If You Have Already Gainig 3000% and more On Your Money, Read Something
Else. And If you dont care Fast returns by Monday, DEFINITELY Don't Look at
This!
V_NDB is having a 3,000% volume increase today, a clear sign of shorters
playing, resulting in the price to be under its value it should be.
If You Have Already Gainig 3000% and more On Your Money, Read Something
Else. And If you dont care Fast returns by Monday, DEFINITELY Don't Look at
This!
V_NDB is having a 3,000% volume increase today, a clear sign of shorters
playing, resulting in the price to be under its value it should be.
If You Have Already Gainig 3000% and more On Your Money, Read Something
Else. And If you dont care Fast returns by Monday, DEFINITELY Don't Look at
This!
V_NDB is having a 3,000% volume increase today, a clear sign of shorters
playing, resulting in the price to be under its value it should be.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Elmar Krieger el...@cmbi.ru.nl wrote:
Hi Ian, hi Richard, hi Andi!
Many thanks for your comments.
The slowdown is not the same with other files, so I'm essentially sure
that this specific source file has some 'feature' that catches GCC at
the wrong leg.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
Lots of test cases fail with the attached patch.
Lots still fail after correcting the verifier :-)
920723-1.c: In function 'f':
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
Lots of test cases fail with the attached patch.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steven
Hi Richard,
many thanks for saving my time.
time gcc -m32 -g -O -fno-strict-aliasing -x c -Wall -Werror -c model.i
That's within reasonable bounds as well, IMHO (you can't really compare
-O1 from 3.2.3 with -O1 from 4.6.3). One more data point (-O2 tends to
be more focused on, no debuginfo
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder why we cache loop-depth at all ... given that it is a simple
dereference bb-loop_father-superloops-base.prefix.num. For all
the hassle to keep that cache up-to-date, that is.
The cached bb-loop_depth
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder why we cache loop-depth at all ... given that it is a simple
dereference bb-loop_father-superloops-base.prefix.num. For
Elmar Krieger el...@cmbi.ru.nl writes:
[...] I really didn't expect that RedHat and Google both mess up
GCC with their modifications, so I'll report it to them instead ;-)
That's not a fair characterization of the features' costs/benefits.
- FChE
I'm not sure what LTO is supposed to do -- the documentation is not exactly
clear. But I assumed it should make things faster and/or smaller.
So I tried using it on an application -- a processor emulator, CPU intensive
code, a lot of 64 bit integer arithmetic.
Using a compile/assembler run on
I just uploaded all the slides I received and linked all the talks for
which we had video.
Jan, if there are any more videos you have other than
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5D02780BAF2B55CFfeature=plcp,
please send them my way.
To all the presenters, please check that the links
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 08/11/2012 09:18 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:54:17AM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 08/09/2012 10:52 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Hi,
What is the recommended way to skip specific
The installation instructions seem to imply that GCC can be built without
having ISL and/or CLOOG installed, and the configure script accepts
--without-isl and --without-cloog.
But I can't build that. Reading the installation instructions makes me expect
that such a configuration would skip
Where does one go to report issues with ISL?
Since GCC doesn't build without it, I'm trying to install ISL from sources.
That doesn't work. It accepts --with-gmp but there is nothing in the Makefile
to pay attention to that -- the compiles are done without any switches so it
fails unless
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
I'm not sure what LTO is supposed to do -- the documentation is not exactly
clear. But I assumed it should make things faster and/or smaller.
So I tried using it on an application -- a processor emulator, CPU intensive
code, a
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:01 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
The installation instructions seem to imply that GCC can be built without
having ISL and/or CLOOG installed, and the configure script accepts
--without-isl and --without-cloog.
But I can't build that. Reading the installation
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Figuring out what has gone wrong is like optimizing any program. Get
a profile for your program, e.g., using -pg. Build the program with
and without -flto, run it, and look at the resulting profiles. A 50%
slowdown should be fairly obvious. I would
On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:01 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
The installation instructions seem to imply that GCC can be built without
having ISL and/or CLOOG installed, and the configure script accepts
--without-isl and --without-cloog.
But
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54138.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
And now for something completely different.
[...] I really didn't expect that RedHat and Google both mess up
GCC with their modifications, so I'll report it to them instead
That's not a fair characterization of the features' costs/benefits.
We just are trying to mess up (?) binutils, aren't we? gcc just
receives the benefit by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238
Bug #: 54238
Summary: If possible, TRANSFER should use assignment instead of
MEMCPY
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
06:15:43 UTC ---
Though the memcpy does get optimized to a VCE:
addr.9_4 = (integer(kind=8)) ivtmp.29_28;
D.1913_24 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRvoid *(addr.9_4);
So it might not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50167
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
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=53942
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
07:35:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 13 07:35:03 2012
New Revision: 190338
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190338
Log:
Backported from trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54237
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
--- Comment #53 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-13 08:26:13 UTC
---
It seems it was improved.
4.8 20120806
NUMERIC SORT: 1543.7 : 39.59 : 13.00
4.8 20120813
NUMERIC SORT: 2007.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
08:55:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data (just not wrong
data).
