On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I fall into ssa verification failure when try to pass field's
DECL_SIZE as an operand for CALL_EXPR. The fail occurs if field's size
is not a constant. In such case DECL_SIZE holds a VAR_DECL and I need
to find
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
In C++ there is a common idiom called initialize on first use. In its
simplest form it looks like
int lazy_i()
{
static int i = init;
return i;
}
If the initialization is expensive or order-sensitive, this is a
Some tests in gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/avr/torture (builtins-2.c, for
e.g.) have -Tavr51-flash1.x specified in dg-options. The tests currently
fail with an unable to open linker script error for that file.
Is that linker script supposed to be checked into source control? Or am
I missing some
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Here's my current patch for the bitfield reversal feature I've been
working on for a while, with an RX-specific pragma to apply it
globally. Could someone please review this? It would be nice
to get it in before stage1
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Walter Lee w...@tilera.com wrote:
On TILE-Gx, I'm observing a degradation in inlined memcpy/memset in
gcc 4.6 and later versus gcc 4.4. Though I find the problem on
TILE-Gx, I think this is a problem for any architectures with
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set to 1.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
If the result is not needed, are we allowed to remove a call to this
function?
No. Unless you know the same function has been already called.
So - what's
Hello Vlad,
Is it intentional that DF_LR_IN and DF_LR_OUT are not updated after
Updating elimination of equiv for reg...? I have some checking in
place in process_bb_lives at the end of the function, and it triggers
on the test case. (Checking code and test case is at the end of this
e-mail.) It
On 10/04/2012 08:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
If the result is not needed, are we allowed to remove a call to this
function?
No. Unless you know the same
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:56:03AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think the plan was for these functions not to return any value,
No, I'm talking about the wrapper function which returns a reference
to the variable (as in my example).
Sure, but I thought you want to inline the wrapper
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/04/2012 08:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
If the result is not needed, are we
Thanks to the help of segher and iant on IRC (thanks again!), I
narrowed my problem down to something I can fully understand and
explain (well I hope).
There is a bad interaction between the IRA handling of subregs and
reload's use of REG_EQUIV annotations. Each one seems to be in its
right to do
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Some tests in gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/avr/torture (builtins-2.c, for
e.g.) have -Tavr51-flash1.x specified in dg-options. The tests currently
fail with an unable to open linker script error for that file.
Is that linker script supposed to be checked into source
On 10/04/2012 09:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ugh. Especially with the above (you can DCE those calls) makes this
severly mis-specified ... and any implementation error-prone (look what
mess our losely defined 'malloc' attribute opened ...).
I thought of a testcase like
int *p = get_me
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Frederic Riss frederic.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to the help of segher and iant on IRC (thanks again!), I
narrowed my problem down to something I can fully understand and
explain (well I hope).
There is a bad interaction between the IRA handling of subregs
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/04/2012 09:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ugh. Especially with the above (you can DCE those calls) makes this
severly mis-specified ... and any implementation error-prone (look what
mess our losely defined 'malloc'
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/04/2012 09:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ugh. Especially with the above (you can DCE those calls) makes this
severly mis-specified
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:08:02PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
But isn't it a fact that it _cannot_ modify init_count? If the second call
is CSEable then it cannot have side-effects that are observable at
the call site. Is the following an example you would consider to fall
under your
On 10/04/2012 01:15 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
That is, I am confused about the distinction you seem to make between
the static variable 'initialized' and the global 'init_count'.
The distinction is that initialized is an implementation detail that
once set is never cleared; it is the
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:08:02PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
But isn't it a fact that it _cannot_ modify init_count? If the second call
is CSEable then it cannot have side-effects that are observable at
the call site.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Walter Lee w...@tilera.com wrote:
On TILE-Gx, I'm observing a degradation in inlined memcpy/memset in
gcc 4.6 and later versus gcc 4.4. Though I find the problem on
TILE-Gx, I think this is a problem for any architectures with
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set to
On 10/04/2012 01:42 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So I suppose the testcase that would be valid but break with using
pure would be instead
int main()
{
int x = init_count;
int *p = get_me();
if (init_count == x)
__builtin_abort();
int *q = get_me();
if (init_count == x)
Any suggestion about how I could avoid generating this zero_extension?
Redundant extensions have been a hot topic for some time. The combiner should
catch the local easy cases, we have ree.c for the nonlocal easy cases and Tom
recently posted:
ChangeLog missing, new functions need a toplevel comment documenting
function, argument and return value as per coding conventions.
Any review of the patch itself? I know the overhead is not there...
Is libbacktrace currently functional in gcc trunk and is it expected
to function on darwin? While I could understand it not working on installed
binaries of FSF gcc that were stripped, I would think it should work for
make check in the build tree since all of the debug code should be present
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
Is libbacktrace currently functional in gcc trunk and is it expected
to function on darwin? While I could understand it not working on installed
binaries of FSF gcc that were stripped, I would think it should work
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Any suggestion about how I could avoid generating this zero_extension?
Redundant extensions have been a hot topic for some time. The combiner should
catch the local easy cases, we have ree.c for the nonlocal easy cases
David and i have been talking about this for some time.
what is needed is a real global optimization algorithm. my leaning is
to make do it at the rtl level because that is where everything has been
exposed. but it would be a lot easier in ssa form.
