--- Comment #22 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-05-07 06:53
---
Viola! Something happens now! Thanks for fixing this.
$ cat test-profile-mode.cc
#include vector
using namespace std;
int main() {
vectorint v;
for (int k = 0; k 1024; ++k) v.insert(v.begin(), k
--- Comment #15 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-05-05 10:45
---
Created an attachment (id=20560)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20560action=view)
Output of compiler patched with 43259-0504.patch on SunOS 5.11 snv_134
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #16 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-05-05 10:46
---
(From update of attachment 20560)
Hello,
unfortunately your patch is still not working, but it seems you've solved
originally reported issue. See attached log file for compilers complains with
your patch
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
GCC host triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
GCC target triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43980
--- Comment #3 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-05-03 20:30
---
Folks,
please close this. Indeed, when I add -march=i486 I get no linker errors
anymore. Thanks for your fast help! Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43980
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
GCC host triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
GCC target triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43683
--- Comment #1 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-04-08 08:16
---
Created an attachment (id=20332)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20332action=view)
preprocessed test.cc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43683
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
GCC host triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
GCC target triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #1 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-01-01 19:20
---
Created an attachment (id=19438)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19438action=view)
MICO's head preprocessed typecode.cc file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42576
--- Comment #5 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2010-01-01 20:34
---
yes, tckind is enum. Thanks for pointing out that this is MICO code issue. If
you also could be so kind and cite some C++/C language specification point
which GCC follows here and which all older GCC releases
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-openbsd3.9
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-openbsd3.9
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-openbsd3.9
http
--- Comment #13 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-04 15:53
---
Subject: Re: linking of C++ app fail on OpenBSD 3.9 due
POSIX threading unresolved symbols
Hello,
I've rebuild todays trunk and configured it as:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-unknown
--- Comment #15 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-04 15:57
---
I've changed summary from C++ app to C++/ObjC app to better reflect the
issue.
--
kgardas at objectsecurity dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-03 06:59
---
Subject: Re: linking of C++ app fail on OpenBSD 3.9 due
POSIX threading unresolved symbols
Now if this works, then we have a problem in libstdc++ check to enable weakref
for some reason.
Could you be so
--- Comment #10 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-03 07:08
---
Subject: Re: linking of C++ app fail on OpenBSD 3.9 due
POSIX threading unresolved symbols
Small addition to previous post. Although .weakref is not supported, .weak
is:
$ cat /tmp/weak-conftest.s
--- Comment #12 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-03 08:01
---
Subject: Re: linking of C++ app fail on OpenBSD 3.9 due
POSIX threading unresolved symbols
Sorry, I've enabled only c++ for this build and I would prefer not to
rebuild if possible, since c/c++ took about 4
--- Comment #3 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-02 19:08
---
Created an attachment (id=11186)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11186action=view)
Hello World test preprocessed source
Hello,
here is requested preprocessed source bzip2ed.
Karel
--- Comment #5 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-02 19:18
---
Hello,
I don't know if it is of any use, but from the OpenBSD history I remember it
used really ancient binutils version, i.e. as 0.92 or so, the linker very same.
Now, at least in 3.9 it's using FSF binutils
--- Comment #6 from kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2006-04-02 19:23
---
After correcting abort(0) to abort() on line 9 I get:
$ /home/karel/usr/local/gcc-trunk-20060331/bin/gcc test.c
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:9: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built
at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-unknown-openbsd3.9
GCC host triplet: i386-unknown-openbsd3.9
GCC target triplet: i386-unknown-openbsd3.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26966
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-03-02
20:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
New results for 4.0.0 20050301 are posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-03-02
20:09 ---
New results meassured for MICO compiled with 4.0.0 20050301 are posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00132.html
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-03-02
21:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
I agree with Giovanni that both #17278 and #13776 are fixed from MICO
compile-time
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-01-31
09:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Hello,
new timings are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01714.html
Actually
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-01-31
09:31 ---
Hello,
new timings MICO ORB sources are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01714.html
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
htab_find_slot_with_hash
Do you have numbers wether we are memory-bandwith limited here? If
not, we might micro-optimize hash table access somewhat more.
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-01-26
10:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Many C++ compile-time
regressions
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2005-01-26
10:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Many C++ compile-time
regressions for MICO's ORB code
Just to note something about 4.0.0 and 3.4.2 memory usage while compiling
ir.cc.
3.4.2: it is quickly gorwing up
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
New comparison is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg01157.html
Good work
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28
21:03 ---
Hello,
New comparison is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg01157.html
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28
22:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Now only 8%.
True
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-28
22:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 8% C++ compile-time
regression in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-08
10:26 ---
Subject: Re: Strange compile-time regression in cpp
against gcc3.4.1
Sure, close it! 4.0.0 is enough faster anyway! :-)
Cheers,
Karel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17315
Priority: P2
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kgardas at objectsecurity dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-12-03
12:15 ---
GCC 4.0.0 20041126 also complains about this code:
$ /mnt/karel/gcc-main-20041126/bin/c++ str.cc
str.cc: In function 'int main()':
str.cc:12: error: no matching function for call to
'transform
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-11-29
19:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many
C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120
I've updated comparison table for 4.0.0 20041126 compiler version. You can
find it here: http
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-11-29
21:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many
C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, law at redhat dot com wrote:
I've updated comparison table for 4.0.0 20041126
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-11-19
11:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many
C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120
I've tested 3.4.2, 4.0.0 (20041026) and 4.0.0 (20041118) with following
results:
3.4.2:
c++ -I
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 12:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many
C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120
Sure! Here we go: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-10/msg00952.html
and results are really promissing
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Yes, but this only apply to typecode.cc. If you consider ir.cc, you will
need
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:12
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 24% C++ compile-time regression
in comparison with 3.4.1 at -O1 optimization level
Please have a look into http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13776
--- Additional Comments From kgardas at objectsecurity dot com 2004-10-25 13:20
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] [tree-ssa] Many
C++ compile-time regression in 4.0-tree-ssa 040120
Updated table with GCC 3.4.2 and 4.0.0-041024 results is available here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
41 matches
Mail list logo
