--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 00:43
---
Fixed in 4.3.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 00:31
---
Subject: Bug 33579
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Nov 6 00:30:52 2007
New Revision: 129918
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129918
Log:
PR target/33579
* tree.h (DECL_INIT_PRIOR
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-11-01
19:45 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
> I don't think that's actually a bug -- except maybe its a
> misoptimization. The compiler's just inlining the calls to c1 from the
> _GLOBAL_... functions due to co
--- Comment #12 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-01 16:50 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 03:05
> ---
> Mark,
>
> This is major progress. All the priorit
--- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 03:05
---
Mark,
This is major progress. All the priority tests pass and there are no
regressions on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa-unknown-linux-gnu.
However, I don't think the patch is quite right. For example, in the
g
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-30
17:47 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
> Would you please try this patch?
I'll give it a try when I get home tonight.
Thanks,
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33579
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-30 16:34
---
Created an attachment (id=14442)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14442&action=view)
patch
David --
Would you please try this patch? I have lightly tested this on a hacked-up x86
configuration
--- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-30 02:50 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
>> I don't think this will be too hard to implement. In
>> cgraph_build_cdtor_fns, we need to partition/sort the static_[cd]tors by
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-10-29
00:35 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
> I believe you're correct that my changes broke the handling of
> prioritized constructors in the case where we use collect2. I didn't
> realize that there were targe
--- Comment #6 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-28 22:46 ---
Subject: Re: INIT_PRIORITY is broken
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> With respect to initpr1.c, it can be seen that only one "GLOBAL" constructor,
> _GLOBAL__I_0_c1, and one "GLOBAL" destructor, _GLOBAL__D_1
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-28 15:28 ---
Changed my mind about my last comment. The new constructor priority
attribute breaks the previous C++ init_priority handling using collect2.
With respect to initpr1.c, it can be seen that only one "GLOBAL" construc
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-27 23:45 ---
I believe the SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY portion of my 2003 patch needs
to be reverted.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