The first step in my opinion is to ask
Hi Everyone,
This question is mainly for some future submission. Am I allowed to use
fatal_error (..)? Mainly, I want to use it in cases where I want to say if
this error has occurred, I see no reason to go forward with compilation.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Iyer, Balaji V balaji.v.i...@intel.com wrote:
This question is mainly for some future submission. Am I allowed to
use fatal_error (..)? Mainly, I want to use it in cases where I want to say
if this error has occurred, I see no reason to go forward with
On 12-10-04 8:53 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello Vlad,
Is it intentional that DF_LR_IN and DF_LR_OUT are not updated after
Updating elimination of equiv for reg...? I have some checking in
place in process_bb_lives at the end of the function, and it triggers
on the test case. (Checking code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
06:09:48 UTC ---
As a quick hack just for this testcase we might perhaps do something in jump
threading code, if we have a DEBUG stmt based on a PHI result and are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54801
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54808
Bug #: 54808
Summary: error: non-trivial conversion at assignment (with bit
fields)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54739
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
07:58:31 UTC ---
Thanks. The code generated for the testcase is certainly better on the SPARC
if lower-subreg doesn't split the DImode objects (which probably means
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54809
Bug #: 54809
Summary: gengtype ignore mark_hook in struct nested in union
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54809
--- Comment #1 from Basile Starynkevitch bstarynk at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-04 08:05:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 28354
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28354
patch to gengtype.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54804
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54809
--- Comment #2 from Basile Starynkevitch bstarynk at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-04 08:09:42 UTC ---
Run
gengtype -D -v \
-r gtype.state \
-P _g-basilemarkh.h basilemarkh.h
The bug appears on GCC 4.6, GCC 4.7 and GCC 4.8 (trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54739
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
08:15:37 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Oct 4 08:15:11 2012
New Revision: 192066
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192066
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54801
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54807
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50356
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kazu at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54801
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-04 09:29:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
For some reason, -fselective-scheduling is moving
(insn 19 16 22 2 (use (reg/i:SI 0 ax)) testcase.c:6 -1
(nil))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54789
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2012-10-04 09:46:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 28355
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28355
Patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54810
Bug #: 54810
Summary: VRP doesn't handle comparison of narrowing cast like
comparison of BIT_AND_EXPR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54789
Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54810
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54810
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54789
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #16 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-10-04
11:17:00 UTC ---
Seems with LRA code is fast again
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47788
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
11:23:23 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 4 11:23:18 2012
New Revision: 192075
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192075
Log:
2012-10-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47799
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54801
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52859
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54801
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
11:48:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 4 11:48:21 2012
New Revision: 192078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192078
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54808
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54803
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52458
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54794
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54790
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54789
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54783
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54782
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:41:42 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-09-28
08:54:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54472
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:46:34 UTC ---
--- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC ---
[...]
I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54806
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-10-04
13:43:48 UTC ---
It works for me on powerpc-apple-darwin8, powerpc-apple-darwin9 and
x86_64-apple-darwin10 (builds from fink). What is your *-apple-darwin*? and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51802
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04 13:44:45 UTC ---
Note that, in a way, this 'double mangling' is not a bug but a feature.
It was introduced for PR 46313, in order to handle cases like the one below.
(There might be
/sem_attr.adb -o ada/sem_attr.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.8.0 20121004 (experimental) [trunk revision 192031] (x86_64-suse-linux) GCC
error:|
| tree code '�' is not supported in LTO streams|
| Error detected around
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54796
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-10-04 14:16:15 UTC
---
I have the following patch in my tree for some time now
PR gcc/52945
* testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr52634_0.c: skip the test on Darwin.
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54790
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #15 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-10-04 14:25:29 UTC
---
I can reliably reproduce bug on Core 2.
Reverting 175752 reliably fixes bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812
Bug #: 54812
Summary: [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of
defaulted destructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54323
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54323
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-04 15:19:42 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 4 15:19:34 2012
New Revision: 192083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192083
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54323
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54424
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54794
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-10-04 15:34:04
UTC ---
This may be related to PR 54795.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53845
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53845
--- Comment #4 from Jeremiah Willcock jewillco at osl dot iu.edu 2012-10-04
15:43:30 UTC ---
I don't know whether it is valid or not after all of the trimming I did on it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54144
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53845
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-04
15:55:26 UTC ---
Minimally, can somebody check clang? Lately we fixed quite a few error
reporting routines re-entered issues and if the testcase isn't even invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-04
15:57:07 UTC ---
*** Bug 54101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-10-04 15:57:19 UTC ---
I will take a look how LTO can help us. I believe part of the problem should
be fixed by dropping the COMDAT hack for V1 API that is on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04
16:07:19 UTC ---
I assume it is with linker plugin, right? In that case we need to track why
some of the functions do not become static.
There is bug in this right now,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-10-04 16:16:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I assume it is with linker plugin, right?
Yes.
I assume you do see improvements with -O3 -fwhole-program?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54811
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54813
Bug #: 54813
Summary: NULL pointer conversion fails for template code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
