http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51353
Bug #: 51353
Summary: GCC incorrectly optimizes away assignment to return
address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51352
--- Comment #1 from Joshua Green 2011-11-30 06:23:40
UTC ---
(Of course, compiling under gcc requires replacing
#include
#include
with
#include
#include
and
std::cout << array[i][j] << "\n";
with
printf("%d\n", array[i][j]);
but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51352
Bug #: 51352
Summary: g++ can't pass variable-length array as a function
argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2011-11-30 04:44:18
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Nov 30 04:44:13 2011
New Revision: 181833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181833
Log:
PR libgomp/51298
* config/linux/bar.h: Use at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2011-11-30 03:44:02
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Nov 30 03:43:57 2011
New Revision: 181831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181831
Log:
PR libgomp/51249
* config/linux/sem.h: Rewrit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51351
Bug #: 51351
Summary: undefined reference to __sync_fetch_and_ior_4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51304
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-29
23:41:45 UTC ---
>g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
You are most likely hitting the stack limit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51281
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46027
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41868
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-29
23:18:32 UTC ---
No longer working on this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51337
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-11-29
22:52:59 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Nov 29 22:52:55 2011
New Revision: 181823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181823
Log:
PR target/51337
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-11-29
22:49:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Manu, could you look at this?
> This is quite an annoying regression for C++
After a couple of hours I gave up. I tried greping for "build.*finally",
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51275
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51243
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51009
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd at verizon dot net
--- Comment #
hen compiling the following code with g++ -Wall -O2 test.cc, one gets with GCC
4.7.0 20111129. [GCC 4.6.2 does not print a warning.]
test.cc:9:3: Warnung: assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming
that (X + c) < X is always false [-Wstrict-overflow]
However, I fail to see why one has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51198
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51319
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51318
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51348
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51348
--- Comment #1 from Volker Reichelt 2011-11-29
21:52:49 UTC ---
Confirmed. The code crashes since GCC 4.4.0 when scoped enums were introduced.
The ICE also appears without the 'class' keyword before the enum.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-29
21:03:18 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 29 21:03:09 2011
New Revision: 181818
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181818
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51247
* tree-vrp.c (ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51349
Bug #: 51349
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: obj-c++.dg/naming-[34].mm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51348
Bug #: 51348
Summary: [c++0x] ICE in finish_class_member_access_expr with
bogus(?) enum class use
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50123
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod 2011-11-29
19:42:50 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Tue Nov 29 19:42:44 2011
New Revision: 181815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181815
Log:
2011-11-29 Andrew MacLeod
PR target/501
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310
--- Comment #1 from Toon Moene 2011-11-29 19:37:19 UTC
---
Created attachment 25948
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25948
Untested patch to the documentation
This is a completely untested patch to the documentation, as I cann
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51347
--- Comment #1 from Roman Tsisyk 2011-11-29 18:59:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 25947
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25947
gcc output 20111129
roducible and tested on various configurations.
I simplified code and made reduced testcase.
gcc from the trunk rev 181801 date 2029.
Debian gcc-snapshot 2014 has some problems.
--
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot
--disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++ --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51117
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2011-11-29
17:49:31 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Nov 29 17:49:24 2011
New Revision: 181810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181810
Log:
2011-11-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/40958
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
--- Comment #2 from Diego Novillo 2011-11-29
17:50:01 UTC ---
Investigating.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-11-29 17:47:40
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 181803:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-11/msg01097.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
Bug #: 51346
Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51338
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51038
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51276
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51189
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51276
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51276
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2011-11-29
15:54:24 UTC ---
This bug seems to have disappeared (cool!). At least the attached file doesn't
crash g++, and I don't see this error anywhere in our testsuite anymore
(although it might be hidden by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51038
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51341
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-29
15:26:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am a little confused. -MT will create .d file. Then make command will
> include
> .d and re-compile if dependency file changes. The issue is that g++ 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #25 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-11-29 15:24:02 UTC ---
Thanks Jakub for the new patch.
Using it I get this: any Idea how to fix/avoid?
home/data/newsoft/gcc-trunk/host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/data/newsoft/gcc-trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51341
--- Comment #3 from davidz 2011-11-29 14:56:41 UTC
---
I am a little confused. -MT will create .d file. Then make command will include
.d and re-compile if dependency file changes. The issue is that g++ 4.6.1
doesn't re-compile if I touch .h. Doe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-29
14:46:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 25945
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25945
gcc47-pr50374.patch
This updated patch applies (had to remove various parts from the older patch
th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49738
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2011-11-29
14:34:13 UTC ---
This issue also impacts darwin10 users who have installed Xcode 4.2 since that
release no longer includes Apple gcc-4.2 and now defaults the system compiler
to Apple llvm-gcc-4.2 which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268
--- Comment #10 from Sebastien Bardeau 2011-11-29
14:33:08 UTC ---
Indeed this is a workaround that we will probably adopt.
