http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52081
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52984
Bug #: 52984
Summary: Different information message in Turkish locale.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-14
00:07:11 UTC ---
I've found that the cpu2006 failures are fixed by the patch in PR52976. I have
to leave for an obligation tonight, but will investigate the remaining failures
in these two issues
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
--- Comment #6 from Meador Inge 2012-04-13
23:07:09 UTC ---
Should the fix for this go into 4.6 as well? If not, then I will close the
issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] Many |[4.8 Regression] Many
|benchm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27089|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
--- Comment #11 from rhabarber1848 at web dot de 2012-04-13 22:35:58 UTC ---
Using this patch solves the problem here:
https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/toolchain/gcc/patches/4.7.0/870-ppc_no_crtsavres.patch
# ./powerpc-tuxbox-linux-gnu-gcc -v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-13
22:11:24 UTC ---
The patch in comment #4 fixes doduc.f90, but not aermod.f90 (the sources are
available at http://polyhedron.com/pb05-lin64-f90bench_SBhtml ). A reduced test
for aermod is
[macb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52706
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52775
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2012-04-13
21:55:24 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Apr 13 21:55:15 2012
New Revision: 186438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186438
Log:
[gcc]
2012-04-12 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52707
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |rtl-optimization
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
21:02:32 UTC ---
The source is
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/pod/23875.cc
gnu
Configured with: /home/jwakely/src/gcc/configure --prefix=/home/jwakely/gcc/4.x
--with-system-zlib --enable-languages=c,c++ --with-gnu-ld --with-gnu-as
--disable-libquadmath --disable-libitm --disable-libmudflap --disable-nls
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120413 (experimen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
Summary|double free or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
20:48:13 UTC ---
No, that's absolutely not how C++ works. Templates are not macros.
The template's function parameter is "const T&" aka "T const&"
i.e. a reference to a const T
If T is a pointer t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-13
20:46:27 UTC ---
Here's a patch that fixes the reduced test case but is otherwise untested. I
don't know what "the polyhedron tests aermod.490 and doduc.f90" are; I don't
find them in the gcc tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
--- Comment #4 from Benedikt Schmidt 2012-04-13
20:22:44 UTC ---
Okay, first: Thanks for the fast reply.
Why changes the use of an template the order, in which const affects the type?
I mean, if I just replace the T in the base class with the sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52982
Bug #: 52982
Summary: add option to select particular linker
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52818
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52915
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52905
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52906
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52824
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52824
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52915
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:43:43 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:43:37 2012
New Revision: 186432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186432
Log:
PR c++/52915
* decl2.c (finish_anon_union):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52906
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:44:21 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:44:15 2012
New Revision: 186435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186435
Log:
PR c++/52906
* decl.c (check_tag_decl): Don
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-13
19:41:18 UTC ---
When changing from the original form of the patch to the form that recorded
repeated ops in the ops table, I missed the effect on undistribution where a
term contains a multiply o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52824
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:44:31 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:44:27 2012
New Revision: 186436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186436
Log:
PR c++/52824
* pt.c (any_pack_expanson_args
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52824
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:44:05 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:43:57 2012
New Revision: 186434
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186434
Log:
PR c++/52824
* pt.c (any_pack_expanson_args
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52905
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:43:52 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 13 19:43:47 2012
New Revision: 186433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186433
Log:
PR c++/52905
* call.c (joust): Handle compa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #48 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
19:40:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> Jonathan's proposed output looks fine to me. The "candidates are" note had a
> source location for the sake of dejagnu, but we can deal with that by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
--- Comment #17 from Sedat Dilek 2012-04-13
19:38:24 UTC ---
Thanks, Tom!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52824
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:07:58 UTC ---
Specifically about if(); without an else, sure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #47 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:04:50 UTC ---
Jonathan's proposed output looks fine to me. The "candidates are" note had a
source location for the sake of dejagnu, but we can deal with that by adjusting
the prune.exp note handli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
Bug #: 52981
Summary: Separate -Wpacked into two options
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52951
D W changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52743
D W changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drwowe at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #4 from D W 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52951
--- Comment #3 from D W 2012-04-13 18:22:29 UTC ---
After a little more investigation it turns out this was fixed by the fix to bug
52743. So I guess this is actually a dup.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-13
18:10:05 UTC ---
PR52980 looks like a duplicate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-04-13
18:09:16 UTC ---
It looks like a duplicate of pr52976.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-04-13
17:57:30 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Apr 13 17:57:21 2012
New Revision: 186428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186428
Log:
2012-04-13 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
Bug #: 52980
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many benchmarks in SPEC CPU 2000
failed to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52972
--- Comment #6 from drinob at gmail dot com 2012-04-13 17:43:44 UTC ---
Thank you for your explanation. Now it's all clear.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
17:34:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I compiled the code with the following statement:
> gcc -Wall -Wextra -save-temps -lstdc++ main.cpp
Also if you use g++ you don't need to link to libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
17:33:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The base class has a pure virtual function with this signature:
>
> void blub(const int* const&) const
Oops, sorry, that should be:
void blub(int* const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52972
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
17:27:33 UTC ---
The standard says "Member functions can be called from a constructor (or
destructor) of an abstract class; the effect of making a virtual call to a pure
virtual function directly or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52895
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52905
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-13 16:57:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> _mm256_permutevar8x32_epi32 has the operands in wrong order. They need
> to be swapped. Did you fix this too?
