http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
Bug #: 50081
Summary: Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os
while function return a struct
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-08-15
07:16:36 UTC ---
Is this Thumb-1 code? If so then I suspect this is a duplicate of PR38644.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
Bug #: 50082
Summary: -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
--- Comment #2 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:01:26 UTC
---
I am a new here, I try 4.4.1 still same issue.
My compile is arm-none-eabi-gcc-4.4.1.exe.
Yes Thumb-1 code, but I not sure whether same as PR38644.
(In reply to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
08:07:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Sounds like some of the latent RTL alias issues we have with regarding to
find_base_value and friends (see some i?86 bugreport I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #42 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:08:46 UTC
---
*** Bug 50081 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
--- Comment #4 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:28:09 UTC
---
Created attachment 25012
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25012
source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081
--- Comment #5 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:29:12 UTC
---
Created attachment 25013
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25013
asm code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
08:47:08 UTC ---
Regarding the spinlock_unlock in linux, the regular arch_spin_unlock is
implemented with a single inline assembly. That will prevent the memory
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50080
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
08:51:44 UTC ---
You're right, but g++ doesn't claim to support everything in C++11 yet,
especially not in the 4.5 release series which is nearly a year and half old,
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com 2011-08-15
09:06:18 UTC ---
This patch did not work for me. Tried on following loop (-O2 -funroll-loops):
for ( count = ((*(hdrptr)) 0x7); count 0; count--, addr++ )
sum +=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
09:13:40 UTC ---
noop_move_p returns true for this - ignoding the side-effects.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 09:15:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Based on chapter 7.1.11, I would say that g95's error message is wrong: z does
not have to have constant length.
Well, to be precise, it is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
Bug #: 50083
Summary: [4.7 regression] All 32-bit fortran tests fail on
32-bit Solaris
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 09:49:44 UTC ---
Btw, for a related test case ...
subroutine sub
common n,z
integer z(n)
end
... gfortran spits out:
integer z(n)
1
Error: Variable 'n' at (1) in this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49961
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15
10:57:58 UTC ---
As I said, please re-check after [revision 177691]
See comment #2: I also see the failure on powerpc-apple-darwin9 at revision
177733.
The test in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
11:05:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Sounds like some of the latent RTL alias issues we have with regarding to
find_base_value and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50084
Bug #: 50084
Summary: ICE: C++0x, decltype + remove_reference + new
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
11:57:38 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Aug 15 11:57:33 2011
New Revision: 177759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177759
Log:
2011-08-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
Bug #: 50085
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C
scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on
x86_64-apple-darwin10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50084
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50086
Bug #: 50086
Summary: Error on lookup of template function address with
variadic template arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
12:17:39 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 15 12:17:33 2011
New Revision: 177760
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177760
Log:
2011-08-15 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50086
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087
Bug #: 50087
Summary: Weird optimization anomoly with constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087
--- Comment #1 from eric-gcc at omnifarious dot org 2011-08-15 12:49:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 25015
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25015
The function 'runs_too_long' takes basically forever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
Bug #: 50088
Summary: movzbl is generated instead of movl
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
13:07:50 UTC ---
I don't think we know at this point that the data is already properly
zero-extended.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50089
Bug #: 50089
Summary: [C++0x] ICE when calling a qualified base class member
function within a lambda expr without this-
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50089
--- Comment #1 from andwoe andwoe at hotmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:18:57 UTC
---
Created attachment 25017
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25017
source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com 2011-08-15
13:24:05 UTC ---
Actually we do not need any zero extensions here. Zero extended load appears
only after IRA if we have to spill/fill register.
Here is c code from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50089
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15
13:38:15 UTC ---
Can you try this ...
With the change I get:
ERROR: g++.dg/opt/life1-c.C: syntax error in target selector target i?86-*-*
x86_64-*-* ia32 fpic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:42:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Can you try this ...
