Zack Weinberg wrote:
Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Zack Weinberg wrote:
Last year CodeSourcery had a contract to speed up the C++ front end at
-O0, and we found that small linear reductions in memory usage
corresponded directly to small linear reductions in time usage, at
about a 2:1
i can`t find it in current gcc version.
pleas do me the favor to tell me about it.
On Monday 04 April 2005 10:09, zouq wrote:
i can`t find it in current gcc version.
pleas do me the favor to tell me about it.
I can only guess that you probably mean the Debray alias analysis
proposed at the GCC summit in 2003. Follow this link for the paper:
James E Wilson wrote:
The testcase is not portable, as I pointed out in the PR. Trying this
on an x86_64-linux system, I get 27 excess errors failures. All of
them are
error: cast from 'int*' to 'int' loses precision
Using long works better than int, but is still not fool proof, as there
are
Hello,
i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 recent 4.1
snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified
wrt namespace:
namespace dummy {
struct foo {
template int i void f() {}
};
}
template void dummy::foo::f666() {}
On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am i missing something obvious?
well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is legit:
tbp wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am i missing something obvious?
well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:47:56AM +0200, tbp wrote:
Hello,
i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 recent 4.1
snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified
wrt namespace:
[snip]
Other compilers (gcc 3.4.x, msvc2k3, icc8.1) don't whine.
GCC 3.4 *does*
On Apr 4, 2005 12:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not a declaration, it's a definition of an already declared fn.
the case you had was a definition that was _also_ a declaration.
[...]
See the difference?
Yes, and i know about it...
Although it is kind of quirky that you
On Apr 4, 2005 12:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GCC 3.4 *does* whine, and I think Intel will in strict mode.
Can't get neither gcc 3.4.1 to whine about it (-Wall) nor icc 8.1 with
the highest warning level enabled.
A back end for a target architecture in GCC has the following parts:
[...]
@item
An optional @[EMAIL PROTECTED] file in the @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
directory, containing a list of target-specific options. You can also
add other option files using the @code{extra_options}
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:15:07PM +0200, tbp wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am i missing something obvious?
well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
that way when non
tbp wrote:
Sorry for the noise, but i don't own a copy of that byzantine standard.
np. to paraphrase another thread 'here's 18$, go get yourself one'[1]
nathan
[1] available electronically from ansi or iso or some web site.
--
Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com ::
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hope that helps,
Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint
about namespace) for me to fix it.
:-)
It might be even better if the error indicated
I am doing some academic work on GCC and am finding it hard to manage
my patches locally. Would anyone have any strong objections if I were
to indulge in creating a branch in the FSF repository for little old
me? The volume of my deltas will not be large.
Ben
pgpBZUGqq4DUi.pgp
Description:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Ben Elliston wrote:
I am doing some academic work on GCC and am finding it hard to manage
my patches locally. Would anyone have any strong objections if I were
to indulge in creating a branch in the FSF repository for little old
me? The volume of my deltas will not be
I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work
on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is
that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- members are
at different offsets.
If you run the appended code with g++ version 3.4.1, you get
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:07:49PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work
on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is
that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- members are
at different
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote on 01.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday, April 1, 2005, at 08:48 AM, Stefan Strasser wrote:
if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a _very_
long time swapping
Joe Buck writes:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:07:49PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work
on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is
that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- members
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
Well, yes and no - I sometimes think that gcc doesn't have *enough* knobs.
Lots of knobs = inadequate testing and failures when users issue a
combination of knob settings that have never been tested.
That's why I find Gentoo rather
Giovanni Bajo writes:
Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public:
long long __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__( ::java::lang::Object
l;
I don't recall the exact details, but I have fixed a couple of bugs about
the use of __alignof__ and attribute aligned on members of
On Apr 3, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
so the question
is do similar opportunities still exist?
GCC wiki has a laundry list @ http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Speedup%20areas
-
Devang
Giovanni Bajo writes:
Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
public:
long long __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__( ::java::lang::Object
l;
I don't recall the exact details, but I have fixed a couple of
bugs about the use of __alignof__ and attribute
Bonjour I own a Mac OS X 10.3.8 loaded with gcc 3.3 on it. Id like
to add a gcc target so that I can also cross-compile for PowerPC 405
core CPU (as featured in a Xilinx Virtex-2 Pro FPGA). I know I need to
download something from GCC website and build gcc on Darwin 7.8 with
some options for
Joe Buck wrote:
$20? That does not seem to correspond to current prices:
Yes, Mike's off by a factor of roughly 5.
or n months for a not very large value of n :-)
Mile Davidovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But problem is passing G0 option, if I simple put
MULTILIB_OPTIONS = G0 mlong-calls msoft-float EL/EB mips32/mips64
building library fail.
If you add something to MULTILIB_OPTIONS, you need to add an entry
to MULTILIB_DIRNAMES as well.
(Sorry if you
Marek Krzyzowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello
I appreciate your work and do not want to bother you, but I hope, that
somebody will send me some helpful answer on my question. Is anyone can send
me his 'specs' file (contains configuration for working compiler) ??
(this is standard
I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA,
cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.html is on their
bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means
that lots of people have
Geoffrey Keating writes:
Geoff The only work involved, assuming you already have a bootstrapped tree,
Geoff would be to apply the patch and run 'make quickstrap' or even 'make
Geoff gnucompare'; and possibly a single 'cmp' command. This should take
Geoff about 1 minute.
make
On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do regular bootstraps of mainline all languages on FC3
i686-pc-linuux-gnu and
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA,
cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.html is on their
bootstrap.
I'll check
On 04/04/2005, at 3:36 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA,
cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.html is on
On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do regular
I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against 4.0.
The good news is that there are fewer than last week. There are several
bugs for which it appears that all that remains to be done is apply a
mainline patch to the 4.0 branch. These are listed at the bottom of the
On 4 Apr 2005, Marcin Dalecki stipulated:
I don't agree with the argument presented by Geert Bosch. It's even more
difficult to
muddle through the atrocities of autoconf/automake to find the places where
compiler
switches get set in huge software projects
What's so hard about
find . \(
I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA,
cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.html is on their
bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means
that lots of people have
I wrote:
I'll check HP-UX/HPPA and let you know; since I didn't have a recent
bootstrap of the trunk it will take a bit.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Even a relatively old bootstrap will do, assembler/linker
nondeterminism is what I'm really concerned
I didn't even have an old bootstrap of the trunk for HP-UX; I tried to do
one and it died with
./xgcc -B./ -B/u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/bin/ -isystem
/u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/include -isystem
/u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/sys-include
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Perhaps. But the fundamental problem is that we shouldn't be hashing
on pointers, and tree-eh.c does just that for finally_tree and
throw_stmt_table.
I've heard both versions: that hashing on pointers is no big
deal, and that
On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
20734 rejects valid pointer to member
Not yet assigned.
How is this less Critical?
This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not
rejected when not in templates.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:06:42PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Perhaps. But the fundamental problem is that we shouldn't be hashing
on pointers, and tree-eh.c does just that for finally_tree and
throw_stmt_table.
I've
On 04/04/2005, at 4:31 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA,
cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.html is on their
bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:57:09PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
My head hurts about the GGC implications of opaque pointers in such a
hash table, and retaining pointers in the hash table that have already
been otherwise freed.
These are solved problems.
Joe has the correct answer to the
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 22:49 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi,
We have a bootstrap time regression since March 30. Bootstrap times
on Diego Novillo's SPEC box went up from (an already high) 5500s to
almost 8000s, see:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
20734 rejects valid pointer to member
Not yet assigned.
How is this less Critical?
This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not
rejected when not in templates.
Clearly this is a judgement call.
Hi guys/ladies,
I'm currently designing an ISA add-on to the MIPS architecture. My
intention is to use it (it is an algorithm accelerator actually) as a
COP2 (coprocessor #2). The corresponding microarchitecture is stable
(works at register-transfer level, not subject to change). Plus, I
would be
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:24:44AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys/ladies,
I'm currently designing an ISA add-on to the MIPS architecture. My
intention is to use it (it is an algorithm accelerator actually) as a
COP2 (coprocessor #2). The corresponding microarchitecture is stable
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:27:00AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering...
why not support asm templates THAT ARE NOT string constants??? And I
mean for static compilation cases only.
For example:
asm(instrx $%d, $%d\n,src1,src2 : =r (var1) : r (var2));
I assume
Thanks Daniel!
actually my 2 messages were send back-to-back. I have just read both your
responses and I can see that i could use stringify approach to force the
assembly output of GCC to what I want.
Nikolaos Kavvadias
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA,
cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.html is on their
bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means
that
On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
20734 rejects valid pointer to member
Not yet assigned.
How is this less Critical?
This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is
not
rejected when not in
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Yes it might be a silent miscompiling but there is an easy work around,
use a
temporary variable
In a large sourcebase, even figuring out what's been miscompiled is very
hard. It's much easier to deal with a compiler that ICEs than one that
silently miscompiles code.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:26:23 -0700, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are three outstanding bugs (19317, 19312, 18604) assigned to Jason
Merrill, but I didn't hear back from him last week. Jason, I'm going to
assume that you're unable to work on these. As Nathan is on vacation, I
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
07:43 ---
Subject: Bug 18644
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 07:42:35
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04 07:56
---
Fixed on all active branches.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
08:45 ---
Subject: Bug 20505
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 08:44:59
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
08:50 ---
Subject: Bug 16104
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 08:50:35
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
09:01 ---
Subject: Bug 16104
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 09:01:02
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
09:18 ---
Removing the patch mentioned in comment #5 indeed makes this bug go away.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20739
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
09:46 ---
2005-04-04 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR debug/20505
* dwarf2out.c (tree_add_const_value_attribute): Only add if it's
an INTEGER_CST.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
09:49 ---
Don't forget to apply the fix for 20723 as well
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19203
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04 10:29
---
Test now passes on 4.0 branch as well as mainline after patch was applied.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
10:51 ---
Subject: Bug 14812
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 10:51:41
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/arm :
The following testcase (simplified from lmbench) causes major compile time
regression in tree_ssa_iv_optimize_loop.
