--- Comment #11 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2009-09-03
18:01 ---
Subject: Re: should "sorry" when regparm=3 and nested functions are
encountered
All,
nested functions get passed a hidden argumment akin to static link/display
so that nested function can
--- Comment #6 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2008-11-26
14:02 ---
Subject: Re: CCP does not propagate through constant initializers
Richard,
"const volatile" is a perfectly valid combination.
What is says is "it's read only but may change value in
--- Comment #4 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2008-11-26
13:03 ---
Subject: Re: CCP does not propagate through constant initializers
Hi Richard,
Does this patch work for objects which are both const and volatile
get_symbol_constant_value only looks at TREE_READONLY
--- Comment #1 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2008-09-12
14:04 ---
Subject: Re: New: Auto inline when optimisation is enabled, causes problem.
All,
Read the documentation for "%=" w.r.t generating unique labels inline
assembler.
Replacing your uses of _loop
--- Comment #10 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2008-09-01
10:30 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap failure due to __muldi3
All,
>From the backtrace I very doubt this is a IRA issue.
I looks to be related to the recent IPA/CGRAPG changes
so it's one for Honza to look at
--- Comment #5 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2006-04-05
16:00 ---
Subject: Re: c++ is generating incorrect optimized code for xor operations on
long long
All,
Not a bug, this is yet another case of type pruning.
Use -fno-strict-aliasing or fix your code.
Graham
--- Comment #4 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2006-04-05
16:00 ---
Subject: Re: c++ is generating incorrect optimized code for xor operations on
long long
All,
Not a bug, this is yet another case of type pruning.
Use -fno-strict-aliasing or fix your code.
Graham
--- Comment #6 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2006-03-14
18:55 ---
Subject: Re: boostrap failure due to warning in gcc/varasm.c
All,
If the warning isn't bogus then we probably need to do the shift in two steps
(i.e. hwi = (hwi >> (shift - 1)) >> 1) as
--- Comment #3 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2005-12-26
16:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] RTL checking bootstrap
failure on i686-unknown-linux-gnu
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-26 16
--- Comment #1 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2005-12-26
15:58 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2 regression] RTL checking bootstrap
failure on i686-unknown-linux-gnu
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I'm getting an RTL checking bootstrap failure on i686-unknown-l
--- Additional Comments From graham dot stott at btinternet dot com
2005-06-18 14:21 ---
Subject: Re: Another fallout from alias warning patch
nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
> 13:04 ---
--- Additional Comments From graham dot stott at btinternet dot com
2005-05-15 15:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=8892)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8892&action=view)
C++ testcase which aborts at -O1 or abive
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
cc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: graham dot stott at btinternet dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-unknown-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-unknown-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-unknown-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21584
--- Additional Comments From graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2004-10-31
14:52 ---
Subject: Re: Standard conformance should take intrinsics
into account.
All,
FWIW here's a quick patch which fixes bootstrap problem for me on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
I've got to go out the
14 matches
Mail list logo
