
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56617
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56649
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56649
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56729
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56689
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
15:14:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 29731
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29731
patch to add clobbers
This patch adds the clobber assignments as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34949
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29731|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
15:20:34 UTC ---
vectorizable_condition gets this stmt:
patt_10 = i.1_17 == 0 ? 1 : 0;
We can't do just
if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (vectype)))
return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Bug #: 56742
Summary: Optimization bug lead to uncaught throw
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26 16:03:04
UTC ---
Created attachment 29733
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29733
Untested patch
I was thinking about something like this. In 4.8, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26 16:11:46
UTC ---
Per http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00970.html would it be OK to
get this committed to the 4.8 branch and head?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-03-26 16:12:27 UTC
---
Confirmed. We don't optimize callgraph cycles with one externally visible
entry that way. And I believe we currently have no way of annotating a
single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
Bug #: 56743
Summary: Namelist bug with comment and no blank
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
16:20:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 29733 [details]
Untested patch
I was thinking about something like this. In 4.8, I added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56744
Bug #: 56744
Summary: [meta-bug] Namelist bugs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55951
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26
16:57:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 29734
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29734
Draft patch (only for read_integer)
Draft patch - fixes the issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731
--- Comment #4 from tiloschwarz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-26 17:05:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
AFAICT this has been fixed by revision 187192 (pr41600). I don't think this is
a regression: I get the ICE for 4.5.3, 4.6.3, and 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56745
Bug #: 56745
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in merge_if_block
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56745
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
