--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-13 20:16
---
Subject: Bug 27184
Author: pinskia
Date: Sun Aug 13 21:16:46 2006
New Revision: 116116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116116
Log:
2006-08-13 Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-08 00:56 ---
I have been having problems with my work machine to be able to test this patch
(before applying it) but hopefuly it will finish this time.
If it does not work, I am going to test it using my home machine.
--
htt
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-20 21:34 ---
Ping!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27184
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-30 03:09 ---
I am rebootstrapping this patch right now and will commit tommorow.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-20 01:31 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c/27184
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg01507.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27184
--- Comment #5 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-30 06:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11533)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11533&action=view)
Patch that fixes the problem and does not introduce regressions
The previous patch had a few regressions in vlas
--- Comment #4 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 09:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=11526)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11526&action=view)
Patch that appears to fix the problem
Here's a patch I'm trying to fix the problem. Hopefully I've caught all c
--- Comment #3 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 08:09 ---
Mine
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 20:07 ---
And this only fails for array types without their size specified. Confirmed.
Btw. inside NumShift the two array types are
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 precision 32 min max
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 19:55 ---
Just to add some information from the conversation on this topic:
> > Shouldn't the aliasing set for the type atype be the same as atype1?
>
> Im not entirely sure, but the C99 standard does at least not suggest
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http
12 matches
Mail list logo
