--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-16 07:16
---
Subject: Re: usual arithmetic conversion not
applying correctly
Wonder if this PR could still be considered a missed optimization, as the
present logic which determines if an / or % expression's operands may b
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
06:46 ---
Confirmed.
gcc_assert (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (se->expr)));
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19276
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19467
program test_ch_nml
character(len=2):: ch(2)=(/"aa","bb"/)
namelist /a/ ch
write(*,nml=a) !!This is the offending statement
end program test_ch_nml
$ d:/irun/bin/gfortran test_ch_nml.f90
test_ch_nml.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
test_ch_nml.f90:4: internal compiler error: in gfc_c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
04:50 ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Here is the current results for 3.3.2 vs the mainline:
> -O0 -O1 -O2 -O3
> 3.3.2 28.93 42.81 61.1358.140
> mainline 11.
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-01-16 03:35 ---
If we're going to mark this as a regression, can somebody pin down the cases
where mainline gcc is slower than gcc 2.95?
On my system it is about 35% faster. But that is on a Pentium 4.
I know that Roger Sayle did so
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
01:54 ---
I cannot decide if I should put this in C++ or debug component based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00871.html
But if it was broken by the patch referenced in that email then the testresul
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last reconfirmed|2004-11-06 17:36:15 |2005-01-16 01:40:54
date|
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Priority|P1 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
01:36 ---
CCing kazu because he opened most of the bugs.
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||336, 15826
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19466
Just a place holder for referencing all of the missed-optimizations with
bit-fields.
--
Summary: [meta-bug] bit-fields are non optimal
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, meta-bug
Severity
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|2004-04-26 19:40:07 |2005-01-16 01:27:55
date|
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|2004-08-20 15:20:16 |2005-01-16 01:26:56
date|
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Last reconfirmed|2004-10-17 0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16
01:15 ---
This could either be a newlib bug in their headers or a bug in GCC.
Could you attach the preprocessed source for file1.c and file2.c?
(This also might be fixed on the mainline by a patch by me but since I d
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|Compiling multiple source |[IMA] Compiling multiple
|file
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-16 00:44
---
The testcase works on Mac OS X 10.3.7 for me with -mcpu=G5 and all levels of
optimization. It does not work with -ffast-math, but that is expected. The
original bug report does not state what options are used
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|apple-ppc-darwin|powerpc-apple-darwin
GCC host triplet|apple-ppc-darwin|powerpc-apple-darwin
GCC target triplet|a
Executing:
# gcc -c file1.c file2.c -o file.o
gives the following errors:
In file included from file2.c:1:
C:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/../../../../include/stdio.h:216: error: re
definition of 'vsnprintf'
C:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/../../../../include/stdio.h:216: error: re
de
--- Additional Comments From ssolie at telus dot net 2005-01-15 23:10
---
Please add 3.4.2 to known to fail list.
7.Code:test> g++ -c bound_member.cpp
bound_member.cpp: In instantiation of `bound_member_action':
bound_member.cpp:10: instantiated from here
bound_member.cpp:8: error: `c
--- Additional Comments From konqueror at gmx dot de 2005-01-15 22:36
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Re
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 22:31
---
Will cvs up binutils and retry.
(Oh my. It might actually be that the checkout
is from before your recent .hidden/_GOT_-whatever
bfd fix!)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19461
--- Additional Comments From konqueror at gmx dot de 2005-01-15 22:30
---
I'm working on it.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |konquero
--- Additional Comments From konqueror at gmx dot de 2005-01-15 22:30
---
I'm working on it
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |konqueror
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-01-15 22:27 ---
I started a thread on c.l.f. The title is "whitespace in signed real literal
constants. So far, it appears that the code is indeed standard conforming.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
22:27 ---
Subject: Bug 19444
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-15 22:27:02
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog
libjava/java/net:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
22:06 ---
I just bootstrapped C,C++ mainline against Binutils 2.15 CVS without a hitch:
_eprintf.o: file format elf32-sparc
SYMBOL TABLE:
ldf *ABS* libgcc2.c
ld .text
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
21:48 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse
causes poor register allocation
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 21:44 +, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
21:44 ---
Subject: Re: New: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression]
gcse causes poor register allocation
> This is a regression and was introduced by this change:
I have a very hard time believing this, since the patch b
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
21:30 ---
Subject: Bug 19462
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-15 21:30:42
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/t
--- Additional Comments From zlaski at apple dot com 2005-01-15 21:27
---
Committed fix.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 21:27
---
Of course we need a test-case. Still, when I've assigned the bug to me
_I_will_take_care_of_that_. See also initial text. You're not helping.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
21:19 ---
Subject: Bug 19321
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-15 21:18:59
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/objc : C
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
21:06 ---
You know that there is a "view bug activity" which shows why something in the
state.
Again there is no testcase here, we really need one even though you are fixing
it.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 21:05
---
Hm, I thought I had assigned this to me. Stupid bugzilla.
--
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
21:04 ---
Confirmed, for 3.4 and 3.3, -fnew-ra fixes the problem so this is just the
register allocator really being
stupid.
