http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #3 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-12-12
09:09:54 UTC ---
Hi
> (In reply to comment #1)
>> There is no integer overflow in the code provided at all.
Sorry it underflows. How about this:
void my_func(unsigned short a, unsigned short c)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46895
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2010-12-12 09:30:35
UTC ---
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-fomit-frame-pointer" } */
#ifdef __x86_64__
# define BP_REG "%rbp"
#else
# define BP_REG "%ebp"
#endif
void foo (void)
{
__asm__ volatile (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46900
Summary: 50% slowdown when linking with LTO in a single step
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46900
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Bur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46900
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-12
10:34:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 22722
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22722
Test case (tar.bz2). The .f files are from BLAS (taken from LAPACK 3.3)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46900
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Summary|50% slowdown whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46901
Summary: Error message repeats itself
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46900
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-12
10:50:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (I don't understand why the MATMUL part differs that much - it should call the
> same BLAS function [via the same GCC 4.6 libgfortran.so wrapper] and LTO
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46901
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-12 11:21:22 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Dec 12 11:21:19 2010
New Revision: 167723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167723
Log:
2010-12-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/plugin/plugindir*.c gives ICEs
on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43759
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-12
11:53:15 UTC ---
See also pr46902 for other failures of gcc.dg/plugindir*.c.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42378
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-12
11:55:48 UTC ---
Among other benefits, this PR is fixed by the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00804.html .
Thanks!-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29152
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-12
11:58:49 UTC ---
Fixed by the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00804.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46903
Summary: [C++0x] ICE unexpected expression of kind
template_id_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-12 12:26:44
UTC ---
this commit triggers the bug..
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00454.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #5 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-12-12
12:30:15 UTC ---
Hi
>>void my_func(unsigned short a, unsigned short c)
>>{
>>unsigned int b;
>>
>>b = a * c;
>
> There is no overflow here since this unsigned integers wrap and don't
> overf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46903
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46904
Summary: [4.6 Regression]
g++.dg/tree-prof/(indir-call-prof.C|inline_mismatch_ar
gs.C) fail on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46905
Summary: -flto -fno-lto does not disable lto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31821
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2010-12-12
13:58:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 22724
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22724
patch which causes regressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab 2010-12-12
14:03:59 UTC ---
Author: schwab
Date: Sun Dec 12 14:03:55 2010
New Revision: 167724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167724
Log:
Author: Finn Thain
PR target/46179
* gcc/confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31821
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig 2010-12-12
14:09:12 UTC ---
The patch in comment#7 causes a regression in
program gfcbug33
character(12) :: a(2)
a(1) = "abcdefghijkl"
a(2) = "mnopqrstuvwx"
call foo ((a(2:1:-1)(6:)))
contains
subrouti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46905
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen 2010-12-12
14:19:00 UTC ---
Same bug seems to be in the code generating phase
gcc -O2 -flto -fno-lto object.o
does code generation even if object.o has fallback code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin 2010-12-12
14:58:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 22725
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22725
Starting point patch
This passes gfortran.dg/*transpose*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
Summary: istreambuf_iterator is late?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46907
Summary: printf width not properly working for negative numbers
which are variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #45 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-12 15:54:16
UTC ---
Since init_priority is global, I will work on binutils
to allow mixing .ctors and .init_array.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46908
Summary: printf not handling printing of double correctly in
certain cases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
Summary: [4.6 Regression] elf32-i386.c and elf64-x86-64.c in
binutils are miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-12
16:37:48 UTC ---
The patch in comment #5 fixes this PR, but the tests in pr41278, pr44912, and
the variant below of pr40646 yields ICEs:
"in proc_call_can_redefine_sym, at fortran/trans-expr.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46907
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
Summary: std::shared_ptr requires public destructor for a class
with friend deleter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46908
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
--- Comment #1 from Sam 2010-12-12
16:54:01 UTC ---
gcc 4.5.1 and test code built on
Linux 2.6.35-24-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Thu Dec 2 02:41:37 UTC 2010 x86_64
GNU/Linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46911
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
add_name_and_src_coords_attributes (dwarf2out.c:17792)
with -flto -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46908
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-12
17:38:10 UTC ---
Yes, this is an old issue, as you noticed already other implementations also
decided that performance issue may take precedence here. After so many years
with this scheme, I honestly d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Test failures for
g++.dg/plugin/*plugin*.C on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2010-12-12
18:01:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yes, this is an old issue,
Oups, sorry, I am not very good at finding old issues in bugzilla...
> as you noticed already other implementations also
> decided
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-12 18:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-12
18:28:02 UTC ---
To be clear: I remember discussing this issue with Nathan many years ago, when
we noticed that variance among implementations, and that we considered more
strictly conforming not buffe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
Summary: send_log "$first != $second\n" in gdb-test fails when
$first starts with '-'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #46 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-12
18:40:35 UTC ---
On 12/11/2010 4:32 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> Mark, I may have misunderstood you. Correct me if I am wrong.
> Currently, it may be possible to interleave constructors
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jwakely.gcc at gmail dot|
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-12 19:27:08
UTC ---
Smaller one:
[...@gnu-6 tmp]$ cat y.c
extern void abort ();
int
__attribute__ ((__noinline__))
foo (unsigned int tls_type)
{
if (! (tls_type == 4 || (tls_type == 6))
|| (tls_type ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45388
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46914
Summary: std::atomic::exchange(...) doesn't store correct
value.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-12 20:10:51 UTC ---
> So post a patch to gcc-patches?
