From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2617 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2010 15:12:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 2600 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2010 15:12:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:12:04 +0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/46297] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/g77/980701-0.f FAILs with -Os -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:18:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg01930.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297 --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-15 15:10:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > On 11/15/10 05:40, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46297 > > > > Bernd Schmidt changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CC| |bernds at gcc dot gnu.org > > > > --- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-11-15 12:30:26 UTC --- > > Jeff, what have you found? > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00634.html > > Waiting for review... You don't need explicit approval for this middle-end patch.