With 4.0 and -fnew-ra, we just seg fault (I think this is why we should remove
-fnew-ra
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.3.5 3.4.4 4.0.0
Known to work||2.95.3 3.0.4
Target Milestone|---
GCC with gcse enabled generates very poor code for this fragment:
--
int r0, r1, r2, r3, r4, r5;
void f (int n)
{
while (-- n)
{
r1 += r0;
r2 += r1;
r3 += r2;
r4 += r3;
r5 += r4;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
20:39 ---
I would doubt this is target related but really the register allocator sucking.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-01-15 20:34 ---
Paul, the code is legal! Both NAG and Lahey compile the code
without warning or error. Apparently, IFC also compiles the
code. I just sent you a new patch to fix the bug.
--
http://gc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
20:27 ---
Well there is no testcase in this bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
20:22 ---
Still since Eric could bootstrap with the GNU binutils, this almost has to be a
binutils bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 20:19
---
Oh, you meant what binutils was used at the testresults URL!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19461
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 20:17
---
No, this is with gas and GNU ld, as I said:
Using `/tmp/hptmp/combined/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c' for machine-specific logic.
Using `/tmp/hptmp/combined/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.md' as machine description
file.
Usi
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 20:15
---
Why was severity changed to minor?
I changed it back to "normal"; this bug must be fixed,
so maybe it should have been "critical".
And I'll handle the test-case, don't worry.
--
What|Removed
Under elusive conditions, hence the rather cluttered testcase, i'm seeing some
387 constants being used here and there; it doesn't have a big performance
impact but it's not uncommon or correct :)
Happens on gcc-40102 and a 2 day old cvs version (post SSE audit).
With: -O2 -march=k8 -fomit-frame-
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
20:07 ---
Note: the patch doesn't fix the PR. It addresses a correctness issue
regarding the lack of TImode support on hppa64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19336
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
20:05 ---
Subject: Bug 19336
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-15 20:04:57
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/pa : p
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
20:03 ---
Any smaller testcase would be helpfull :).
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 19:51
---
This bug was first spotted with "Fri Jan 14 01:28:39 UTC 2005",
then confirmed on another system with "Fri Jan 14 10:58:15 CET 2005".
Patch-testing in progress.
--
What|Removed
Similar to PR target/7042, this bug is about reorg generating
a return insn while current_function_epilogue_delay_list.
The test-case is newlib/libc/string/wcscspn.c:1.1, which will
be entered in the test-suite (including copyright/license note)
with modified data-types to avoid included files.
Li
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
19:20 ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-01/msg00409.html
> hmm, I don't know if that was with the native tools or not.
Native, as neither --with-gnu-as not --with-gnu-ld is specified.
But I successf
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
19:14 ---
Which binutils version?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 19:13
---
For future reference, it would have been ok to assign this bug to me, once
the bug was diagnosed and attributed to an incomplete patch of mine.
(BTW, your patch introduces spurious spaces.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
19:08 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-01/msg00409.html
hmm, I don't know if that was with the native tools or not.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
Bootstrapping in a unified tree, LAST_UPDATED "Fri Jan 14 01:28:39 UTC 2005"
(together with gas and ld) with srcdir/configure --disable-nls
(because without that, I get missing NLS-related symbols, but that's another
story), from a gcc-2.95.2 installation and using GNU make, I get this error
(cut-n
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
18:21 ---
Fixed, the remaining build failure is recorded in PR 19327.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
18:18 ---
*** Bug 19436 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19327
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
18:18 ---
Confirmed as a dup of bug 19327, -O2 -gstabs causes a bootstrap failure on
ppc-darwin with the
same errror:
/usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols:
_exp_ch2__expand_current_value__in_appropriate_scope.625
_par__ch
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 18:09
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(again sorry), nor should ~0 be considred equivelent to -1, any more than any
explicit
non-signed constant like 0x for example be (as previously questioned), as
such
values only ha
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:36
---
(In reply to comment #0)
Lasly, (sorry for not collecting all thoughts first), suspect the problem may
be that
~ is being considered as being analogous to an arithmetic -, which it shoudn't
be;
therefore ~(any
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
17:27 ---
The patch causes problems:
spawn /xxx/gnu/gcc-3.4/objdir/gcc/g++ -shared-libgcc -B/xxx/gnu/gcc-3.4/objdir/g
cc/ -nostdinc++ -L/xxx/gnu/gcc-3.4/objdir/vax-dec-ultrix4.3/libstdc++-v3/src -L/
xxx/gnu/gcc-3.4/o
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:17
---
(In reply to comment #2)
where futher then any constant not explictly negative should be considerd
compatible with either
signed or unsigned assignment; thereby 0x8000 is compatible with either, as
the val
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
17:13 ---
*** Bug 19460 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
17:13 ---
This is a dup of bug 16861, I found this by looking at .mod for that PR and
looking for similarities (after
seeing the backtrack was similar).
Generic_EvalsAndETAX uses generic_evalgamma and array_bounds.
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
17:10 ---
Subject: Bug 19388
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-15 17:10:02
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/pa : p
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:07
---
(In reply to comment #1)
woudn't one exect that any constant >= 0 to be compatible with signed or
unsigned, where
only constants < 0 should be assumed to be only compatible with signed without
a cast?