Will do when I complete testing on the system where I see the problem.
It currently doing a full check that I don't want to mess up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46914
--- Comment #1 from Francis 2010-12-12 20:15:04
UTC ---
Forget to mention my system type
$ uname -a
Linux my_mach_name 2.6.32-26-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Wed Nov 24 09:00:03 UTC
2010 i686 GNU/Linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-12
20:18:59 UTC ---
If it doesn't work on some expect or tcl or dejagnu versions, the alternative
would be
send_log "actual $first != expected $second\n"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-12
20:47:48 UTC ---
Not surprisingly with the patch in comment #5 I get the following regressions:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_function_5.f90 * (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42033
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46914
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-12
20:51:40 UTC ---
I cannot reproduce this on anything from current 4.4 branch to mainline (with
). I get:
a = 0x603010 *a = 10
ptr = 0x603010 *ptr 10
b = 0x603030 *b = 11
x.exchange(b) = 0x603010
ptr =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46276
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2010-12-12
20:59:43 UTC ---
Fixed when the dupe PR46456 was fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-12
21:02:55 UTC ---
>it is undefined at compile time?
No, it is undefined at runtime. This again is not an undefined behavior at
compile time but rather at runtime. What that means is the behavior cann
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46809
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-12 21:14:16 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Dec 12 21:14:13 2010
New Revision: 167731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167731
Log:
2010-12-12 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-12 21:14:37 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-12
> 20:18:59 UTC ---
> If it doesn't work on some expect or tcl or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-12 21:29:08
UTC ---
Bad patch was posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg1.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46809
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46790
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-12 21:31:57
UTC ---
There are some gc-sections bug fixes since binutils 2.18:
Fix --gc-sections to detect unresolved symbol in DSO. PR 11218.
Fix linker --gc-sections with undefined __start_XXX/__stop_XXX sym
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #7 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-12-12
21:46:18 UTC ---
Hi
> No, it is undefined at runtime. This again is not an undefined behavior
> at
> compile time but rather at runtime. What that means is the behavior
> cannot be
> diagnosed (at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-12
21:52:40 UTC ---
>This output should not be possible
No, it is possible because the value is undefined so both the if being false
and the printout happening can happen.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46897
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-12 22:15:30 UTC ---
Here is a slightly reduced test case:
module m
implicit none
type component
contains
procedure :: assign
generic :: assignment(=)=>assign
end type
type t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #9 from Eskil Steenberg 2010-12-12
22:23:36 UTC ---
Hi
> No, it is possible because the value is undefined so both the if being
> false and the printout happening can happen.
But undefined still means that the variable c has a value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46897
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] Polymorphic type -|defined ASSIGNMENT(=) not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
Summary: Wrong code is generated for conditional branch
followed by zero length asm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46908
Adrian Hawryluk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46908
--- Comment #4 from Adrian Hawryluk
2010-12-12 22:55:47 UTC ---
But found that "L" is not a known conversion type character. When is "L"
supposed to be implemented?
C:\tmp>gcc -Wall -o tmp.exe file.c
file.c: In function 'main':
file.c:18:5: war
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre 2010-12-12
23:02:58 UTC ---
FYI, the problem has been handled in the MPFR trunk r7291 for MPFR 3.1.0.
MPFR's configure script now retrieves the location of the GMP source from GMP's
Makefile and adds the neces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46908
--- Comment #5 from Adrian Hawryluk
2010-12-12 23:08:58 UTC ---
Used flag -std=c99 and this reduced the number of warnings. They were limited
to the scanf format string.
C:\tmp>gcc -Wall -std=c99 -o tmp.exe file.c
file.c: In function 'main':
fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Summary: gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-[1,2].c ICEs
compiler from profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
/X11R6/lib
--enable-languages=c
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101212 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-12
23:52:52 UTC ---
Current mainline crashes:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
lto_cgraph_replace_node (slot=, data=) at ../../gcc/lto-symtab.c:227
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-12
23:55:24 UTC ---
With -O2 during early optimization we get to 68% in cgraph_check_inline_limits.
This is weird since early inliner should not be terribly sensitive to this. I
guess it is because we end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46899
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab 2010-12-13 00:21:09
UTC ---
The execution of an undefined operation produces an undefined value, and any
further operation becomes undefined.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at google dot com
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-13
00:59:53 UTC ---
... actually split_bb does not use gsi_for_stmt since it has to walk all the
statements in the BB anyway. It seems that it is one of routines updating
callers from cgraph edges.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-13
01:07:33 UTC ---
My profile was at -O2. Concerning Jakub's callgrind, the -O0 compilation
finishes in about 44s for me. Profile is:
4349 3.8607 libc-2.11.1.so libc-2.11.1.so _i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46917
Summary: ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-13 01:29:11
UTC ---
Created attachment 22729
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22729
another testcase
Running testsuite with -g -feliminate-dwarf2-dups still gives similiar (or the
same?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-13
01:46:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 22730
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22730
Fix for inline cost problem
The attached patch fixes the inliner cost problem so we converge at -O1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #47 from Ian Lance Taylor 2010-12-13 02:29:46
UTC ---
Jan Hubicka writes:
> 1) is there any kind of any documented requirement on initialization of
> static libraries? (i.e. is EABI fully standard conforming?)
Not in C++.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:45:37 UTC ---
Reduced testcase attached.
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
