--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2005-01-28 18:49 ---
We aren't waiting for anything, so move out of WAITING state.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:23 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
(Well considering, I asked the same question which Eric was asking, or really I
was asking the same
question).
And Eric put this into waiting for a reason and I am keeping it the
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
12:25 ---
You'd almost think Andrew is not a native speaker.
What I think he asks is: "Can the patch that caused this be done in a different
way such that the code is still correct but the compile time regression goes
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2005-01-15 07:31
---
Thought I did last time.. otherwise I'm not sure what the question is.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
06:11 ---
Is there an even way to fix this to even produce correct code?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2004-10-08 18:44:35 |2005-01-14 14:30:56
date|
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2004-12-22 19:48
---
I thought I did on the 7th. I'm not sure there's anything we can do about this.
The behavior is correct and the previous behavior was proved to be not correct.
If someone has an idea that's guaranteed to be corr
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-22
19:23 ---
Perhaps someone can give an update on this bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13931
--- Additional Comments From echristo at redhat dot com 2004-12-07 19:54
---
The patch was put in to stop erroneous REG_DEAD notes from being created where
they shouldn't IIRC. Now, we may be able to rerun cfg as Paolo suggests, but I
don't know for certain. Unless we can prove that new
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-18
20:46 ---
Note on the mainline on PPC-darwin we are about twice as fast 1.5 seconds
compared to 3.3 (3.2
seconds).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13931
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||echristo at redhat dot com
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-16
08:21 ---
And 5 minutes of additional work would have been sufficient to spot the obvious
culprit:
2003-05-14 Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* combine.c: Fix header comments.
(distribute_no
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-16
08:05 ---
> There has only been one patch to combine after 3.3 which might have caused
> this:
>
> 2003-10-06 Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> PR optimization/11637
> * combine.c (adjust_for
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15
12:11 ---
Investigating.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-30 20:02
---
Postponed until GCC 3.4.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.3
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-30 20:02
---
Postponed until GCC 3.4.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13931
16 matches
Mail list logo
