--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-09 14:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=21159)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21159&action=view)
second part of testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44889
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-09 14:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=21158)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21158&action=view)
first part of testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44889
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44889
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-08 13:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=21144)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21144&action=view)
second part of testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-08 13:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=21143)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21143&action=view)
first part of testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
ssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 01:01 ---
Subject: Bug 44813
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jul 7 01:00:42 2010
New Revision: 161898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161898
Log:
PR middle-end/44813
* tree-ssa-
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 00:46 ---
Hi,
can I have a testcase that reproduce on cross compiler? The backtrace seems
rather odd.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44716
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=21115)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21115&action=view)
Workaround patch to let mozilla build to proceed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44846
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 20:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=21114)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21114&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44846
gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44846
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 16:45 ---
Actually it seems to be fallout of my local DECL_BY_REFERENCE change (so it
does not reproduce on clean mainline).
Apprently the result_slot_addr is something that is not allowed in mem_ref.
It goes away with
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 16:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=21094)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21094&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44826
ty: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44826
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 17:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=21086)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21086&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44813
tree-ssa-alias.c:173
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 13:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=21081)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21081&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44809
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44809
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 09:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44706
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Jul 2 09:39:54 2010
New Revision: 161691
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161691
Log:
PR middle-end/44706
* p
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 22:30 ---
Subject: Bug 44357
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jun 30 22:30:12 2010
New Revision: 161646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161646
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-06
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 22:30 ---
Subject: Bug 44686
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jun 30 22:30:12 2010
New Revision: 161646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161646
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-06
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 22:30
---
Subject: Bug 44671
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jun 30 22:30:12 2010
New Revision: 161646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161646
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-06
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 21:16 ---
Subject: Bug 44671
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 28 21:16:25 2010
New Revision: 161514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161514
Log:
PR middle-end/44671
* ipa
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 15:51 ---
Subject: Bug 44687
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 28 15:51:25 2010
New Revision: 161500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161500
Log:
PR tree-optimization/44687
* gcc.c
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 15:12 ---
Subject: Bug 44357
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 28 15:12:11 2010
New Revision: 161495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161495
Log:
PR tree-optimization/44357
* ipa-
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 12:58 ---
Mine. THanks a lot for testcase!
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 07:46 ---
It really seems that both patches (prefetching and partial inlining) are
responsible for some of the regressions. I've now comited the patch to reduce
autoinlining from 50 to 40. It solves size issues at
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 00:10 ---
Subject: Bug 44686
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 28 00:10:34 2010
New Revision: 161476
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161476
Log:
PR middle-end/44671
PR middle-e
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 00:10 ---
Subject: Bug 44671
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 28 00:10:34 2010
New Revision: 161476
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161476
Log:
PR middle-end/44671
PR middle-e
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 23:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=21020)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21020&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44694
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 22:40
---
Subject: Bug 44063
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jun 27 22:40:10 2010
New Revision: 161475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161475
Log:
Backport inliner heruistic fixes from
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 11:39 ---
Subject: Bug 44671
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Jun 26 11:38:57 2010
New Revision: 161428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161428
Log:
PR middle-end/44671
* cgra
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 16:14 ---
mine.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-12 12:43 ---
Subject: Bug 44485
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Jun 12 12:43:02 2010
New Revision: 160659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160659
Log:
PR tree-optimize/44485
* tree-cfgc
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 15:04 ---
Testing fix.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 13:43 ---
The following http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00692.html
It definitly avoids the ICE, but it would be nice to know if libstdc++
testsuite passes.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 13:39 ---
The following patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00692.html
should fix the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44453
not optimized out
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-07 22:48 ---
Subject: Bug 44454
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jun 7 22:48:32 2010
New Revision: 160410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160410
Log:
PR middle-end/44454
(df_lr_
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-07 22:38 ---
The SMS failures are due to dumping. We seem to be dumping freed obstack
bitmaps from dce executed within SMS. I will fix that, but tomorrow I am
traveling, so only at evening.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 15:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44295
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jun 2 15:39:43 2010
New Revision: 160159
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160159
Log:
PR middle-end/44295
* cgra
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 44324
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat May 29 18:04:02 2010
New Revision: 160033
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160033
Log:
PR middle-end/44324
Modified:
t
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 44197
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 20 14:57:27 2010
New Revision: 159629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159629
Log:
PR middle-end/44197
* v
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-12 09:20 ---
I believe this was temporary issue fixed by subsequent commit. Will double
check.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44087
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-11 15:16
---
Subject: Bug 44063
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue May 11 15:15:48 2010
New Revision: 159273
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159273
Log:
PR tree-optimize/44063
* ipa-
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-11 08:52 ---
Can you please check if always_inline is involved in your testcase and if to
node has disreagard_inline_limits set.
Honza
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #29 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 14:15
---
Subject: Bug 43791
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 6 14:15:22 2010
New Revision: 159108
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159108
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43791
* ipa-
--- Comment #22 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 13:11
---
Testing the following patch. For some reason we skip updates of costs at
alwaysinline callers. This is wrong.
Honza
Index: ipa-inline.c
===
--- ipa
duct: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 13:01 ---
Hmm, I am not at all sure what problem I should have with this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40702
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-27 05:42 ---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 23:02 ---
The whopr benchmark is the usual case that main() is optimized for size rather
than speed. In this case we can get function inlined if inliner is informed
that builtin_return_address is cheap. I am testing patch
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 12:41 ---
-fwhopr and -flto are intended to be interchangeable at link time. So it does
not matter with what flag you build the .o objects.
The problem was fixed by the clone streaming fix I submitted last week.
Honza
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 07:55 ---
Well, or just use some default name of the unit ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41584
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 13:14
---
Adding a simple limit on number of loop nests in recursive inlining is easy
thing to do, but I am not quite sure how useful it is (well, overall recursive
inlining tends to help only few very special benchmrks
--- Comment #29 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 15:18
---
Subject: Bug 42906
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Apr 6 15:18:18 2010
New Revision: 158004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158004
Log:
PR tree-optimization/42906
*
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-28 21:47
---
Subject: Bug 43505
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Mar 28 21:46:50 2010
New Revision: 157786
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157786
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43505
*
--- Comment #26 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-27 18:31
---
Patch queued for next stage1
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-27 18:30 ---
Have patch in testing. Problem is that inliner is copying the clone info
including the replacement when producing clone of clone that leads to
transformations sometimes being applied multiple times.
--
hubicka
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-27 11:56 ---
Subject: Bug 43391
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Mar 27 11:56:30 2010
New Revision: 157773
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157773
Log:
PR middle-end/43391
*
--- Comment #59 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-25 17:37
---
Hi,
concerning the optimize_*_for_size and maybe_hot_*_p predicates, the idea is
that maybe_hot/probably_cold care about the profile alone. So when optimizing
for size, parts of program still can be considered
--- Comment #23 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-24 19:02
---
Created an attachment (id=20188)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20188&action=view)
Patch in testing
Hi,
this is patch I am testing.
I was also re-thinking the problem of redirecting
--- Comment #22 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-24 18:17
---
Hi,
I am teaching CD-DCE today so I took oppurtunity to figure out what happens.
1) The original formulation by Cytron et. al. has mistake in it. It claims
that after removal of dead conditional one can take any
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-17 14:42 ---
Mine. Looking into it now.
We might even want to simply relax the checking if it triggers on lately build
stuff like tinfos. Let me see if I can avoid tinfos producing "mallformed"
decls.
--
hubicka
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 19:36 ---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 19:33 ---
Subject: Bug 43288
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Mar 10 19:33:37 2010
New Revision: 157366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157366
Log:
PR c/43288
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 15:40 ---
Patch posted
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #34 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-07 20:49
---
Hi,
since this is blocker for a release and I can't reproduce the problem myself,
if there any hope to get a backtrace?
We can also just silence the sanity check for 4.5 for time being, but the
proposed
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-07 20:37
---
I've been discussing this on IRC a while ago with Richard Guenther, but forgot
to add a record.
It seems that for 4.5, it is best to leave inlining heruistics as it is. THe
code size regression come mainly
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 16:57
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 13:11 ---
-funroll-instructions is shortcut for -O2 -funroll-loops -fno-schedule-insns2
(last one is there just to make asm prettier)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42973
operands
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka a
A register preferencing bug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC ho
A register preferencing bug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC ho
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 14:33 ---
Yes, the clone_of and similar datastructures are cleared because function is no
longer a virtual clone. Probably best way to get to original function is via
DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN same way as debug info does. Is
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:11 ---
really an enhancement rather than bug.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42450
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:09 ---
Note that testcase mises "static" in front of one/two. This is something I
plan to implement for next release. Last release has some preparation work for
it, but at the moment we don't really buil
--- Comment #24 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 17:19
---
Subject: Bug 42068
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jan 18 17:19:13 2010
New Revision: 156016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156016
Log:
PR middle-end/42068
* gcc-i
--- Comment #22 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 15:47
---
No longer bootstrap issue, but still ICE on valid.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-18 15:42
---
Subject: Bug 42068
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jan 18 15:42:05 2010
New Revision: 156010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156010
Log:
PR middle-end/42068
(create_va
--- Comment #17 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 14:54
---
Hi,
strictly speaking, I would argue that Ada should not set COMMON flag for
!PUBLIC variables since it has no effect: all static variables that have no
initializer go to .common anyway. However same ICE is
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 14:54
---
Created an attachment (id=19623)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19623&action=view)
patch I am testing
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42068
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 00:33
---
Hi,
sorry for replying late, I was missed this problem somehow in my bugzilla
folder. The test in question verify that variables that are common or weak are
also etither public or external.
I will have time to
--- Comment #17 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-10 23:42
---
Well, since we want to make more similar changes in foreseeable future, I would
prefer to see ipa-sra enabled in 4.5 and problems fixed. It is excercising
quite new type of transformations. In general I am not
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-10 22:51
---
In general requiring all changes to clone function body is bit expensive since
it involves copying of whole function (ipa-sra is one of more busy passes). It
is also somewhat difficult to implement with current
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 11:39 ---
I would vote for LTO frotnend simply sorrying when seeing units with and
without exceptions.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41756
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 11:37 ---
ipa nothrow is hidden in ipa-pure-const (that should be renamed eventually).
However issue here is that at IPA stage we should not touch function bodies, so
we should not do these updates. This is why fixup pass
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 11:34 ---
Seems to work in today snapshot. The ICE meant visibility bug produced by
frotnend, so probably it was fixed in meantime.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 11:30 ---
I am testing the attached patch. We should not re-walk bodies of clones. I
wonder if this makes struct-reorg useable?
Honza
Index: ipa-type-escape.c
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 11:17
---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-11 11:17 ---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-10 20:51 ---
Subject: Bug 42228
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Dec 10 20:50:47 2009
New Revision: 155140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155140
Log:
PR middle-end/42228
PR middle-e
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-10 20:51
---
Subject: Bug 42110
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Dec 10 20:50:47 2009
New Revision: 155140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155140
Log:
PR middle-end/42228
PR middle-e
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 16:36
---
Testing patch.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 15:57 ---
So we have new direct call appearing to function that has been previously
eliminated as unreachable (after inlining) as a result of devirtualization?
In general if function have address taken, we should not remove
101 - 200 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
