From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17399 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2014 14:10:07 -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 Received: (qmail 17363 invoked by uid 48); 22 Oct 2014 14:10:03 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/63326] whether a #pragma is a statement depends on the type of pragma Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:11:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01678.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63326 --- Comment #12 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to steveren from comment #11) > So assuming it's not actually beyond somebody completely unfamiliar with = the > innards of gcc, what would be the response to a patch which changed #prag= ma > message from 'statement' to 'not-a-statement'? I think that even if not a definitive solution, it would be a positive step towards understanding what would it take to change the behavior for specific #pragmas (since we cannot change how OMP #pragmas behave). >>From gcc-bugs-return-464658-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Oct 22 14:11:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18570 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2014 14:11:58 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18527 invoked by uid 48); 22 Oct 2014 14:11:53 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/63600] [5 Regression] ice in ix86_expand_sse2_abs Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:14:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2014-10/txt/msg01679.txt.bz2 Content-length: 286 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- I would have expected VI instead of IV in the iterator name, but I never understood the rules for i?86 iterator names. And, you want the testcase in the testsuite too.