With the change I get:
ERROR: g++.dg/opt/life1-c.C: syntax error in target selector target i?86-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:46:11
UTC ---
It is triggered by
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=cc0595c0a5a0ab03fba105bb1dbe856557b1a988
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50075
--- Comment #7 from Kerrek SB z0sh at sogetthis dot com 2011-08-15 13:57:51
UTC ---
This is great, thank you!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50090
Bug #: 50090
Summary: ARM EABI symbols in libgcc.a have default visibility
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50090
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 14:12:04
UTC ---
Can we check 2 cases:
1. Indirect function call via a register (PR 50074).
2. Non of function arguments are pointers (PR 49179).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15
14:55:20 UTC ---
Did this test work with -m32 before?
It was unsupported.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 15:01:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Did this test work with -m32 before?
It was unsupported.
It required PIC and ILP32 before. Why wasn't supported?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
15:01:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 15 15:01:33 2011
New Revision: 177762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177762
Log:
2011-08-15 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15
15:09:10 UTC ---
It required PIC and ILP32 before. Why wasn't supported?
Good question;-) but I don't know the answer!-(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
Bug #: 50091
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] -fstack-check gives bad
assembly on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
15:26:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
It is done on purpose:
/* X86_TUNE_MOVX: Enable to zero extend integer registers to avoid
partial dependencies. */
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
15:31:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Not sure I understand your question about tree-ssa-forwprop.c. Are you saying
that overflow warnings are already deferred at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 15:47:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
It is done on purpose:
/* X86_TUNE_MOVX: Enable to zero extend integer registers to avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49962
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
16:00:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Ok, the patch is simple enough after all. If I get approval by another Fortran
maintainer, I'll be happy to do the backport. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
Bug #: 50092
Summary: internal compiler error: in elimination_costs_in_insn,
at reload1.c:3633
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 17:19:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 25019
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25019
A patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39250
--- Comment #3 from Michael Hennebry hennebry at web dot cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
2011-08-15 17:34:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is solved in 4.7
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 49687 ***
49687 is still unassigned.
Did
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
17:39:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 25020
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25020
second patch
Two similar, but not really identical, problems.
S390x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39250
--- Comment #4 from Michael Hennebry hennebry at web dot cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
2011-08-15 17:42:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
This is solved in 4.7
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 49687 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
--- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
17:44:19 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Aug 15 17:44:11 2011
New Revision: 177764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177764
Log:
PR middle-end/50006
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
--- Comment #5 from iant at google dot com iant at google dot com 2011-08-15
19:39:08 UTC ---
rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org writes:
I suppose the forwprop code wants to force a warning at -Wstrict-overflow=1
if the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093
Bug #: 50093
Summary: [4.6 Regression] STL containers of
non-default-constructible classes fail under
-std=c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093
Anders Kaseorg andersk at mit dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-08-15
20:17:41 UTC ---
By the way, we even wrote down this explicitly in C.2.12 (of n3290).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
22:04:09 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 15 22:04:04 2011
New Revision: 12
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=12
Log:
Only run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50094
Bug #: 50094
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_6.f90
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50094
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15
22:27:25 UTC ---
I have not reached this stage yet, but I see the following typo (shallolvnot):
gcc/fortran/resolve.c: gfc_error (Function result '%s' at %L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50094
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50095
Bug #: 50095
Summary: -ffixed-REG and -ffixed-line-length-132 conflict
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50068
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-16
00:01:57 UTC ---
The SH target is the only target which does:
if (optimize 0 flag_delayed_branch)
dbr_schedule (insns);
in its thunks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49202
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49202
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-16
01:37:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I'm also going
to open a binutils bug and crossref this PR.
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13095
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com 2011-08-16
02:05:02 UTC ---
After thorough investigation of the problem I came to a conclusion that fixing
it in IRA requires to form regions on pseudo mode usage too (besides just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50095
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |driver
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936
--- Comment #3 from Sandra Loosemore sandra at codesourcery dot com
2011-08-16 04:13:02 UTC ---
Hmmm. Is it possible to make the INT/memory/whatever decision based on move
costs? Or use a target hook to supply a hint about what to do?
89 matches
Mail list logo