On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
* Richard Guenther:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
I get strange warnings when I do arithmetic involving TYPE_MAX_VALUE
(size_type_node), in particular this code:
/*
Hi,
SInce -O3 turns on vectorizer, should it also turn on
-funroll-loops?
--
H.J.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
SInce -O3 turns on vectorizer, should it also turn on
-funroll-loops?
We need to split the tree and RTL effects of -funroll-loops
(and -fpeel-loops). -funroll-loops can at the moment lead
to unneccessary code bloat. But
Hello,
I currently have a plugin for gcc 4.5 that works great. However, the
need has arisen to have the same plugin run on gcc 3.4.5. Knowing
that the plugin api wasn't added until 4.5 I was wondering if anyone
could tell me how much pain i would be in for if I attempt to backport
the plugin
Can somebody please explain the behavior of the following program
to me?
cat test.c EOD
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include xmmintrin.h
int main(void){
register __m128 var;
fprintf(stdout,pre %X\n,var);
var = _mm_setzero_ps();
fprintf(stdout,post %X\n,var);
On 1/21/2011 4:12 PM, Kyle Girard wrote:
Hello,
I currently have a plugin for gcc 4.5 that works great. However, the
need has arisen to have the same plugin run on gcc 3.4.5. Knowing
that the plugin api wasn't added until 4.5 I was wondering if anyone
could tell me how much pain i would be in
On 1/21/2011 10:43 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
SInce -O3 turns on vectorizer, should it also turn on
-funroll-loops?
Only if a conservative default value for max-unroll-times is set 2=
value = 4
--
Tim Prince
David Mathog mat...@caltech.edu writes:
Can somebody please explain the behavior of the following program
to me?
This question is not appropriate for the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list,
which is for the development of gcc itself. It would be appropriate on
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. Please take any
I've merged trunk rev 169107 into the pph branch. No new failures.
Lawrence, you will probably find little/no merge conflicts with your
timevar patch.
Diego.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
08:36:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 23058
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23058
gcc46-pr47391.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46831
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21 09:05:18
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Jan 21 09:05:14 2011
New Revision: 169080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169080
Log:
2011-01-21 Kai Tietz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
09:29:46 UTC ---
setup_one_parameter too, on the other side
tree_add_const_value_attribute_for_decl, set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos and
get_callee_fndecl test TREE_READONLY
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46102
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47392
Summary: [4.6 Regression] PRE opportunity no longer found
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47382
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47392
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47390
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=47389
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=47388
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47386
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47383
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gmail dot com pinskia at gmail dot com
2011-01-21 11:43:45 UTC ---
Sent from my Palm Pre on ATamp;T
On Jan 20, 2011 21:34, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
lt;gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.orggt; wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47393
Summary: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/icf.C FAILs on IRIX
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47393
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21 11:48:44 UTC
---
Created attachment 23059
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23059
assembler output (IRIX 6.5, N32)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47393
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44641
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44641
--- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21 11:54:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 23060
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23060
IRIX 6.5 (N32) assembler output
=yes,df,rtl,tree --disable-symvers --with-long-double-128
--disable-cld --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.6.0 20110121 (experimental) (GCC)
$ /local/devel/toolchain46/x86_64-pc-mingw32/bin/x86_64-pc-mingw32-as --version
GNU assembler (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.21.51.0.6.20110118
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47394
Summary: Internal compiler error when error count limit is
reached
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47392
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47383
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
12:38:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Sent from my Palm Pre on ATamp;T
On Jan 20, 2011 21:34, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
lt;gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.orggt; wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21 12:39:13
UTC ---
I don't see an obvious difference to my toolchain (beside I use a cygwin
cross-compiler). But such issues could be related also to used binutils
version. I am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47392
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
12:45:56 UTC ---
We could also always perform PRE when there is one insertion and one
elimination, assuming the size cost cancels.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47362
Michael Richmond michael.a.richmond at nasa dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
12:57:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 21 12:57:52 2011
New Revision: 169084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169084
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45566
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47391
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47392
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47395
Summary: the tree code WIDEN_MULT_MINUS_EXPR has a mismatching
name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47394
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=47396
Summary: Link error when declare a constant reference to a
class or struct static const member!
