* [Bug other/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-07 1:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-23 21:19 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-07 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-07 02:29 -------
I see this also on powerpc64 with a cross to spu-elf.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
GCC build triplet|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |
GCC target triplet|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-07 1:29 ` [Bug other/31827] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-23 21:19 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2007-05-23 23:53 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sje at cup dot hp dot com @ 2007-05-23 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2007-05-23 22:19 -------
I am not sure what, if anything, we should do with this bug report. The
compiler is working as designed, the test case has a very large number of
nested parenthesis which causes the parser to recurse over and over as it
parses through the expression. If you have enough stack space (and swap space)
the test seems to compile fine in a reasonable amount of time. If you run out
of stack space or run out of swap space then the test fails.
This test runs fine on my IA64 HP-UX and Linux boxes and on my HPPA HP-UX boxes
where I have increased the stack size. If I change the test case to do more
nesting, I can get it to fail.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sje at cup dot hp dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-07 1:29 ` [Bug other/31827] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-23 21:19 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
@ 2007-05-23 23:53 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2008-12-29 7:27 ` [Bug middle-end/31827] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2007-05-23 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-05-24 00:53 -------
Subject: Re: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth
failure
> This test runs fine on my IA64 HP-UX and Linux boxes and on my HPPA HP-UX boxes
> where I have increased the stack size. If I change the test case to do more
> nesting, I can get it to fail.
For the record, these are the limits on the machine where I saw
the failure:
-bash-2.05b$ ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) 2097151
data seg size (kbytes, -d) 786432
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited
open files (-n) 256
pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 16
stack size (kbytes, -s) 16384
cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes (-u) 76
virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
I believe the stack size limit is double the default value. The machine
has 7 GB of memory, so I doubt swap is an issue.
It's my personal belief that nesting routines to great depths
is bad design. It makes debugging nearly impossible. It's
possible we are hurt on hppa64 because the argument pointer isn't
a fixed register and this prevents the sibcall optimization
from occurring.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-23 23:53 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2008-12-29 7:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-29 7:27 ` [Bug other/31827] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-29 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 07:24 -------
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|other |middle-end
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-12-29 07:24:07
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-29 7:27 ` [Bug middle-end/31827] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-29 7:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-23 6:53 ` [Bug middle-end/31827] " ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-29 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 07:23 -------
*** Bug 38605 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |howarth at nitro dot med dot
| |uc dot edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-29 7:27 ` [Bug other/31827] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-23 6:53 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-11-03 10:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2009-07-23 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-07-23 06:52 -------
This happens also with default settings on CentOS 5.3 x86_64 and F11 x86_64,
current mainline gcc-4.5.0.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ubizjak at gmail dot com
Known to fail| |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-23 6:53 ` [Bug middle-end/31827] " ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2009-11-03 10:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-11-03 12:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-11-03 18:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2009-11-03 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-11-03 10:23 -------
Part of the problem is that for each open parenthesis we go through
c_parser_postfix_expression
c_parser_expression
c_parser_expr_no_commas
c_parser_conditional_expression
c_parser_binary_expression
c_parser_cast_expression
c_parser_unary_expression
and back to c_parser_postfix_expression. c_parser_binary_expression has a
_huge_ stack impact, this should be fixed.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bonzini at gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2008-12-29 07:24:07 |2009-11-03 10:23:32
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-11-03 10:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2009-11-03 12:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-11-03 18:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2009-11-03 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-11-03 12:23 -------
Created an attachment (id=18953)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18953&action=view)
patch to fix the bug
The attached patches together reduce the stack usage of expression parsing by
~30%. On a 64-bit machine with 8 MB the parsing now fails after 10300
recursions instead of 7100.
