--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-03 22:38 ---
Subject: Bug 29749
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 3 22:38:28 2007
New Revision: 130589
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130589
Log:
PR middle-end/29749
* fold-const.c (fold_binary)
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 14:50 ---
I disagree with that, it is preferrable to avoid including any headers in
testcases if possible.
Anyway, I'm testing a fold-const.c optimization which solves this already at
the tree level.
--
jakub at gcc dot
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 16:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=14593)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14593action=view)
gcc43-pr29749.patch
Patch I'm about to test.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29749
--- Comment #14 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 19:11 ---
it is preferrable to avoid including any headers in
testcases if possible.
Yes, but IMHO not at the cost of disabling the test on targets where it is
supposed to run and pass. Targets without stdint.h are rare and
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-20 19:38 ---
Guess you should ping that on gcc-patches, or better resend after such a long
while. If you are going to do the latter, I think you should move the
testcase into gcc.dg/, add
/* { dg-do run { target { int32plus } }
--- Comment #11 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-20 20:04 ---
/* { dg-do run { target { int32plus } } } */
Or even better, use types such as uint_least32_t from stdint.h, then use this
dg directive:
/* { dg-do run { target { stdint_types } } } */
--
--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-08-23 14:28 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Created an attachment (id=13911)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13911action=view) [edit]
Updated patch with test case a bug fix.
I've added a test case of the changes. It
--- Comment #9 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-08-23 16:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Missing byte swap optimizations
No, FALSE, `(), nil, #f, 0 :)
-Doug
23 Aug 2007 14:28:51 -, ubizjak at gmail dot com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- Comment #8 from
--- Comment #7 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-07-13 22:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=13911)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13911action=view)
Updated patch with test case a bug fix.
I've added a test case of the changes. It did find a bug in the patch and
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-07-12 06:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
bootstrap to be done). The problem was reported on m68k initially but I
checked
FWIW, the problem was reported on i686-pc-linux-gnu, but it is generic RTL
missed-optimization problem.
BTW:
--- Comment #6 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-07-12 06:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Missing byte swap optimizations
I misread one of the earlier comments when I typed the reply. So I
thought it was reported on the m68k first. I agree that adding test
cases
--- Comment #4 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-07-11 23:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=13891)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13891action=view)
Patch for fixing byte swap optimization.
I have tested this patch on i486-linux-gnu (C/C++ test suite only, full
--- Comment #3 from dougkwan at google dot com 2007-07-10 22:18 ---
I'm working on a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29749
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 21:30 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29749
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29749
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29749
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-11-07 11:47 ---
That appears to be broken as far back as gcc 3.0: all 3.x versions do not
recognize either of the two forms, since 4.0 only the second form is
recognized. Both 2.95 and 2.7 can optimize both forms (tested on m68k).
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
