https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space, wrong-code
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.1
Summary|[avr] String
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 43107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43107&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> If so, avr should override the select_section and unique_section target
> hooks and return something different for the __flash strings.
I am just working on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.1
Summary|Wrong consta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Well, 7.2 certainly doesn't have any special casing for address spaces in
> categorize_decl_for_section etc., so before claiming it is a regression
> you'd bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> If so, avr should override the select_section and unique_section target
> hooks and return something different for the __flash strings.
Also tried TARGET_ASM_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Well, you have 3 objects, str1, str2 and the string literal, if the compiler
> thinks all 3 are needed, it emits all of them. Without
> -fmerge-all-constants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I don't see any bug actually. You are just saying that the str1 variable is
> __flash, during optimization (already in C FE) it optimizes str1[i] into
> "012
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
*** Bug 83805 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> I think the testcases just make invalid assumptions.
Huh? Which assumptions specifically?
1) There are objects of static storage duration in some non-generi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 43115 [details]
> gcc8-pr83801.patch
>
> Untested patch, that if !is_init kind of restores the 7.x behavior of not
> using DECL_INITIAL if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83729
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
*** Bug 83729 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83729
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 15 10:04:32 2018
New Revision: 256687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/83801
PR c/83729
* gcc.target/avr/torture/pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83801
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 15 10:04:32 2018
New Revision: 256687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/83801
PR c/83729
* gcc.target/avr/torture/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-10-07 00:00:00 |2018-1-15
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82931
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42575|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82931
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Summary|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
--- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Obervation that -fno-wrapv also leads to correct code, hence there is somewhere
a wrong assumption that signed overflow occurs (which doesn't).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |diagnostic
Summary|[6/7/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Hi, installing linux-libc-dev:i386 resolved this issue for me (linux-libc-dev
was already installed).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #19 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Hi, thanks for all that work and efforts.
I tried that patch for the following small test:
extern void foo (void);
extern char volatile vv;
void func2 (const int *p)
{
while (1)
{
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
A bit of the bloat reported in PR81625 is also due to missed post-inc
addressing, so it might be worth a look if you are after more test cases.
(Current 8.0.1 perfomrs better than 8.0.0 I used back then:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82658
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
avr-gcc currently accepts address-space qualifiers in compound literals
provided this is outside of a function:
#define FSTR(X) ((const __flash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84163
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 2 11:36:54 2018
New Revision: 257327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81913.c: Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Feb 2 15:07:37 2018
New Revision: 257333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257333&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr83362.c: Ma
arget
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r242907 there is a split for HI moved that might also split SP. This
might lead to wrong code.
Using -fdisable-rtl-split2 might do as a work-around.
||avr
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2018-02-05
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|gjl at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 43338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43338&action=edit
Proposed patch against v7
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43339
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43339&action=edit
proposed patch
Some of register allocation fallout could be f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Targe
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the program below
$ gcc a-warn.c -Wa,--no-warn
__asm (".warning \"Some Warning\"");
int main()
{
}
assembles without a diagnosti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84230
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89270
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to gandalf from comment #0)
> I get an ICE
For the time being, you can work around this by a macro from AVR-LibC or some
equivalent inline asm:
#include
void test()
{
extern const char __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90622
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90706
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Summary|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Shouldn't this use the library routine because setmemhi expander FAILs when
operands[1] is not a const_int? It is (reg:QI 48) which is not a const_int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
...and here is code that triggers the wrong path of the 2-byte case:
typedef struct S
{
const __flash2 struct S *p;
struct S *q;
} S;
const __flash2 S* func2 (const S *s)
{
return s->p->q->p;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 44412
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44412&action=edit
C test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86040
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 44416
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44416&action=edit
C test case for movmem
The movmem from ASes __flash1 ... __flash5 is also affected. As the place to
fix I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Georg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
As a work-around -fno-tree-ter appears to work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85969
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57503
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
int v;
int main() { [](auto... c) { v = c; }(1); }
triggers ICE with v8:
$ avr-g++ foo.cpp -std=gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> gcc-5 branch is closed; is this bug still valid for newer branches?
Reload flaws are usually very "instable" w.r.t. to the test case(s) that
thrigger them. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> gcc-5 branch is closed; is this bug still valid for newer branches?