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
--- Comment #7 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2011-01-21 13:37:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I don't see an obvious difference to my toolchain (beside I use a cygwin
cross-compiler). But such issues could be related also to used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47396
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21 13:41:57
UTC ---
Well, I would, if I could extract .xz attachments. Could you re-attach it as
bz2?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47375
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47396
ChenYongqiang aishen944 at 163 dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47396
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47396
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22975|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
Summary: GCC not correctly define alignment of memory in AVX
mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47365
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
14:02:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 21 14:02:41 2011
New Revision: 169089
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169089
Log:
2011-01-21 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14404
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aishen944 at 163
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-21 14:05:21
UTC ---
The bug seems in get_object_alignment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47392
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47396
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47365
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
14:05:03 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 21 14:05:00 2011
New Revision: 169090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169090
Log:
2011-01-21 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47395
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47365
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-21 14:11:59
UTC ---
This testcase can compile
---
double a[1024], b[1024];
void foo()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i sizeof (a)/sizeof (a[0]) ; i++)
{
b[i] = a[i+2] * 10.0;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47395
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
14:14:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 21 14:14:12 2011
New Revision: 169092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169092
Log:
2011-01-21 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
14:15:49 UTC ---
Investigating.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
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=47395
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
14:22:40 UTC ---
Thus, the real reason is that we lack alignment information on
MEM_REFs/TARGET_MEM_REFs but only have pointer alignment information for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47398
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47398
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] tree check: accessed elt 10 of
tree_vec with 9 elts in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:10500
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-21 14:45:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thus, the real reason is that we lack alignment information on
MEM_REFs/TARGET_MEM_REFs but only have pointer alignment information for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47398
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
14:57:36 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Jan 21 14:57:33 2011
New Revision: 169093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169093
Log:
PR debug/47106
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47398
Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47399
Summary: ICE with TBP of a PARAMETER
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47400
Summary: Several UCN tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX V5.1B and IRIX
6.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
15:15:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:15:40 2011
New Revision: 169094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169094
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44606
--- Comment #12 from David Kühling dvdkhlng at gmx dot de 2011-01-21 15:17:34
UTC ---
Ok, looks like the change to reload1.c introduced by GCC revision 168347
(author froydnj):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47106
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
15:35:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Thus, the real reason is that we lack alignment information on
MEM_REFs/TARGET_MEM_REFs but only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
15:37:33 UTC ---
And before you start fiddling with set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, most
alignment related pieces in it should simply re-use get_object_alignment
(a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47355
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-21 16:03:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Note that this shouldn't be an issue for AVX/SSE as unaligned moves are
as fast as aligned ones if they are really aligned (at least I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47397
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
16:21:55 UTC ---
You can play with a cleanup patch I have lying around, queued for 4.7:
Index: emit-rtl.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47388
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422
--- Comment #29 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2011-01-21 16:27:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
David, any progress with this?
The cost function fix to make sure solution set does not become too big will be
probably very involved
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47401
Summary: Support for must-not-throw regions with SJLJ
exceptions broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47401
--- Comment #1 from Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
16:33:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 23064
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23064
Proposed fix
Patch from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41619
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-01-21 16:45:36
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01424.html
After some brief discussion with rth (concerns about global_regs) in IRC, rth
approved the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41619
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
16:49:34 UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jan 21 16:49:31 2011
New Revision: 169095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169095
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/41619
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41619
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37273
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-01-21 17:13:35
UTC ---
SPEC 2k6 testing on x86-64 is a wash for integer codes. Small improvement for
403.gcc 462.libquantum and small regressions for 456.hmmr and 471.omnetpp are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47388
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-21
17:15:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 23065
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23065
gcc46-pr47388.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47401
Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23064|0 |1
is
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo