--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-21 10:53
---
Subject: Re: Null Characters instead of blanks in t extoutput
On Thursday 21 July 2005 12:11, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Thanks for your efforts. Sadly these patches still do not fix mgrid :-(
This is a test c
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-21 10:12
---
Subject: Re: Null Characters instead of blanks in t extoutput
On Thursday 21 July 2005 11:10, THOMAS Paul Richard 169137 wrote:
> Steven,
>
> Whilst waiting for somebody to show up to a meeting, I deve
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-20 20:49
---
Subject: Re: Null Characters instead of blanks in text output.
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 22:46, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Output of libgfortran from 2005-07-20 with the patches from
> Jerry[1] and Paul[2] a
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-20 20:46
---
Subject: Re: Null Characters instead of blanks in text output.
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 22:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 22:03, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 July 2
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-20 20:17
---
Subject: Re: Null Characters instead of blanks in text output.
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 22:03, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 July 2005 21:07, Paul Thomas wrote:
> > pinskia at gcc dot gn
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-20 20:03
---
Subject: Re: Null Characters instead of blanks in text output.
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 21:07, Paul Thomas wrote:
> pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >--- Additional Comments From pinskia a
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-07-20 16:49
---
Subject: Re: gfortran X edit descriptor failure: test f77-edit-x-out.f
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:21, Paul Thomas wrote:
> Please send me the test cases and preferably, post them on Bugzilla.
This is now h
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-05-11 13:14
---
Subject: Re: empty loop not removed after optimization
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 14:58, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-11
>
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-04-24 09:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux
kernel
On Sunday 24 April 2005 05:36, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> Uh, because it causes things to become non-invariant w
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-04-23 23:01
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux
kernel
Yeah, well, ehm...
The original bug resurfaces with my patch. This happens because
is_gimple_reg_rhs only looks at the
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-21 16:51
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra assignment inserted on the tree level
On Mar 21, 2005 04:53 PM, amacleod at redhat dot com > Perhaps the best thing
would be a pass before out of ssa which does
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-12 21:54
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] pessimization of "goto *"
Combine runs before register allocation. You cannot run it after
register allocation. I don't think you can run it twice, even.
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-06 09:30
---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
On Sunday 06 March 2005 06:59, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Ah. Yes. What did it look like in the tree dumps? Unless
> one of the expand
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-05 10:39
---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
> Am I missing something here? I guess I'm not sure what point you're
> trying to make.
It just seems that we could do bette
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-02-02 09:21
---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
On Monday 31 January 2005 22:35, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Note I would _STRONGLY_ recommend people look at more than just the
> compile
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-02-01 20:09
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with type mismatch between SSA_NAME and its
symbol
If all it takes is turning DOM back on, I'm quite fine with
doing that also - having found out we can win much more
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-31 20:14
---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
My numbers for not disabling CSE completely but disabling path following
are a lot less pessimistic. This was on an AMD Opteron at 1600MHz:
GCC was
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-27 07:14
---
Subject: Re: Redundant instructions in loop optimization
On Thursday 27 January 2005 07:05, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27
>
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-24 21:50
---
Subject: Re: computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it is
found that they are not computed gotos at all
On Monday 24 January 2005 22:37, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Out of curiosity, d
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-24 20:59
---
Subject: Re: computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it is
found that they are not computed gotos at all
> Some people do not want to see DOM getting bigger and bigger,
That includes me,
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-24 09:12
---
Subject: Re: Missed IV optimization
*sigh*
The old loop optimizer...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18316
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-01-20 09:26
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Violation of C99 6.7.8 =?utf-8?q?=A721_for?=
unions
> Can't we compute the result for unions based on the type of the first
> member?
Ehm?? "union { i
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2004-11-15 19:31
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] quadratic behavior in cfgexpand
The complexity is O(N) with vectors and with lists. How on earth
do you get to O(N*M)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18499
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2004-11-15 10:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] quadratic behavior in cfgexpand
Actually this has always been there, independent of the edge vector
work. The old code has exactly the same problem.
There is *no* canonical way to
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2004-11-04 00:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements
with large # of cases
> However, there's clearly an algorithmic problem in this code.
There is. The loop predic
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2004-11-01 21:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements
with large # of cases
I don't know about jump threading, but edge splitting in such code
is very likely because we pre-
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2004-11-01 20:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements
with large # of cases
> I think it'll ultimately be cleaner to simply drop the labels after
> we've built the C
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2004-10-18 22:50 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading optimization
Hmm, threading the default case sounds interesting, but the real
reason why the RTL threader catches this and the tree threader does
not is because on RTL the test
28 matches
Mail list logo
