http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du 2011-11-03 06:24:58
UTC ---
Let me see if i understand you correctly, you are saying that there isn't an
easy way to fix it without hurting the performance(either consider less IV
candidates or dumb down the alias an
/bin/gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-4.7/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.7/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.7
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 2002
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|amodra at gmail
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 2002 (experimental) (GCC)
le-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 2002 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50941
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-03
01:16:02 UTC ---
Ummm
So do I post a patch and CL to gcc-patches if this is OK?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50941
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25685|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50971
Bug #: 50971
Summary: Only one loop detected when there should be two
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
--- Comment #11 from George R. Goffe 2011-11-02
23:51:07 UTC ---
This build no longer fails.
Thanks!
George...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50967
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50967
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler
20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #21 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 21:54:29 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 21:54:24 2011
New Revision: 180804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180804
Log:
2011-11-02 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
--- Comment #1 from Eric Millbrandt
2011-11-02 21:40:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 25696
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25696
Preprocessed sources
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
Bug #: 50970
Summary: Function pointer dereferenced twice in if statement on
Arm cpu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50969
--- Comment #1 from Pat Haugen 2011-11-02
21:38:28 UTC ---
I swapped the numbers, should be:
-m64 -O3 -mcpu=power7
zaxpy : -79%
zscal : -24%
-m64 -O3 -mcpu=power7 -funroll-loops
zaxpy : -61%
zscal : -65%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50943
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50930
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-02
21:25:00 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Nov 2 21:24:56 2011
New Revision: 180802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180802
Log:
PR c++/50930
* init.c (build_aggr_init): Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50969
Bug #: 50969
Summary: 17% degradation in 168.wupwise for interleave via
permutation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 21:17:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/extends_type_of_1.f03 -O0 (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/extends_type_of_3.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50964
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, lto
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
21:03:16 UTC ---
Btw, I'm talking about the fix for PR50040.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50934
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Allocated address for new |Attribute
|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50934
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-11-02 20:58:09 UTC ---
I've now traced the reason for this.
Controlled objects require some memory to be allocated to manage the chains of
objects which are to be finalised when a scope is exited
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
Konstantinos Margaritis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstantinos.margaritis at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50968
Konstantinos Margaritis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
--- Comment #8 from Graham Reed 2011-11-02 20:43:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The fault is injected by r178978, to fix PR 50341. I have no way of testing on
PowerPC Linux; we only have AIX machines with that processor.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50810
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-02
20:16:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Nov 2 20:16:43 2011
New Revision: 180794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180794
Log:
PR c++/50810
gcc/c-family
* c-opts.c (c_co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 20:16:06 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Nov 2 20:15:55 2011
New Revision: 180793
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180793
Log:
2011-11-02 Tom de Vries
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 20:11:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Apart from the two failures above, the patch in comment 1 also fails on:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_15.f03 -O (internal compiler error)
The re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50945
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-02
20:07:31 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 2 20:07:26 2011
New Revision: 180792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180792
Log:
PR target/50945
* config/sparc/sparc.md
Likewise.
(movtf_insn_sp64_hq): Likewise.
(movtf_insn_sp64_no_fpu): Likewise.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/2002-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.md
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50968
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-02
19:24:51 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29693
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-11-02
19:24:44 UTC ---
BTW, this could actually be a duplicate of PR19430, if bar uninitialized use
appears in a PHI op. One would need to look at the dumps and put a breakpoint
at the warning point to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50968
--- Comment #1 from Konstantinos Margaritis 2011-11-02 19:21:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 25693
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25693
minimal testcase produced using delta tool from src/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-11-02
19:19:39 UTC ---
Well, it did fix one of the oldest false positives in GCC:
PR middle-end/179
* tree-ssa.c (warn_uninit): Do not warn for variables that can be
initialize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50968
Bug #: 50968
Summary: ICE on armhf building gcc-snapshot
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50967
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50967
Bug #: 50967
Summary: [C++0x] Literal operators are not found by
using-declarations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 18:49:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It fails at least on:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_4.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_5.f03 -O0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50966
Bug #: 50966
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Missing 'is used
uninitialized' warning (struct pointer dereference)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 18:43:46 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 18:43:42 2011
New Revision: 180788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180788
Log:
2011-11-02 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 18:43:31 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 18:43:26 2011
New Revision: 180787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180787
Log:
2011-11-02 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #6 from Kyle Moffett 2011-11-02
18:24:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 25692
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25692
Archive of RTL dumps of failing testcase built with "-Os"
I spent some time looking through the RTL d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50965
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth 2011-11-02
18:08:37 UTC ---
The original test case still fails on x86_64-apple-darwin11 as well at
r180780...
