public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64
@ 2011-10-25 14:25 jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:31 ` [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 " jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (15 more replies)
0 siblings, 16 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaak at ristioja dot ee @ 2011-10-25 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Bug #: 50865
Summary: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jaak@ristioja.ee
/*
* Compiled under 64-bit enviroments with: -O0 -std=c99 -pedantic
* Happens with GCC 4.5.3 on Gentoo, 4.4.5 on Debian and Apple's 4.2.1 on Mac.
* The error does not appear when compiler is passed -m32.
*/
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define PRINT_INT64(n, x) printf("(" #n ") r = %" PRId64 "\n", x)
int main(void) {
/* (1) No crash: */
PRINT_INT64(1, INT64_MIN % 1);
/* (2) No crash: */
{
volatile int64_t m1 = 1;
PRINT_INT64(2, INT64_MIN % m1);
}
/* (3) No crash: */
{
volatile int64_t m2 = -1;
if (m2 == -1)
PRINT_INT64(3, INT64_MIN % 1);
else
PRINT_INT64(3, INT64_MIN % -m2);
}
/* (4) Crash: */
{
volatile int64_t m3 = -1;
PRINT_INT64(4, INT64_MIN % -m3);
}
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
@ 2011-10-25 14:31 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:57 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaak at ristioja dot ee @ 2011-10-25 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #1 from Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja dot ee> 2011-10-25 14:30:41 UTC ---
Compiled with clang 2.9, the code runs correctly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:31 ` [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 " jaak at ristioja dot ee
@ 2011-10-25 14:57 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 15:14 ` jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-10-25 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-10-25 14:56:55 UTC ---
What do you think is wrong? C1X makes explicit what was intended before
then: that both a/b and a%b have undefined behavior if the quotient is not
representable. (See bug 30484 for more discussion; the only bug is that
with -fwrapv this should reliably give 0.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:31 ` [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 " jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:57 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-10-25 15:14 ` jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee
2011-10-25 15:53 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee @ 2011-10-25 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Jaak <jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jaak.randmets at cyber dot
| |ee
--- Comment #3 from Jaak <jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee> 2011-10-25 15:14:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What do you think is wrong? C1X makes explicit what was intended before
> then: that both a/b and a%b have undefined behavior if the quotient is not
> representable. (See bug 30484 for more discussion; the only bug is that
> with -fwrapv this should reliably give 0.)
In all 4 cases the quotient is representable and should evaluate to the result
of "INT64_MIN % 1".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 15:14 ` jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee
@ 2011-10-25 15:53 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 15:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-10-25 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-10-25 15:52:38 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee wrote:
> > What do you think is wrong? C1X makes explicit what was intended before
> > then: that both a/b and a%b have undefined behavior if the quotient is not
> > representable. (See bug 30484 for more discussion; the only bug is that
> > with -fwrapv this should reliably give 0.)
>
> In all 4 cases the quotient is representable and should evaluate to the result
> of "INT64_MIN % 1".
The quotient is INT64_MIN / 1, which is one greater than INT64_MAX and is
not representable.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 15:53 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-10-25 15:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 16:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/50865] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-10-25 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-10-25 15:55:28 UTC ---
Ah, I see your point - this is % 1 not % -1, so there does indeed seem to
be a bug here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 15:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-10-25 16:01 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-25 16:08 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-10-25 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Joseph S. Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011-10-25
Component|c |tree-optimization
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-25 16:00:13 UTC ---
/* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
(fold-const.c:fold_binary_loc) would probably be what's wrong here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 16:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/50865] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-10-25 16:08 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 16:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaak at ristioja dot ee @ 2011-10-25 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja dot ee> 2011-10-25 16:08:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> /* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
> (fold-const.c:fold_binary_loc) would probably be what's wrong here.
On the other hand
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/INT32-C.+Ensure+that+operations+on+signed+integers+do+not+result+in+overflow#INT32-C.Ensurethatoperationsonsignedintegersdonotresultinoverflow-Modulo
also refers to C99, saying that X % Y and X % -Y are equivalent.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 16:08 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
@ 2011-10-25 16:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 16:38 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-10-25 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-10-25 16:18:12 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak at ristioja dot ee wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja dot ee> 2011-10-25 16:08:19 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > /* X % -Y is the same as X % Y. */
> > (fold-const.c:fold_binary_loc) would probably be what's wrong here.
