Hello gcc gurus,
I have a problem with jumps. Our architecture can only handle 13bit direct
jumps and 18 bit indirect jumps. Sometimes those 13bit are not enough and I
want to give the user the possibility to force jumps to be indirect jumps.
Somehow I was not able to find a way to do so. The
On 07/05/2011 06:58 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
The level of my understanding of this part is still basic, I've now only
scratched the surface of Dataflow Analysis.
Well you're not looking at df proper, which is mostly a textbook
implementation with some quirks; you're looking at RTL
On 07/07/2011 06:48 AM, Camo Johnson wrote:
Somehow I was not able to find a way to do so. The main problem is
that I can't find a way to tell the compiler that I need a register
for the indirect jump.
Have a look at the SH target, which has a very similar problem.
r~
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110707 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110707/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
I have compiled this code in MS Visual C++ Express 2008 and it works as
it should be but when i compile this code in Mingw as a part of GCC ver
4.4.1-2 the input() function should return a temporary object to 'ob'
object and invoke the assignment operator '=' but it doesn't and it
shows me
Mactavish mdtabisha...@gmail.com writes:
I have compiled this code in MS Visual C++ Express 2008 and it works as
it should be but when i compile this code in Mingw as a part of GCC ver
4.4.1-2 the input() function should return a temporary object to 'ob'
object and invoke the assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49620
julian gardner joolzg at btinternet dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49667
Summary: Duplicate -L's with configure --with-gmp-lib on
Solaris 10
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49667
--- Comment #1 from Greg Robinson greg.robinson at dsto dot defence.gov.au
2011-07-07 07:33:07 UTC ---
Ok, I think I might know whats going on. I believe, I am assuming, that, say,
an LDFLAGS option, where you specify -L and -R is the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49667
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49668
Summary: [C++0x] std::thread does not forward its args as
rvalues
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49668
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-07-07 08:53:24 UTC ---
The patch in comment #8 fixes the ICEs for the test cases without disturbing my
pet bugs and without regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49640
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49666
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49664
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49663
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46727
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-07-07
09:25:18 UTC ---
This was fixed for 4.5 by Matz' r152236 (Disentangle builtin folding from
expanding).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49661
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
--- Comment #22 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07 09:24:19
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jul 7 09:24:16 2011
New Revision: 175958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175958
Log:
gcc:
PR target/39150
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48882
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49607
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-07-07
09:53:23 UTC ---
Chris, shall we attack this issue? Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski orion at cora dot nwra.com 2011-07-07
09:54:59 UTC ---
I am on vacation and will be out of the office until Thursay, July 21st.
Your message has been saved and I will respond if needed when I return.
If this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49550
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07 10:14:05 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jul 7 10:14:02 2011
New Revision: 175961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175961
Log:
gcc:
PR libmudflap/49550
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24397|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49668
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
Summary: Compiler crashes with internal compiler error: in
perform_member_init, at cp/init.c:530
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
--- Comment #2 from Kerrek SB z0sh at sogetthis dot com 2011-07-07 11:49:46
UTC ---
Yes, I know that the code is invalid, but that shouldn't make the compiler
crash, should it?
For that matter, your proposed correct syntax is also rejected by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49621
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49621
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
12:12:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Yes, I know that the code is invalid, but that shouldn't make the compiler
crash, should it?
No, that's why I confirmed the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46278
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2011-07-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49640
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
12:49:21 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 12:49:17 2011
New Revision: 175967
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175967
Log:
PR middle-end/49640
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49640
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
12:50:08 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 12:50:03 2011
New Revision: 175968
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175968
Log:
PR middle-end/49640
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-07 12:49:55 UTC ---
No, c70f46b057cd12973 is fine.
I've tested tested:
git reset --hard c70f46b057cd12973d33c01c8fa0da5c14ba3944
and then applied Jason's patch on top
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49607
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49640
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
12:58:22 UTC ---
Fixed for 4.6/4.7+ so far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48727
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-07 13:04:18 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-06
19:15:49 UTC ---
This also fails on 32-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49622
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-07-07
13:22:27 UTC ---
This was fixed for 4.5 by r145494, Richard's merge from the alias-improvements
branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48727
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49475
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
13:33:18 UTC ---
See thread starting at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-06/threads.html#00342
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-07 14:08:08 UTC ---
OK I've finally found the commit in question:
% git bisect start
$ git bisect bad
% git bisect good c70f46b057cd12973d33c01c8fa0da5c14ba3944
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-07 14:43:49 UTC ---
It's the first hunk that causes the problem:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c b/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c
index 43e0f81..b008f05 100644
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49646
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49522
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
16:06:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 16:05:55 2011
New Revision: 175987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175987
Log:
PR debug/49522
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
--- Comment #4 from Kerrek SB z0sh at sogetthis dot com 2011-07-07 16:09:55
UTC ---
You're right, it works in 4.6.1 - thanks! (Just updated.)
