http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #34 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #33 from Joel Sherrill 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #32 from Sebastian Huber
2010-09-30 15:36:02 UTC ---
Which target milestone do you intend for a fix? It is still present in 4.6.0
20100925.
--- Comment #31 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-30 18:59 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> A regression but no known-to-work version?
4.2.4 is known to work. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44091#c5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 15:48
---
A regression but no known-to-work version?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:30
---
(In reply to comment #28)
> The problem is that stuff like red-zone presence and size isn't known to the
> middle-end, all that stuff is backend private, so I think the right way is to
> handle this in the backend
--- Comment #28 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:26 ---
The problem is that stuff like red-zone presence and size isn't known to the
middle-end, all that stuff is backend private, so I think the right way is to
handle this in the backends and most of the backends managed t
--- Comment #27 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:13
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Re. comment #14 "I am a bit irritated why this bug survived the 4.4.0
> and 4.5.0 release.": Yes, well, ARM maintainers have been in the CC-list for
> this bug since the beginning, and
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:04
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> According to comment#14, a patch from Alexander Monakov introduced this bug,
> therefore:
>
> 1. this is a regression on a primary platform => priority should be set P1
It's not P1 bec
--- Comment #25 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:00
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> The patch from comment #16 only fixes the symptom, and only on ARM. It is not
> a
> proper fix for the generic problem that is apparently also visible on POWER.
PR30282 audit trail co
--- Comment #24 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 11:47 ---
It is not visible on POWER, because it has been fixed there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #23 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 11:37 ---
The patch from comment #16 only fixes the symptom, and only on ARM. It is not a
proper fix for the generic problem that is apparently also visible on POWER.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #22 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:12
---
It looks like patch from comment #16 should fix the problem, but was not
reviewed and/or applied.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #21 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:08 ---
Re. comment #14 "I am a bit irritated why this bug survived the 4.4.0
and 4.5.0 release.": Yes, well, ARM maintainers have been in the CC-list for
this bug since the beginning, and apparently it was even too much tro
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:00 ---
...and
2. Add richi and amonakov to CC:
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:00 ---
According to comment#14, a patch from Alexander Monakov introduced this bug,
therefore:
1. this is a regression on a primary platform => priority should be set P1
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
16 matches
Mail list logo