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
17:01 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am testing BOOT_CFLAGS='-O2 -g -gstabs' on ppc-darwin to see if this is a
> dup of bug 19327.
Oh, the correct way to test that would be '-O2 -gstabs' and leave out the -g,
tes
--- Additional Comments From cummings at cacr dot caltech dot edu
2005-01-15 16:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=7965)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7965&action=view)
Generic_EvalsAndETAX.f90 source code and modules
Unpack this file and then run the compile command
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:51 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00882.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
GCC build triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
GCC target triplet||x86_64
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:49 ---
Confirmed, I have been wondering where this warning was coming from.
--
What|Removed |Added
One particular F90 source code file in our solver package causes gfortran to
issue an internal compiler error and seg fault. I have not been able to
determine precisely what in the file triggers the problem.
I am using gfortran version 4.0.0 20050106 (experimental). It was configured
and built
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:42 ---
Hmm, alphaev67-unknown-linux-gnu reported results on the 13th:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-01/msg00613.html
Are you sure that this is not fixed yet?
--
What|Removed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-01-15 16:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execu
> --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
> 12:39 ---
> Why is this a middle-end bug? Is this not tar
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:27 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Set to front-end bug based on observations by the reporter (as opposed to wild
> guessing by someone else...)
I was not guessing, I actually debuged this and came up with this conc
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 16:24
---
On mmix-knuth-mmixware, with "Sat Jan 15 12:02:23 UTC 2005"
build fails in a similar way, same reduced test-case,
with -O1 and -O2 (cut-n-pasted):
/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/gcc/xgcc -B/home/hp/combined/mmix
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:23 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
(Well considering, I asked the same question which Eric was asking, or really I
was asking the same
question).
And Eric put this into waiting for a reason and I am keeping it the
--- Additional Comments From mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 16:20
---
The crash probably came from the use of '.' instead of '/' in the JNI method
signature requested in the native code. Fixed in GNU Classpath CVS by:
2005-01-15 Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Repor
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 16:07
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19458 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:08 ---
Closing as fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RES
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 16:07
---
*** Bug 19459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
CVS 20050115 doesn't bootstrap on i486-linux.
Matthias
Last ChangeLog entry is
2005-01-15 Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
simplify_cond_and_lookup_avail_expr was last touch by
2005-01-15 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/i486-linux/bin/ -isyste
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 15:16
---
This happens also at x86_64-linux-gnu:
../../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__mulvti3':
../../gcc/libgcc2.c:279: internal compiler error: in
simplify_cond_and_lookup_avail_expr, at tree-ssa-dom.c:2099
Please sub
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2005-01-15 15:08
---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2005-01/msg01986.html suggests
> that it is a different patch.
I check GCC mainline (2005-01-15 09:00 GMT - before PR 19060 patch) - ./xgcc
compile __mulvdi3 without problems
And
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2005-01-15 15:06
---
> Are you sure?
I check GCC mainline (2005-01-15 09:00 GMT - before PR 19060 patch) - ./xgcc
compile __mulvdi3 without problems
And GCC mainline (2005-01-15 09:00 GMT - after PR 19060 patch) - ./xgcc
__mulvdi3 co
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 14:56
---
I have bootstrapped the patch yesterday on
{i386,x86_64,ppc,ppc64,s390,s390x,ia64}-redhat-linux and it certainly worked.
The only change was that tree_int_cst_equal || tree_int_cst_lt ->
tree_int_cst_lt
that
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
13:55 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2005-01/msg01986.html suggests that it is
a different patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19458
The following testcase, reduced from mulvdi3, causes an ICE.
int
foo (int c)
{
if (c >= 0)
return 1;
else if (c == -1)
return 1;
return 0;
}
internal compiler error: in simplify_cond_and_lookup_avail_expr, at
tree-ssa-dom.c:2099
Most likely, this patch caused the problem.
2005-01
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2005-01-15 13:12
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Miscompiling of if and "long long"
> --- Additional Comments From toa at pop dot agri dot ch 2005-01-15
> 12:48 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Miscompiling of
> if and
--- Additional Comments From andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
13:05 ---
Starting program: /mnt/slice1/gcc-trunk/objdir/gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed libgcc2.i
-quiet -dumpbase libgcc2.c -auxbase-strip libgcc/./_mulvdi3.o -g -O2 -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-pr
--- Additional Comments From andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
12:53 ---
Do not know if it is really this patch or if we uncover another problem:
/mnt/slice1/gcc-trunk/gcc/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__mulvdi3':
/mnt/slice1/gcc-trunk/gcc/gcc/libgcc2.c:279: internal compiler err
--- Additional Comments From toa at pop dot agri dot ch 2005-01-15 12:48
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Miscompiling of
if and "long long"
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
> 12:46 ---
> Jakub, can
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
12:46 ---
Jakub, can you please close bugs after you have commited your fixes?
Do not close it, it causes bootstrap failure on ppc linux.
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
12:46 ---
Jakub, can you please close bugs after you have commited your fixes?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
12:45 ---
Jason was looking into NRV issues...
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