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52932
--- Comment #10 from Agner Fog 2012-04-13 16:50:33 UTC
---
_mm256_permutevar8x32_epi32 has the operands in wrong order. They need
to be swapped. Did you fix this too?
On 12-04-2012 20:37, uros at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52972
--- Comment #4 from drinob at gmail dot com 2012-04-13 16:35:35 UTC ---
But it seems to work in g++ 4.3 (which is used at ideone.com):
http://ideone.com/zy5R4
Is that behavior uncorrect?
c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120413 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
Bug #: 52978
Summary: Inherit from Template with specified type and override
virtual function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52972
--- Comment #3 from drinob at gmail dot com 2012-04-13 16:28:36 UTC ---
Yes, this is my mistake.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52972
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52972
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-13
16:24:07 UTC ---
I think you are getting the correct behavior as the vtable for the base class
is the current vtable for this.
And "return static_cast < Real* > (this);" Does not change the v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52951
--- Comment #2 from D W 2012-04-13 16:22:28 UTC ---
I built gcc from gcc-4_7-branch, svn186417. I can confirm it does not segfault
on my example.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
Bug #: 52977
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with `-x
c-header' or `-x cxx-header' option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48866
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-04-13
15:56:29 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Apr 13 15:56:21 2012
New Revision: 186422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186422
Log:
PR debug/48866
* df.h (enum debug_temp_where):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-04-13
15:56:00 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Apr 13 15:55:52 2012
New Revision: 186420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186420
Log:
PR debug/51570
* var-tracking.c (expand_depth):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
Bug #: 52976
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Revision 186384 breaks the polyhedron
tests aermod.f90 and doduc.f90 at -O3 -ffast-math
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-13
14:45:29 UTC ---
Remember to always send the patches you commit to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org (and
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org in CC), even if already approved on the fly in audit
trail (which should not happe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51082
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-13 14:23:25 UTC ---
Note: The patch in comment #2 regtests cleanly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52968
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-13 14:02:05 UTC ---
This bug is similar to PR51995, and in fact the patch from comment #2 above
seems to supersede the solution given there (which could be removed as a
consequence):
Index: gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
13:55:27 UTC ---
I don't know where they're defined but they're built in and g++ -v shows them
#include "..." search starts here:
#include <...> search starts here:
/home/redi/gcc/4.x/lib/gcc/x86_6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
13:42:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This probably isn't a good idea for user headers, as the include path they use
> with -I should be preserved so they recognise it, but for GCC's own C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52938
--- Comment #14 from Abdul Tohmaz 2012-04-13
13:37:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Immediately after you call reserve it returns at least 1024. But not
> necessarily from that point on for ever and ever. If you call swap() to
> exchange
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52969
--- Comment #13 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-04-13 13:35:19 UTC ---
Richard, please, look at PR59275.
I think your testcase CAN produce not optimized code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52968
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52975
Bug #: 52975
Summary: Ofast produces not optimized code for vectorized
"converted if"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52969
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-13
13:26:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I do not have a clear case in hand with evidence of "double" compare
> I will have a closer look to "real life" code.
>
> btw
> I just noticed that yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52868
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52973
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52734
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52947
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52906
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
13:16:01 UTC ---
The canonicalized version of that error is a lot more readable
t.cc: In function 'void f()':
t.cc:2:23: error: no matching function for call to 'sort(int)'
t.cc:2:23: note: candidat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52974
Bug #: 52974
Summary: Canonicalize include paths in diagnostics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52633
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|[4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52631
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52969
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-04-13 13:03:48 UTC ---
I do not have a clear case in hand with evidence of "double" compare
I will have a closer look to "real life" code.
btw
I just noticed that your test case does not vectorize ev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-04-13
13:02:03 UTC ---
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 3 %d3 [236])
(expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:SI 3 %d3 [236])
The REG_DEAD note is bogus and confuses the renamer. Only REG_UNUSED should be
on this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52621
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo