Hi,
I'm porting a gcc backend (4.6.1) for a 16-bit MCU with PSI pmode, and
SI ptr_mode.
I have a QoR problem with loops: the chosen IVs are often not good.
I looked at tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c but it is hard to understand that
code. So sorry if my questions are a bit confused but I would like to
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm porting a gcc backend (4.6.1) for a 16-bit MCU with PSI pmode, and
SI ptr_mode.
I have a QoR problem with loops: the chosen IVs are often not good.
I looked at tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c but it is hard
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Amker.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, with
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Amker.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Richard Guenther
The issue is most probably that on GIMPLE we only deal with ptr_mode,
not Pmode, and IVOPTs thinks that pointer induction variables will
have ptr_mode. To fix this the cost computation would need to take
into account ptr_mode to Pmode conversions _and_ would need to
consider Pmode IVs in
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is most probably that on GIMPLE we only deal with ptr_mode,
not Pmode, and IVOPTs thinks that pointer induction variables will
have ptr_mode. To fix this the cost computation would need to take
Le 29/02/2012 16:15, Richard Guenther a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is most probably that on GIMPLE we only deal with ptr_mode,
not Pmode, and IVOPTs thinks that pointer induction variables will
have ptr_mode. To
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/02/2012 16:15, Richard Guenther a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is most probably that on GIMPLE we only deal with ptr_mode,
Le 29/02/2012 17:08, Richard Guenther a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/02/2012 16:15, Richard Guenther a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Aurelien Buhrig
aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is most
I've reviewed many (not yet all) of glibc's open math component bugs. I
hope some actual summary information on what the current state of libm
looks like may be of interest to the people involved in the various past
discussions of better libm for GCC or glibc - and those interested in
fixing
From: Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:17:17 + (UTC)
Thanks for looking into all of these issues.
(c) Various functions do not set errno correctly (many cases) or raise the
proper floating-point exceptions (a smaller number of cases - both
spurious
Jay Freeman (saurik) sau...@saurik.com writes:
As you know, I wanted to allow for future expansion. I agree that it
would be possible to avoid storing MORESTACK_SEGMENTS--that would trade
off space for time, since it would mean that setcontext would have to
walk up the list. I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
08:12:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 29 08:12:04 2012
New Revision: 184652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184652
Log:
PR bootstrap/52397
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52397
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
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=52426
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
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=52423
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=52429
Bug #: 52429
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in
separate_decls_in_region_debug, at tree-parloops.c:914
with -ftree-parallelize-loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46596
Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyasskin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
Bug #: 52430
Summary: [4.4 Regression] firefox miscompilation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
09:47:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 26779
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26779
dombindings.ii.bz2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49939
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
09:50:24 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Feb 29 09:50:19 2012
New Revision: 184656
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184656
Log:
PR target/49939
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52431
Bug #: 52431
Summary: Pass Fortran logical to C function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52297
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52431
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
10:06:14 UTC ---
I think you forgot the value attribute like:
logical(C_BOOL), value :: inbool
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52431
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52297
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
10:06:00 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 29 10:05:55 2012
New Revision: 184657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184657
Log:
2012-02-29 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
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=52001
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
--- Comment #3 from Bernhard Rosenkränzer Bernhard.Rosenkranzer at linaro dot
org 2012-02-29 11:35:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 26781
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26781
(Mostly) reduced version of the testcase
Attaching
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52412
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52396
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
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=51737
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
12:09:19 UTC ---
The question is why we call delete_unreachable_blocks from
tree_function_versioning at all. We do not bother updating the
callgraph anywhere else.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
Bug #: 52432
Summary: [C++11] -fdump-tree-gimple causes ICE: Error reporting
routines re-entered.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52252
--- Comment #2 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com 2012-02-29
12:32:20 UTC ---
The difference of 2 dumps from
Arm: gcc -O3 -mfpu=neon test.c -S -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=12
X86: gcc -O3 -m32 -msse3 test.c -S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Bug #: 52433
Summary: [C++11] debug mode iterators need move constructors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #7 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-29 12:53:01 UTC ---
gdb) disassemble 0x0053e800,+32
Dump of assembler code from 0x53e800 to 0x53e820:
0x0053e800 tzload+3040:movdqu -0x40(%rcx),%xmm0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] debug mode |[C++11] debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
13:01:25 UTC ---
Also untested, and sub-optimal (swapping would be better than copying):
/**
* @brief Move assignment.