>
> On the other hand
> https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/INT32-C.+Ensure+that+operations+on+signed+integers+do+not+result+in+overflow#INT32-C.Ensurethatoperationsonsignedintegersdonotresultinoverflow-Modulo
> also refers to C99, saying that X % Y and X % -Y are equivalent.
Well, they are equivalent where they are both defined, or if you apply C99
rules to infinite-precision integers. The problem here is that INT_MIN %
-1 is undefined (explicitly in C1X) and so a transformation of INT_MIN % 1
into INT_MIN % -1 is unsafe (the other way round, transforming undefined
behavior to defined, is fine at least in the absence of -ftrapv).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 16:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-10-25 16:38 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 17:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jaak at ristioja dot ee @ 2011-10-25 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja dot ee> 2011-10-25 16:37:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Well, they are equivalent where they are both defined, or if you apply C99
> rules to infinite-precision integers. The problem here is that INT_MIN %
> -1 is undefined (explicitly in C1X) and so a transformation of INT_MIN % 1
> into INT_MIN % -1 is unsafe (the other way round, transforming undefined
> behavior to defined, is fine at least in the absence of -ftrapv).
But INT_MIN % 1 is still defined to be zero?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 16:38 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
@ 2011-10-25 17:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-12-10 8:40 ` [Bug middle-end/50865] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-10-25 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-10-25 17:13:51 UTC ---
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, jaak at ristioja dot ee wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja dot ee> 2011-10-25 16:37:48 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Well, they are equivalent where they are both defined, or if you apply C99
> > rules to infinite-precision integers. The problem here is that INT_MIN %
> > -1 is undefined (explicitly in C1X) and so a transformation of INT_MIN % 1
> > into INT_MIN % -1 is unsafe (the other way round, transforming undefined
> > behavior to defined, is fine at least in the absence of -ftrapv).
>
> But INT_MIN % 1 is still defined to be zero?
Yes. INT_MIN % 1 is defined to be zero, since the infinite-precision
values of both INT_MIN / 1 and INT_MIN % 1 are representable. INT_MIN %
-1 is undefined because the infinite-precision value of INT_MIN / -1 is
not representable in int.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-25 17:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2014-12-10 8:40 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-12-10 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
Severity|blocker |normal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-10 8:40 ` [Bug middle-end/50865] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-12-19 13:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-23 17:50 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-12-19 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |4.8.5
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-19 13:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-12-23 17:50 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2014-12-23 19:51 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: mikpelinux at gmail dot com @ 2014-12-23 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 34323
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34323&action=edit
patch restricting the X % -Y -> X % Y transformation to when it's safe
This proposed patch restricts the X % -Y -> X % Y transformation to cases when
we can be certain that it doesn't result in undefined behaviour, i.e. when Y !=
1 or X != INT_MIN. Passes bootstrap and testsuite on x86_64-linux so far.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-23 17:50 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
@ 2014-12-23 19:51 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2014-12-24 12:17 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2015-06-23 8:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch @ 2014-12-23 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz
| |.ch
--- Comment #13 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #12)
> Created attachment 34323 [details]
> patch restricting the X % -Y -> X % Y transformation to when it's safe
>
> This proposed patch restricts the X % -Y -> X % Y transformation to cases
> when we can be certain that it doesn't result in undefined behaviour, i.e.
> when Y != 1 or X != INT_MIN. Passes bootstrap and testsuite on x86_64-linux
> so far.
Shouldn't disabling this be language dependent ? I.e. in Fortran this
transformation is always valid (as integers in conforming programs are always
in the symmetric range).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-23 19:51 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
@ 2014-12-24 12:17 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2015-06-23 8:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: mikpelinux at gmail dot com @ 2014-12-24 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #34323|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 34328
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34328&action=edit
patch revised to always allow the transformation for Fortran
Patch revised to not restrict the transformation for Fortran, since the X !=
INT_MIN condition apparently is an invariant there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-24 12:17 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
@ 2015-06-23 8:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-23 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.8.5 |---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-06-23 8:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-10-25 14:25 [Bug c/50865] New: Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % -1 on x86_64 jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:31 ` [Bug c/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 " jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 14:57 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 15:14 ` jaak.randmets at cyber dot ee
2011-10-25 15:53 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 15:56 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 16:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/50865] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-25 16:08 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 16:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-10-25 16:38 ` jaak at ristioja dot ee
2011-10-25 17:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-12-10 8:40 ` [Bug middle-end/50865] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-23 17:50 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2014-12-23 19:51 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2014-12-24 12:17 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2015-06-23 8:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).