Without -DHANG (and with -O2), HEAD gcc needs 0m34.176s, while with GCC 3.4.x
0m0.035s. On 4.0 branch it even takes substantially longer.
lmbench has 100 such lines, which would
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04 11:38
---
Created an attachment (id=8526)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8526action=view)
Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20742
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04 11:40
---
Oops, attached older version of the testcase. The latest one had:
#ifdef HANG
#define TEN(x) x x x x x x x x x x
TEN (TEN (a += b; b -= a;))
#endif
in the loop as well.
--
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
12:04 ---
Subject: Bug 20505
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-04 12:04:39
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
12:36 ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00327.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target Milestone|---
On gcc 4.0 acovea test results showed that -fweb flag produces slow code.
Testing cc:
-fweb (-2.353)
Testing g++:
-fweb (-2.22)
Look acovea logs attached below.
If you find this information useful tell me what to add or put your mark INVALID
RESOLVED :-)
--
Summary: -fweb produces
--- Additional Comments From selecter at spray dot se 2005-04-04 13:07
---
Created an attachment (id=8527)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8527action=view)
cc log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20743
--- Additional Comments From selecter at spray dot se 2005-04-04 13:08
---
Created an attachment (id=8528)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8528action=view)
g++ log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20743
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:09 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00321.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:10 ---
There is a reason why it is disabled in gcc 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:11 ---
I should point out, though, that we all (me too) do appreciate
this kind of testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20743
$ cat size_1.f90
! { dg-do run }
! size= isn't implemented correctly at the moment.
program main
open(77,pad='yes')
write(77,'(A)') '123'
rewind(77)
read(77,'(I2)',advance='no',size=i) j
print *,i
if (i /= 2) call abort
end program main
$ gfortran size_1.f90
$ ./a.out
0
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to fail||4.0.0 4.1.0
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:32 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(fold_cond_expr_with_comparison): Preserve lvalue-ness for the
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-04
13:41 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Err... Why did you choose to drop the portion of the patch below,
that would have
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
13:50 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, Roger Sayle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
long-term
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:03 ---
This is scev analysis problem. On this testcase, it produces exponentially
large expressions (of form a_5 + b_6 + b_6 - a_5 + b_6 + b_6 - a_5 + b_6 - a_5
...).
As for possible solutions: more clever
This morning after downloading a complete new version - I get this error from
the make process -
/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile
/Users/dir/gfortran/gcc/host-powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0/gcc/xgcc
-B/Users/dir/gfortran/gcc/host-powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0/gcc/
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:08 ---
Read http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg01149.html, you need a newer
cctools.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:09 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Using g++3.4.3 (gcc version 3.4.3 20041212 (Red Hat 3.4.3-9.EL4)) to compile a
testcase with covariant return types. In the testcase, the covariant function
C::l() returns a null pointer, g++3.4.3 does the return value adjustment and
returns a non-null return value ( which is incorrectly).
Here
Using g++3.4.3 (gcc version 3.4.3 20041212 (Red Hat 3.4.3-9.EL4)) to compile a
testcase with covariant return types. In the testcase, the covariant function
C::l() returns a null pointer, g++3.4.3 does the return value adjustment and
returns a non-null return value ( which is incorrectly).
Here
I was playing with -fprefetch-loop-arrays on pentium4, trying to get some
speed-up with simple operations on arrays. Consider this small testcase:
#define NELEM 1000
#define NITER 1000
int buf[NELEM];
int main() {
int i,j;
int sum = 0;
double ssum = 0.0;
for (i = 0; i NELEM; i++)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:26 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20746 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:26 ---
*** Bug 20747 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:35 ---
Test from 20747:
extern C void *printf(char * ...);
class A {
public:
virtual void f();
virtual A* i();
virtual void j();
int a;
};
class B {
public:
virtual void f();
virtual void g();
virtual B* l();
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:38 ---
Confirmed, not a regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:41 ---
Most likely what is happening is that we are filling up the cache and causing
used stuff to removed from
the cache. Maybe also making the hadware's prefetching confused.
--
What|Removed
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:43 ---
No useful feedback in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:43 ---
No feedback in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr
2005-04-04 14:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Hang in tree_ssa_iv_optimize_loop
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Scev probably should keep track of how large expressions it produces, and
just
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
14:54 ---
Recategorizing.
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04
15:02 ---
Subject: Re: [Committed] PR c++/19199: Preserve COND_EXPR lvalueness in fold
On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ result. We may still return other expressions that would be
+
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