Also at that time location list will need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54232
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
08:59:18 UTC ---
If you do something like
gcc -c t1.c -mavx -flto
gcc -c t2.c -msse2 -flto
gcc t1.o t2.o -flto
then the link step will use -mavx -msse2, that is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
09:29:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 13 09:29:28 2012
New Revision: 190339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190339
Log:
2012-08-13 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #9 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13 09:44:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
If you do something like
gcc -c t1.c -mavx -flto
gcc -c t2.c -msse2 -flto
gcc t1.o t2.o -flto
then the link step will use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #10 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13
09:53:32 UTC ---
Another test:
$ cat main_avx.c
#define BZERO bzero_avx
#pragma GCC target (avx)
#include main.c
$ cat main_sse2.c
#define BZERO bzero_sse2
#pragma GCC target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #11 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13
10:12:48 UTC ---
Attaching __attribute__((target(xxx))) to the function does help.
It generates the following with the my_bzero function from comment 2:
02e0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
Bug #: 54239
Summary: Not able to generate prefetch (prefetch read)
instruction using -m3dnow or -mprfchw
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53495
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54049
Stefan Sørensen stefan at astylos dot dk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53411
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53495
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
10:55:39 UTC ---
*** Bug 53411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53411
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
11:07:27 UTC ---
If the call to delete_trivially_dead_insns is supposed to eliminate only
pre-existing dead insns, then just moving it to the beginning of IRA fixes this
bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53411
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54112
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13 11:55:04
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Aug 13 11:55:00 2012
New Revision: 190340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190340
Log:
2012-08-13 Marc Glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54112
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
11:58:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
If you do something like
gcc -c t1.c -mavx -flto
gcc -c t2.c -msse2 -flto
gcc t1.o t2.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #13 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13
12:13:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Yes, there are similar option-related bugs for this. Note somebody needs
to sit down and document the desired semantics of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
Bug #: 54240
Summary: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly
after r189366
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54241
Bug #: 54241
Summary: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly
after r189366
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
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=54200
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
12:35:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I see following in report for x86:
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr54200.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
-fno-fat-lto-objects line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54241
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54241
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
12:39:10 UTC ---
*** Bug 54241 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53968
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
12:40:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 13 12:39:54 2012
New Revision: 190342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190342
Log:
PR c/53968
* tree.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53968
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=54240
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-08-13
12:46:48 UTC ---
Right! Sorry for the noise...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54242
Bug #: 54242
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Testsuite failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
13:21:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 13 13:21:41 2012
New Revision: 190345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190345
Log:
PR driver/54210
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54242
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=54239
--- Comment #2 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com
2012-08-13 13:51:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Both in 4.7 (which is before the prfchw changes) and 4.8 with -m32 -m3dnow and
-m32 -m3dnow -mno-sse I get prefetch +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
13:58:40 UTC ---
But the Intel manual AFAIK doesn't talk about prefetch insn.
So, the -mprfchw switch needs to control solely the prefetchw instruction,
and there might be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54232
--- Comment #3 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-08-13 13:59:17
UTC ---
I think the GOT is introduced too late to do any fancy ananlysis
on whether we need it or not.
This may be true, but if so, it's a highly suboptimal design
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:00:55 UTC ---
BTW, why do you care about the prefetch insn? Isn't it obsoleted by the SSE
ISA prefetches anyway (unlike prefetchw)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #8 from David Adler d.adler.s at gmail dot com 2012-08-13
14:09:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28005
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28005
proposed changelog
I wasn't sure about the testcase file name, so I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:14:59 UTC ---
Odd, I don't know. I'll have to go back and look at the tests when I get a
moment and investigate that. Peculiar.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:14:59 UTC ---
Odd, I don't know. I'll have to go back and look at the tests when I get a
moment and investigate that. Peculiar.
--- Comment #4 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:24:48 UTC ---
Well, I'm embarrassed. The tests I wrote for this functionality never got into
the test suite -- I apparently forgot to submit them with the patch --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #5 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com
2012-08-13 14:33:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
BTW, why do you care about the prefetch insn? Isn't it obsoleted by the SSE
ISA prefetches anyway (unlike prefetchw)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:35:21 UTC ---
Perfect - thanks. I'll get it committed tonight.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
Bug #: 54243
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
(trying to compile errorneous code)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
Bug #: 54244
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: in
gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53836
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #23 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
15:51:37 UTC ---
On 08/12/2012 07:30 AM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #22 from John David Anglin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
Bug #: 54245
Summary: [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246
Bug #: 54246
Summary: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
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=54239
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaw at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
19:56:55 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:56:50 2012
New Revision: 190356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190356
Log:
2012-08-13 David Adler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
19:56:55 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:56:50 2012
New Revision: 190356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190356
Log:
2012-08-13 David Adler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
19:57:36 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:57:31 2012
New Revision: 190357
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190357
Log:
2012-08-13 David Adler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54247
Bug #: 54247
Summary: OpenMP code fails at execution in AMD Interlagos
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54247
Bill Long longb at cray dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
20:39:59 UTC ---
Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
appear to have gone missing. I'll get one of our back-end specialists to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53836
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
21:59:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
appear to have gone missing. I'll get one of our
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #8 from Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov 2012-08-13
22:04:40 UTC ---
The following is a transcript of a test I just tried one of my systems where
Gary and I have observed this bug. The test appears to show that the gcc
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
