http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #18 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #16 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
Sandra Loosemore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #15 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/23623
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #13 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #12 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Patch for the first problem posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00750.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 30248
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30248&action=edit
another example of the alignment faults
Hello Sandra,
good that you continue to work on that bug again.
I agr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #10 from Sandra Loosemore ---
I'm working on a new patch that addresses the first problem, the failure in
test().
I think the second failure is not in test1() at all, and has nothing to do with
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields. Looks to m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger
2013-03-27 10:36:48 UTC ---
Hello GCC-Maintainers,
what do you think? Should'nt this patch be in the 4.6.4 release?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29506|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29465|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger
2013-02-18 18:41:55 UTC ---
hhmm...
could some one give an example where packedp would be false but the value
is packed or unaligned?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Sandra Loosemore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-02-18
11:20:43 UTC ---
There is now better ways of implementing -fstrict-volatile-bitfields which
I repeatedly told the arm people. Not for 4.6, but for 4.7 and trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
Component|c
16 matches
Mail list logo
