http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47156
Summary: obj-c++.dg/try-catch-[2|9].mm -fgnu-runtime failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc++
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47137
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-03 14:23:05
UTC ---
For
void f1(char c, char d, char e, char f, char g, char h, char i);
char x;
void f2()
{
f1(x, x, x, x, x, x, x);
}
ICC generates this assembly, where we only sto
||2011.01.03 20:20:18
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-03 20:20:18
UTC ---
I can't reproduce it on Linux/x86-64 with revision 166868
nor revision 168409.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43653
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46791
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46523
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46523
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-03 22:04:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The OS is SLES 11, SP1. The machine (bobcat) indeed does not
> support some instructions that K8 supports.
>
Which instructions are missing in Bobcat?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47053
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-03 22:37:36
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 151559:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-09/msg00305.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
Summary: [4.6 Regression] LTO is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40316
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45520
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45520
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-04 22:47:10
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 158809:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00916.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47172
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-05 14:28:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Checking __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64 __x86_64__ for
> > pointer size is wrong since pointer size may be
> > 32bit on x86-64.
> No, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-05 15:17:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > > Checking __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64 __x86_64__ for
> > > > pointer s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-05 20:09:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > this could be the reason for slowdown.
>
>
> $ gcc -lm testcase2.s
> $ time ./a.out
>
> real0m4.239s
> user0m4.234s
> sys0m0.001s
>
> The im
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42445
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42445
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-06 16:34:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I know nothing about what the issue is supposed to be here or what is or
> is not supposed to be in COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS or how COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS is
> used.
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47193
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47195
Summary: [4.6 regression] New Fortran test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42445
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47041
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47198
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47200
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47199
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47206
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47207
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47208
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47204
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42445
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47216
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46807
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-08 02:21:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 22931
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22931
A reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Revision 168593 failed many tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-08 04:59:40
UTC ---
It failed with the Linux binutils 2.21.51.0.5 and hjl/lto-mixed branch at
http://git.kernel.org/?p=devel/binutils/hjl/x86.git;a=summary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-08 18:07:00
UTC ---
I got the same failure with gold:
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-3.c -O2 -flto execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-3.c -O2 -flto execution test
F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-08 18:20:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> Hmm, this does not seem to be dependent on plugin implementation, but it seems
> like
> bug in 32bit only testcase. The testcase seems to use:
>
> int g_edi=I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-09 16:20:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> Still, I think the cleanest way is:
> evans:/abuild/jh/trunk-3/build-inst2/gcc/:[0]# cat t3.c
> int a;
> main()
> {
> asm __volatile__ ("movl %%eax, %0":"=m"(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-09 17:35:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47222
>
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-3.c -O2 -flto execution test
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 00:01:45
UTC ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
tree_can_inline_p (e=0x7fffdaf9fd68)
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/tree-inline.c:5391
5391 gimple_call_set_cannot_inlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 01:24:13
UTC ---
(gdb) call dump_cgraph_node (stderr, e->caller)
_cpp_clean_line/47583(-1) @0x7fffdaf97b00 (asm: _cpp_clean_line)
availability:available analyzed executed 136036096x 107 time, 14 benefit 186
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 01:25:00
UTC ---
My machine supports SSE4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #30 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 13:48:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> H.J., since you run regular testing, do you think you could switch one of
> tester into lto-bootstrap (or ideally lto-bootstrap with FDO) so we keep those
> in g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 13:59:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> > I have been testing lto-bootstrap:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-01/msg00750.html
> >
> > I will try to start lto-bootstrap with FDO.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 16:00:45
UTC ---
Since you use LTO, you should try the Linux binutils 2.21.51.0.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 17:02:02
UTC ---
Do we have a small testcase to experiment with?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 17:04:30
UTC ---
Can we mark the symbol COMDAT when we generate the output?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 17:13:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Can we mark the symbol COMDAT when we generate the output?
> What symbol and what output?
>
> Honza
I don't think hjl/lto-mixed branch has the problem
---
Cur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47243
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 17:49:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Worked with: r168582 (2011-01-07)
> Fails with: r168598 (2011-01-08)
>
> My guess is that Honza's r168593 exposes the issue. I now try to build without
> --enabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47249
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 18:26:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The plugin specification says that once the COMDAT is marked PREVAILING, it
> has
> to be output.
> "Any symbol marked PREVAILING_DEF must be defined in one obj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47247
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-10 21:01:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > What undesirable things may happen if we mark a COMDAT symbol
> > PREVAILING_DEF? Is that we won't know which one will be used
> > if both LTO and non-LTO obje
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47265
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-12 19:42:38
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 160030:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-05/msg01089.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47280
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47280
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-13 18:38:46
UTC ---
This is introduced between revision 163188 and 163192.
Revision 163192 may not be the caused.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47280
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-13 18:42:34
UTC ---
It is very likely caused by revision 163190:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00401.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47280
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-13 19:10:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It is very likely caused by revision 163190:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00401.html
It is caused by revision 163190:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47289
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47291
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47303
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-15 22:53:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> current gcc-trunk (r168844) ICEs on my codebase:
>
> accidentally, the --save-temps (or -std=gnu++98) removes the ICE,
> so how can i produce a preprocessed sourc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-15 22:55:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > current gcc-trunk (r168844) ICEs on my codebase:
> >
> > accidentally, the --save-temps (or -std=gnu++98) removes the ICE,
> > so how
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-16 00:18:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> looks like valgrind problem with sse42 opcode:
>
Disable SSE4 code to debug this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47299
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38201
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47315
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47313
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47317
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2011.01.16 19:48:34
Component|inline-asm |target
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hjl.tools at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.3
Ever Confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47318
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47326
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47326
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47289
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-18 14:20:40
UTC ---
Please note that valgrind also complaints search_line_acc_char
which doesn't use SSE2/SSE4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47345
Summary: [4.6 Regression] LTO failed to bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47318
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #86 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-18 21:07:26
UTC ---
I am in the process of updating i386 psABI to specify 16byte stack
alignment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47345
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47364
Summary: [x32] internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at
expr.c:3355
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47364
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-19 21:02:01
UTC ---
Another one. On x32 branch, revision 169029 gave me:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-7]$ cat x.c
extern __SIZE_TYPE__ strlen (const char *);
void foo (char *, const char *);
int bar (const char *prefix)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47369
Summary: [x32] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2109
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47371
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/headmerge-[12].c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47372
Summary: [x32] internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at
simplify-rtx.c:5222
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
701 - 800 of 6807 matches
Mail list logo