This still means that one pair of parentheses consumes about 100 words on the
stack.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
2007-05-04 23:03 [Bug other/31827] New: limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-11-03 12:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2009-11-03 18:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2009-11-03 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-11-03 18:58 -------
The patch is not enough for mainline because some functions have a bigger stack
frame. With the patch, mainline aborts after 9827 recursive calls.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2010-11-13 1:22 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 4:03 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: davek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-13 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |davek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail| |4.6.0
--- Comment #10 from Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-13 00:58:39 UTC ---
Also failing on i686 cygwin and on i686 and x86_64 linux at the moment. See,
e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-11/msg01011.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-11/msg01008.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-11/msg01006.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-11-13 1:22 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-02-01 4:03 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 17:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: davek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-02-01 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #12 from Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 04:03:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Recreated this on linux x86_64 with gcc 4.6-20110129. Running ulimit -a shows
> me that the default stack limit is 8192 and increasing this to 18000 allows the
> test to complete at all optimization levels that are tested by make check.
> Running at 17000 fails.
This has gotten worse over the past couple of months; I fixed it on cygwin a
while ago by turning up the stack size, finding that it needed somewhere
between 10MB and 12MB on that target; now it's just started failing again.
I don't know at what point we should consider this a compile-time performance
regression. Paolo, even a 30% reduction seems like a good idea to me; why not
submit that patch you developed?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-11-13 1:22 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 4:03 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-02-01 17:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-02-01 18:21 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-02-01 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-02-01 17:00:26 UTC ---
Out of interest, does compiling GCC with -fsplit-stack help avoid this
problem? This obviously has limitations at present regarding supported
hosts, and the need for gold as host linker to avoid problems when calling
code built without that option, but it seems like something that option
ought to help with.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-02-01 17:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-02-01 18:21 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-07 19:55 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: davek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-02-01 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #14 from Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 17:37:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> [ ... ] -fsplit-stack [ ... ] need for gold as host linker [ ... ]
One of the ELF guys will have to answer that one for you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-02-01 18:21 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-03-07 19:55 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
2011-03-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gseanmcg at gmail dot com @ 2011-03-07 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Sean McGovern <gseanmcg at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Sean McGovern <gseanmcg at gmail dot com> 2011-03-07 19:54:39 UTC ---
Cc'ing Rainer as this is also happening on Solaris 10 x86 and SPARC.
As indicated in comment 3, this can be remedied by bumping stack size from
defaults. Is there any way to instrument the test to bump it automatically, and
if so, what is an agreeable value?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-03-07 19:55 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
@ 2011-03-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-07 21:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-03-07 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-07 20:41:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 23576
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23576
hack
The c_parser_binary_expression stack impact could be decreased, either through
a hack like this (forcefully split the function, so that when calling the first
cast expression it will use smaller amount of stack, unfortunately the call
isn't then tail callable and thus for an actual binary expression needs more
stack), or stack/sp perhaps could be handled separately (global stack vector).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-03-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-03-07 21:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-22 15:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-03-07 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-07 21:35:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 23578
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23578
Implement stack in c_parser_binary_operation as VEC
And here is the alternative to use global VEC as c_parser_binary_expression
stack. The stack size in my case for c_parser_binary_expression decreases from
sub $0x218, %rsp to sub $0x78, %rsp.
Paolo's patch is clearly better than my first patch, sorry for not reading it
first.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-03-07 21:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-22 15:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-11-25 16:28 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
2011-11-25 17:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-22 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #18 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-22 15:50:58 UTC ---
The patch that increased RLIMIT_STACK in the driver as well as compiler (PR
c++/49756) [1] fixed this on linux targets.
Jakub, you have a patch pending in Comment #17. Do you plan to commit it?
Can we close this PR?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01766.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-22 15:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-25 16:28 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
2011-11-25 17:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gseanmcg at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-25 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #19 from Sean McGovern <gseanmcg at gmail dot com> 2011-11-25 16:17:03 UTC ---
Was this patch ever committed? If so, can this PR be closed now?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-25 16:28 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-25 17:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-25 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
| |atches/2011-07/msg01766.htm
| |l
Host|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #20 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-11-25 16:34:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Was this patch ever committed? If so, can this PR be closed now?
Yes and yes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread