--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-04 01:30
---
One more case where C++ front-end is doing this still is located in PR 31809.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PROTECTED]
Subject: [Bug c++/20912] C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global
symbols
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 22:51
---
... to mark as WONTFIX.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 22:30 ---
I don't think there is a compelling reason to have the patch in GCC 4.2. But
it would still be nice to get this out of the way, to reduce the number of VOPs
a bit further.
I have updated the patch of comment #6
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 22:46 ---
Closing as DONTCARE, by request from Diego :-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 22:51
---
Reopen ...
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 22:51
---
... to mark as WONTFIX.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-05 03:18 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global
symbols
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Mark was going to leave this for GCC 4.2, but hasn't fixed this for GCC 4.2
yet, either. What's going
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 18:35 ---
Mark was going to leave this for GCC 4.2, but hasn't fixed this for GCC 4.2
yet, either. What's going to happen with this bug?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 18:25
---
Right now after fixing this and PR 23777 should become fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-12 14:16 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global symbols
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:07, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Diego, will this allow you to reactivate your optimization? And, if so,
--- Comment #9 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-10-12 14:55 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global
symbols
dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
Thanks Mark. The underlying code has shifted in the interim. There was
another bug that would cause us to
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-12 15:00 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global symbols
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 10:55, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
OK, so my patch is no longer directly useful then? (It still seems like
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-11 21:06
---
Created an attachment (id=9973)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9973action=view)
Proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20912
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-11 21:07
---
I believe the patch attached will fix the problem.
Diego, will this allow you to reactivate your optimization? And, if so, what
kind of code will be improved?
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-18
01:37 ---
I wonder if this is the recent regression in eon again.
--
What|Removed |Added
Last
--
Bug 20912 depends on bug 21089, which changed state.
Bug 21089 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] C++ front-end does not inline the
static const double
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 20912 depends on bug 21089, which changed state.
Bug 21089 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] C++ front-end does not inline the
static const double
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-18
17:56 ---
Simple code which shows we now have a missed optimization:
static const double a = 1.0;
static const double b = a+1.0;
double c()
{
return b;
}
See PR 21089.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-18 19:29
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Simple code which shows we now have a missed optimization:
static const double a = 1.0;
static const double b = a+1.0;
double c()
{
return b;
}
See PR 21089.
I believe the
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-14 21:28
---
(In reply to comment #0)
I guess I misunderstand the problem, as given:
const double ggPi = 3.14159265358979323846;
double const divPi = 1 / ggPi;
It would seem that neither ggPi or divPI should be
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
12:48 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
22 matches
Mail list logo