* @post @p __x is singular and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
13:02:21 UTC ---
I think it get's even messier with the following, simpler looking code, which
consists of four variants (without read/with nonadvanced read -- and with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43878
--- Comment #2 from Frank fgn123 at freenet dot de 2012-02-29 13:02:49 UTC ---
On 03.02.2012 18:56, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43878
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinskipinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
13:06:40 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Feb 29 13:06:28 2012
New Revision: 184662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184662
Log:
2012-02-29 Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-29
13:18:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
gdb) disassemble 0x0053e800,+32
Dump of assembler code from 0x53e800 to 0x53e820:
0x0053e800 tzload+3040:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52434
Bug #: 52434
Summary: Insufficient number of digits in floating point
formatting
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #9 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-29 13:33:36 UTC ---
okey
i tried build astrisk on OpenSuse 12.1
with gcc
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.6/lto-wrapper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52434
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jb at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #10 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-29 13:37:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
gdb) disassemble 0x0053e800,+32
Dump of assembler code from 0x53e800 to 0x53e820:
0x0053e800
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200
Gabriel Dos Reis gdr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-29
13:41:24 UTC ---
It's a bit more tricky, because if we only do that we have a diagnostic quality
regression for decltyp32.C: many error messages are recursively produces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
13:46:01 UTC ---
We are not prepared to handle bitsize != GET_MODE_BITSIZE in expand_assignment
for the movmisalign case. The following fixes it
Index: gcc/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-29
13:51:03 UTC ---
Admittedly, though, the error which we currently produce for decltype32 isn't
optimal, ie:
decltype32.C: In substitution of ‘templateclass T decltype
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
13:52:05 UTC ---
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:DI 62)
(vec_select:DI (subreg:V2DI (unspec:V16QI [
(mem:V16QI (reg/v/f:DI 59 [ p ]) [0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52435
Bug #: 52435
Summary: ICE in arm_select_dominance_cc_mode, at
config/arm/arm.c:10625
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-29
14:13:44 UTC ---
Grunt, the mechanism part of unqualified_name_lookup_error isn't actually used
for decltype32.C: something else is happening which manages to avoid the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
Bug #: 52436
Summary: BIT_FIELD_REF MEM_REF should be canonicalized for
non-bitfield accesses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
14:19:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26785
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26785
alternative
This patch avoids expand_expr on the MEM_REF's base twice, by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |redi at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52427
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
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=52419
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26785|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-02-29 15:01:31
UTC ---
The question is why we call delete_unreachable_blocks from
tree_function_versioning at all. We do not bother updating the
callgraph anywhere else.
Honza,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46596
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-02-29 15:07:18 UTC
---
glibc runs into the sorry, unimplemented part of the issue, with
delta-reduced code like:
$ cat test.i
typedef __builtin_va_list __gnuc_va_list;
extern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
15:17:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
The question is why we call delete_unreachable_blocks from
tree_function_versioning at all. We do not bother updating the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-02-29 15:24:18
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
15:17:33 UTC ---
(In reply to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #6 from Walter Spector w6ws at earthlink dot net 2012-02-29
15:58:10 UTC ---
Tobias,
If you are interested, I tried the patch you posted on the email list to a
freshly checked out trunk. After building the compiler, I tried the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46596
Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toolchain at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
Bug #: 52437
Summary: internal compiler error: in spill_failure, at
reload1.c:2120
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
16:37:43 UTC ---
The problem exists in all active branches and isn't a regression, so I'll
implement a swap asap but it isn't urgent for 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
16:45:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26787
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26787
Proposed untested fix
n_cloning_candidates is zero because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-02-29
17:01:44 UTC ---
Sure, sure, likewise for vectorbool swap ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-02-29
17:18:19 UTC ---
Also in clang 3.0, I see test/CodeGen/darwin-thread-specifier.c which
contains...
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-apple-macosx10.7.0 -emit-llvm -o -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
17:44:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 29 17:43:56 2012
New Revision: 184665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184665
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-29
17:46:08 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 29 17:45:55 2012
New Revision: 184666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184666
Log:
PR middle-end/52419
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade pcpa at mandriva dot com.br changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
Bug #: 52438
Summary: Some files still GPLv2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439
Bug #: 52439
Summary: Calculation of natural log
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-29
19:13:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Created attachment 26757 [details]
make fold_rtx handle prev_insn_cc0 == NULL
The effect of Richard Guenther's r180192 patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-29
19:18:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
applying my tentative
patch did allow a successful build of a gcc-4.7 cross to m68k w/ ada, so I'll
try a native bootstrap with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-29
19:43:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 26789
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26789
reduced test case
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
