http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54906
Bug #: 54906
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory
model (case with atomic accesses)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54906
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-10-12
08:00:47 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 12 08:00:29 2012
New Revision: 192390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192390
Log:
2012-10-12 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.6/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54903
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40453
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-12 08:16:37 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Oct 12 08:16:17 2012
New Revision: 192391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192391
Log:
2012-10-12 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40453
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46888
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-12
08:23:35 UTC ---
It actually does not work for the arm case but it can be improved to work for
it which I am doing now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-12 08:30:23 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 12 08:30:00 2012
New Revision: 192392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192392
Log:
2012-10-12 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52744
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54870
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.guenther at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54871
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2012-10-12 08:40:23 UTC
---
Created attachment 28429
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28429
good assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54871
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2012-10-12 08:41:06 UTC
---
Created attachment 28430
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28430
bad assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54091
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28428|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46888
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-12
08:50:55 UTC ---
Oh with my current patch, we are able to remove at least one bfi, the first
one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53099
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-12
09:06:35 UTC ---
Note, for the crash -std=c++11 is required.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54871
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54880
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54902
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
--- Comment #1 from Rich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54880
--- Comment #2 from Sylwester Arabas 2012-10-12
09:48:12 UTC ---
Hi,
I've came across it after simply switching the order of module definitions in a
file (i.e. no preprocessor - I've used the preprocessor to simplify the test
case).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54902
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
--- Comment #2 from Matt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54907
Bug #: 54907
Summary: post increasing a value pointed by p in subexpression
of an expression modifying p saves the increased value
in the wrong place
Classification: Unclas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-10-12
10:16:19 UTC ---
What happens is that we merge wchar_t that is a main variant in one TU
with wchar_t that is not a main variant in another TU.
I have a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54907
--- Comment #1 from graham.stott at btinternet dot com 2012-10-12 10:24:30 UTC
---
Not a bug p is modified twice without a seqence point the result is undefined
From: yangzhe1990 at gmail dot com
To: gcc-bugs@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24449
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54824
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54907
--- Comment #2 from yangzhe1990 at gmail dot com 2012-10-12 11:20:39 UTC ---
No, p is not modified twice.
p is modified once,
*p is modified once.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Not a bug p is modified twice without a seqence point the result is und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54907
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-12
11:23:52 UTC ---
On the RHS of the assignment *p is modified, not p
The difference in behaviour between gcc and g++ is probably due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=17607
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52143
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2012-10-12
12:14:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 12 12:14:03 2012
New Revision: 192397
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192397
Log:
2012-10-12 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54880
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-12 12:52:02 UTC ---
One way to get rid of the error is to simply remove the assert that causes it
(which was already constrained by Paul for PR43450). However, I'm not sure if
that's justi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
Bug #: 54908
Summary: misc regressions on emutls targets remain from dynamic
initialization of non-function-local TLS variables
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-12
13:21:27 UTC ---
I don't know if this is too strict for non-emutls targets but on
x86_64-apple-darwin12, adding...
// { dg-require-effective-target tls_native }
to the failing testcases conv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-12 13:41:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Does not work for + though, as -0.0 + 0.0 is 0.0.
[...]
> On the tree level we see in-memory v because of the component modification:
>
> _7 = BIT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54909
Bug #: 54909
Summary: gcc does not recognize member function template when
identical named pure virtual method exists
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54910
Bug #: 54910
Summary: ARM: Missed optimization of very simple ctz function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: mino
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-12
14:14:46 UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri Oct 12 14:14:37 2012
New Revision: 192401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192401
Log:
2012-10-12 Marc Glisse
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54880
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-12 14:19:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> One way to get rid of the error is to simply remove the assert that causes it
> (which was already constrained by Paul for PR43450). However,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54909
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54909
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-12
14:28:00 UTC ---
The example can be reduced to
struct A
{
template void foo() { }
};
struct B : A
{
void foo(int) { }
};
int main(int, char**)
{
B b;
b.foo();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53055
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24449
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-12 14:38:19 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 12 14:38:11 2012
New Revision: 192402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192402
Log:
/cp
2012-10-12 Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24449
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54911
Bug #: 54911
Summary: lto-wrapper fails when compiling gcc with -flto
-fuse-linker-plugin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-12
15:06:38 UTC ---
Dave, if we don't reduce the size of the testcase it will take a lot of time
for somebody to look into this. Do you have anything smaller? (creduce is
supposed to work pretty we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23885
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
CC|gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30842
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33109
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54907
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-10-12 15:40:05 UTC ---
I believe this code is well-defined.
There are two objects modified, p and *p. p is modified by the
assignment, and C11 6.5.16#3 says "The side effect of upd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-12
15:44:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 28433
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28433
patch to suppress dynamic initialization of non-function-local TLS variables
failures on emutl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-12
15:48:47 UTC ---
The patch in comment 2 suppresses the failures on x86_64-apple-darwin12. Note
that I had to move dg-run to the top of
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-cse.C for the addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-12 15:52:16
UTC ---
template < class > struct V { };
template < int... > struct tuple ;
template < int...Is > void f ( V < Is...>) { }
auto g ( ) -> decltype ( f ( V < long > ( ) ) ) ;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-12
15:53:36 UTC ---
Thanks guys!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54912
Bug #: 54912
Summary: [C++11] Non-type argument to alias template is not a
constant expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-12 16:47:58
UTC ---
Please try git hjl/valgrind branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/hjl/valgrind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54912
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54913
Bug #: 54913
Summary: [4.8 Regression] '#'indirect_ref' not supported by
dump_decl#' is not a member of 'E'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54913
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3, 4.7.1
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-12 17:06:25
UTC ---
Maybe VALGRIND_DISCARD would come handy here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54912
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-12 17:08:20
UTC ---
The following patch gives this loop:
.L7:
subsd%xmm0, %xmm1
subl$1, %eax
addpd%xmm1, %xmm1
jne.L7
I guess I should add the same for mul and d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54913
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-12
17:13:08 UTC ---
The diagnostic issue is known (PR51413). Can you please figure out when it
started?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54914
Bug #: 54914
Summary: gcc.dg/graphite/pr42521.c regressed in gcc trunk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54914
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-12 17:33:53
UTC ---
Note that a V4SF version should be doable, since it is 3 insn there as well,
although the pattern is different.
(insn 34 61 36 4 (set (reg:SF 103 [ D.2551 ])
(vec_selec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54914
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-12
17:36:44 UTC ---
The backtrace in gdb is...
(gdb) r -quiet -v -imultilib i386 -iprefix
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/../lib/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0/4.8.0/
-isys
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-12 18:08:45
UTC ---
Doing the optimization that late is a bit fragile though. For instance:
v[0] += 3.0;
v[0] -= 1.0;
is back to decomposing the vector, doing the operations and reconstructi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54915
Bug #: 54915
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed: type
mismatch in vector permute expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54914
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54381
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-12
18:23:13 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 12 18:23:03 2012
New Revision: 192406
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192406
Log:
PR c/54381
* c-common.h (sizeof
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54915
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54915
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54691
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-10-12 18:46:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Please try git hjl/valgrind branch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/hjl/valgrind
It builds fine now. Thank yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin12 |*-apple-darwin*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54736
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig 2012-10-12
18:56:23 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Oct 12 18:56:16 2012
New Revision: 192408
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192408
Log:
2012-10-06 Thomas König
PR libfortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54916
Bug #: 54916
Summary: [4.8 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -funroll-loops
-fno-rerun-cse-after-loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
Bug #: 54917
Summary: transfer on polymorphic variable causes ICE
(gfc_target_expr_size)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54723
Janis Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54736
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig 2012-10-12
19:38:09 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Oct 12 19:38:04 2012
New Revision: 192411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192411
Log:
2012-10-12 Thomas König
PR libfortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-12
20:04:05 UTC ---
Is r192219 the exact commit causing this regression?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54886
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-12
20:11:26 UTC ---
> Is r192219 the exact commit causing this regression?
r192218 is OK, r192219 is not. As usual, this does not rule out that r192219
only exposes a latent bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49111
Craig Powers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||craig.powers at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54871
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] TRANSFER on |[4.7/4.8 Regression] [OOP]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-12
22:34:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 28438
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28438
Use DF_LIVE where possible in IRA
Only in reload1.c should we continue to use DF_LR
Boot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54680
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-12 23:19:32
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Oct 12 23:19:27 2012
New Revision: 192416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192416
Log:
PR target/54680
* config/sh/sh.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-12 23:22:52
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Oct 12 23:22:48 2012
New Revision: 192417
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192417
Log:
PR target/54602
* config/sh/sh.m
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
