From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-474522-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15744 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2015 10:40:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15662 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jan 2015 10:40:50 -0000
From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/56139] unmodified static data could go in .rodata, not .data
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:40:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on cc everconfirmed cf_known_to_fail
Message-ID: <bug-56139-4-9Z4hHX7fJj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56139-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56139-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg02516.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56139

Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-01-23
                 CC|                            |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to fail|                            |4.9.0, 5.0

--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If it worked in 4.6 then this is a regression, no ? don't have a 4.6 tree handy
to check it but ...