g++-fsf-4.7 -r -nostdlib -g -flto bug.ii
In file included from bug.ii:8:0,
from :2:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50956
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50956
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 18:04:53 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 18:04:48 2011
New Revision: 180786
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180786
Log:
2011-11-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #20 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 18:01:25 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Nov 2 18:01:18 2011
New Revision: 180785
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180785
Log:
2011-11-02 Tom de Vries
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50965
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-02
17:42:23 UTC ---
Also patches goto gcc-patches@.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50965
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-02
17:42:05 UTC ---
Is there a reason why you are removing:
- A a2 = { 24 };
- if (a2.i != 24) return 2;
>From the testcase?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50965
--- Comment #1 from Olivier Goffart 2011-11-02
17:33:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 25691
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25691
Suggested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50965
Bug #: 50965
Summary: C++11 Non static member initializer are not run when
class is initialized with {}
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 16:44:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It fails at least on:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_4.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
Here is a reduced test case:
module foo_mod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 16:30:03 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Nov 2 16:29:50 2011
New Revision: 180779
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180779
Log:
2011-11-02 Tom de Vries
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50964
Bug #: 50964
Summary: [trans-mem] no support for LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48217
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606
Patrick Marlier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
--- Comment #7 from Graham Reed 2011-11-02 15:28:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Reverting config/rs6000/rs6000.md to the version in 4.6.1 clears the ICE in
that testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50963
Bug #: 50963
Summary: TLS incompatible with -mcmodel=large & PIC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
15:16:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > - if (gfc_add_flavor (&vtab->attr, FL_VARIABLE, NULL,
> > + if (gfc_add_flavor (&vtab->attr, FL_PARAMETER, NU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48217
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
15:13:51 UTC ---
collect2 has extract_string () which handles unquoting from
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 15:08:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'll try if the following patch survives regtesting
It fails at least on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_4.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
15:01:09 UTC ---
For this to be fixed we'd need something similar to COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS,
COLLECT_AS_OPTIONS for example, and lto-wrapper passing those on via
-Wa to the link-time driver.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-02
14:57:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> - if (gfc_add_flavor (&vtab->attr, FL_VARIABLE, NULL,
> + if (gfc_add_flavor (&vtab->attr, FL_PARAMETER, NULL,
(In reply to comment #3)
> it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45640
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44965
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
14:40:09 UTC ---
Doing that in gdb yields to
:
D.1793_12 = &__vtab_m_T;
D.1794_13 = base;
base ();
in the fre1 dump.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
14:37:35 UTC ---
The vtable object looks like (with the patch):
unit size
align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x75b37dc8
fields
SI file t.f90 l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50959
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50956
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50958
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-02
14:00:11 UTC ---
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02804.html
I have a patch to address a resolution issue.
For some reason, this bug doesn't show up in tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
--- Comment #8 from Mariah Lenox 2011-11-02
13:18:52 UTC ---
> Please answer comment #3.
Answers provided on bug report 50944.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50956
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-02
13:15:35 UTC ---
Well, we shouldn't early return error_mark_node, however.
Also, in the specific case at issue here we are still failing to warn, because
we return from build_static_cast_1 pretty earl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
13:09:40 UTC ---
It looks like IVOPTs fails to consider a candidate for the use inquestion
and thus, after choosing the final IV set ends up rewriting that use into
this stupid form (instead of usin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50962
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enkovich.gnu at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50962
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich 2011-11-02
13:05:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 25689
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25689
Proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50956
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #18 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-11-02
12:48:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Well, I guess this would be most of it:
>
> template
> std::complex<_Tp>
> __complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
> {
> retu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-02
12:48:23 UTC ---
The candidate
candidate 15
depends on 3
var_before ivtmp.161
var_after ivtmp.161
incremented before exit test
type unsigned int
base (unsigned int) pDst_39(D) - (unsign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #17 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-11-02
12:48:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Well, I guess this would be most of it:
>
> template
> std::complex<_Tp>
> __complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
> {
> retu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50956
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-02
12:44:06 UTC ---
Well, I guess this would be most of it:
template
std::complex<_Tp>
__complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
{
return _Tp(2.0) * std::log(std::sqrt(_Tp(0.5) *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-02
12:31:09 UTC ---
Ok, thanks for your feedback Gaby. Indeed, I also wondered if we shouldn't work
with the components.
Richard, can you send a version of Kahan's algorithm rewritten in terms of real
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #14 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-11-02
12:27:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 25654 [details]
> BC2
Since we are talking about branch cut and prespectiving
since zeros, I think we should avoid the
the arithmeti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Gabriel Dos Reis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50962
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin 2011-11-02
12:00:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 25688
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25688
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50962
Bug #: 50962
Summary: Additional opportunity for AGU stall avoidance
optimization for Atom processor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02 11:57:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> < richi> and it seems the vtables are not initialized in a way the
> optimizers could use them
> < richi> they are not constant
Right. I h
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