...and for such "spill fails" it's impossible to tell, at least for me, whether
they are d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Note: As TER performs the propagation, a work-around is to compile with
-fno-tree-ter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87376 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.creekmore@synapse-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Unfortunately, the solution from above won't work for PR65657, an issue that is
basically the same: early use of explicit hard-regs and propagations from TER.
Hence -fno-tree-ter can be used as work-aroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87376
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
*** Bug 87376 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Also duplicate of PR86635, aleady assigned to Senthil.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 86635 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86635
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.creekmore@synapse-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78707
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.1.1, 8.0.1
--- Comment #3 from Geor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87854
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jozef Lawrynowicz from comment #0)
> Rather than ICE'ing should there be some error message about object size
> being too large?
Yes. In any case, there should be no ICE whatever code you pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |ada
--- Comment #4 from Geor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54222
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-22
10:00:24 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Nov 22 10:00:13 2012
New Revision: 193721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193721
Log:
libgcc/
Adjust decimal point of si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-23
10:08:54 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Nov 23 10:08:49 2012
New Revision: 193749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193749
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.dg/un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52650
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-26
09:47:18 UTC ---
A milestone of 3.0.x???
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-26
18:46:25 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:46:12 2012
New Revision: 193826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193826
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
* gcc.c-tor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-03
13:37:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> OK, but the question is why this rule is invoked during the gnattools build?
> Moreover, why does s-avr-mlib need to be rebuilt at this point si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-07
13:34:36 UTC ---
rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> spill in class 'R0_REG'
Spilling is a bug in the register allocator, or am I missing something.
Besides that, I am getting this mail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-08
10:28:07 UTC ---
Many thanks for your help!
Mike Stein stopped posting test results quite some time ago. Dunno why,
he does not respond to email.
avr.h defines R0_REG as register class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-10
14:33:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 28900 [details]
> Candidate patch
>
> Try this.
It works. There are no more "spill in class 'R0_REG'" ICEs wozj your patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-10
17:00:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
>> I don't know anything about the gnat build system and when I build avr-gcc I
>> configure for C/C++.
>>
>> What's odd is that even if GCC is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-10
18:25:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> So t-multilib is autogenerated in the source tree during the build???
Jepp. Top $(srcdir)/gcc/config/avr/t-multilib reads:
# Auto-gener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-10
18:36:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Created attachment 28916 [details]
> Tentative fix for gnatls issue
>
> To be applied in the ada/ source directory.
This works for me with,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-10
20:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
>>> So t-multilib is autogenerated in the source tree during the build???
>>
>> Jepp. Top $(srcdir)/gcc/config/avr/t-multilib reads:
>>
>>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-10
22:57:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
>> It works with read-only sources, provided everything is consistent. Or are
>> you saying that a t-snip must not use $(STAMP)?
>
> I'm saying
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #22 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-11
12:18:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
What I don't understand is what is bad with Rolf's proposal of defining STAMP?
Stamping is not that unusual in the build process. Up to now it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #25 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-14
18:26:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 28960
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28960
Don't use STAMP to please Ada
(In reply to comment #24)
> > What I don't understand is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-14
18:56:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 28900 [details]
> Candidate patch
>
> Try this.
Bernd, do you intend to apply this, or should I post it for review?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #29 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-17
22:53:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
>> What I don't understand is what is bad with Rolf's proposal of defining
>> STAMP?
>
> We simply don't need to stamp anything for the gnattool
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-18
22:33:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 28990 [details]
> Better patch
>
> Sorry for doing this, but here's a slightly improved version of the patch.
> Does
> th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #31 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-07
13:12:18 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 7 13:12:10 2013
New Revision: 194970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194970
Log:
Backport from 2013-01-07 trunk r19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55897
Bug #: 55897
Summary: [avr] Allocate __memx data to .progmemx.data
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54461
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-07
16:23:13 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 7 16:22:59 2013
New Revision: 194981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194981
Log:
Backport from 2013-01-07 trunk r194
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55897
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-07
18:34:50 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 7 18:34:40 2013
New Revision: 194991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194991
Log:
PR target/55897
* config/avr/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55897
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-07
18:37:57 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 7 18:37:47 2013
New Revision: 194992
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194992
Log:
PR target/55897
* doc/extend.t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55897
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-07
18:51:38 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 7 18:51:33 2013
New Revision: 194993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194993
Log:
Backport from 2013-01-07 trunk r194
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55897
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||addr-space
Priority
801 - 900 of 2033 matches
Mail list logo