I would say that although I partially disagree the choices made in the Fortran
Standards in this context, gfortran is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51345
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51345
Bug #: 51345
Summary: [avr] Devices with 8-bit SP need their own multilib(s)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: FIXME, wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
Keith Marshall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||keithmarshall at mailinator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-29
13:10:26 UTC ---
Sebastien has now ask at c.l.f, cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ef3900ab261c5cd9
Suggested workaround/solution:
subroutine mysub()
u
Hi Nick,
This was brought up 3 days ago on the gcc list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-11/msg00463.html
Eric Weddington
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Clifton [mailto:ni...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:51 AM
> To: cherty...@gmail.com; ae...@post.ru; Weddington, E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
Bug #: 51344
Summary: cc1plus hangs when compiling
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-29 11:36:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Looks interesting, although since we're talking about a future standard (at
> least I assume that's what you are talking about? Or are temploids coming up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323
--- Comment #9 from David Kastrup 2011-11-29 11:13:21 UTC
---
Code review is at http://codereview.appspot.com/5431088>, the discussion
of the bug is at http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1997>.
As you can see, the proposed workar
Hi Guys,
I tried to build an avr-elf toolchain today from the current mainline
GCC sources, but it fails building lto1 with:
gcc/config/avr/avr.c:2591: undefined reference to `c_addr_space_name'
Is there any chance that this can be fixed please ? (I am trying to
investigate a b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2011-11-29 10:50:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> All right, now the is_abstract behavior is settled, do you think the fixed
> code
> provided by Daniel in comment #1 should produce a warning, since the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #129 from Bruce Adams 2011-11-29
10:49:08 UTC ---
doh! You are entirely right. It works just fine on the 2019 snapshot.
Sorry for wasting time there. I was too fast on the email trigger. Mea culpa.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-11-29
10:35:48 UTC ---
> I will be contributing a testing harness that is back-end agnostic, so it
> won't
> depend on scanning the assembly. Stay tuned.
Any progress in this direction?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2011-11-29
10:27:18 UTC ---
All right, now the is_abstract behavior is settled, do you think the fixed code
provided by Daniel in comment #1 should produce a warning, since the
declaration is absolutely useless (I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51315
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-11-29
10:18:00 UTC ---
I suspect it's a dupe of PR50569 or PR50444.
(And if you hate alignment bugs like me you might also want to know about the
4.5-only PR46483.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-29
10:11:34 UTC ---
The issue with type_traits intrinsics vs instantiation came up recently, when I
fixed an actual bug affecting __is_base_of. Note, if isn't clear already, that
in the case of is_abstrac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #23 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-11-29 10:10:06 UTC ---
a working patch could be useful to check performance and quality of the
generated ASM w.r.t. manually crafted soutions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49719
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51044
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
Andrew Zhezherun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51306
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48700
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-29
09:58:40 UTC ---
I gave up on it, because it still needed lots of changes in the generic
vectorizer. Guess I can update the patch so that it at least applies, but
there is more work on it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48700
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-29
09:57:45 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 29 09:57:40 2011
New Revision: 181801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181801
Log:
2011-11-29 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51306
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-29
09:57:45 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 29 09:57:40 2011
New Revision: 181801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181801
Log:
2011-11-29 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #21 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-11-29 09:54:49 UTC ---
My understanding is that we cannot count to see a "min/max location pattern"
vectorization in 4.7, isn't it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51315
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51323
--- Comment #7 from David Kastrup 2011-11-29 09:43:44 UTC
---
I agree that the real fix is to force an upgrade of the compiler to a fixed
version. However, Ubuntu 11.10 has been released and is in circulation, so we
can't reasonably implement th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50622
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-11-29 09:42:31 UTC ---
This ICE is still present with revision 181800.
It does block our tests and validation of 4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51330
--- Comment #4 from Rémy 2011-11-29 09:38:52
UTC ---
I tried but I'm unable to produce the preprocessed files. So... well, I'll try
to package my stuff using gcc 4.5 later. Regarding 4.6, I can't afford to spend
more time on looking into the matt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-29
08:48:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 29 08:48:41 2011
New Revision: 181800
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181800
Log:
PR middle-end/50074
* expr.c (expand_expr_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51343
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51301
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
98 matches
Mail list logo