Say, since you're here, if I change the definition of x from Foo[2] to
std::arrayFoo,2, should I be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-07 16:20:44 UTC ---
This is caused by:
7791b0eb56c3c324004e6fffe2d5f21241c038f7 is the first bad commit
commit 7791b0eb56c3c324004e6fffe2d5f21241c038f7
Author: hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-07-07 16:22:48
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/05/11 16:52, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49653
--- Comment #7 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2011-07-07 16:38:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
why not just add this to make the code valid by emitting an extern definition?
extern long trouble(long, long);
If you're suggesting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49653
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
16:49:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
why not just add this to make the code valid by emitting an extern
definition?
extern long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49653
--- Comment #9 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2011-07-07 16:55:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
GF: If you're suggesting that the front-end would do this automatically when
GF: compiling -O0 -std={gnu}99,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49653
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
17:08:54 UTC ---
The point is your code is invalid and the compiler's behaviour at -O0 is
correct.
C99 6.9 If an identifier declared with external linkage is used in an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |c++
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49495
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
18:08:04 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jul 7 18:08:00 2011
New Revision: 175998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175998
Log:
2011-07-07 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49495
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49670
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2104
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49653
--- Comment #11 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2011-07-07 19:01:19
UTC ---
Thanks for the additional info. I agree that it would be incorrect for the
compiler to default to extern if it chooses not to inline the function (I
hadn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49522
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
19:10:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 19:10:01 2011
New Revision: 176003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176003
Log:
PR debug/49522
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
19:11:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 19:11:27 2011
New Revision: 176004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176004
Log:
PR c/49644
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
19:14:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 19:14:38 2011
New Revision: 176005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176005
Log:
PR c/49644
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49522
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
19:19:52 UTC ---
Fixed for C in 4.6+ so far, C++ patch is waiting for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #9 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2011-07-07 19:31:53
UTC ---
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:23 AM, law at redhat dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
19:41:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 19:41:55 2011
New Revision: 176006
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176006
Log:
PR c/49644
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49644
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
19:43:03 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jul 7 19:42:58 2011
New Revision: 176007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176007
Log:
PR c/49644
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-07 20:29:44 UTC ---
With 7791b0eb56c3c324004e6fffe2d5f21241c038f7 reverted and after reverting the
following hunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538#c6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49660
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
20:41:12 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jul 7 20:41:10 2011
New Revision: 176009
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176009
Log:
PR target/49660
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49660
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
20:37:02 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jul 7 20:36:59 2011
New Revision: 176008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176008
Log:
PR target/49660
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49660
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
20:43:45 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Jul 7 20:43:43 2011
New Revision: 176010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176010
Log:
PR target/49660
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49660
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
20:58:19 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Jul 7 20:58:16 2011
New Revision: 176011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176011
Log:
2011-07-07 Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
21:03:27 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Jul 7 21:03:25 2011
New Revision: 176012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176012
Log:
2011-07-07 Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49648
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49353
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49353
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
21:20:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 24707
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24707
cgraph abort patch
In case anyone is interested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-07-07 21:26:57
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/11 13:32, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
Yes. Jump threading is inherently an iterative process.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47752
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24163
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volker.simonis at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47356
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49671
Summary: volatile goes missing after inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49671
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49498
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
21:51:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
2) On the targets that have the problem, is branch cost considered cheap?
No idea. I didn't bother to look at why cris-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49663
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
21:54:01 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 7 21:53:58 2011
New Revision: 176013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176013
Log:
PR c++/49663
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48157
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07
21:55:11 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 7 21:55:09 2011
New Revision: 176014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=176014
Log:
PR c++/48157
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538
--- Comment #7 from Jarryd Beck jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au 2011-07-07
21:55:06 UTC ---
I just wanted to comment here that I have also found this problem. I bisected
it to the same revision using my own project. I reported it as bug [[49587]].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48157
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49663
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49538
--- Comment #8 from Jarryd Beck jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au 2011-07-07
21:58:45 UTC ---
Sorry I linked that wrongly, it's bug 49587.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49353
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-07-07 22:01:07 UTC
---
Thanks for working on this!
I guess we could also get rid of the rest of visibility fixup code? (i.e.
copying COMDAT_GROUP into thunkssame body aliases
and adding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46043
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
