Hello,
following table compares optimization levels as -O0, -Os, -O1-3 and -Ofast.
Columns in the table include all ELF sections bigger than 5% for a binary.
Apart from that I took -O2 as a base option and I tried to disable every option
in this level. Similarly I measured impact of the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
Hello,
following table compares optimization levels as -O0, -Os, -O1-3 and
-Ofast. Columns in the table include all ELF sections bigger than 5% for a
binary. Apart from that I took -O2 as a base option and I tried to
On 07/15/2014 09:50 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
Hello,
following table compares optimization levels as -O0, -Os, -O1-3 and
-Ofast. Columns in the table include all ELF sections bigger than 5% for a
binary. Apart from that
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good idea to implement
predicate on expressions ?
Sth like:
(match_and_simplify
(op
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if it was a good idea to
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52 PM,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM,
On 25 June 2014 10:26, Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com wrote:
Why is GCC code size so much bigger than LLVM? Does -Ofast have more
unrolling
on GCC? It doesn't seem increasing code size help performance (164.gzip
197.parser)
Is there comparisons for O2? I guess that is more useful for
On 15 July 2014 15:43, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
I also noticed that GCC code size is bigger for both firefox and libreoffice.
There was some extra bloat in 4.9 compared to 4.8.
Martin did some tests with -O2 and various flags, perhaps we could trottle
some of -O2 optimizations.
Now
On 15 July 2014 15:43, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
I also noticed that GCC code size is bigger for both firefox and
libreoffice.
There was some extra bloat in 4.9 compared to 4.8.
Martin did some tests with -O2 and various flags, perhaps we could trottle
some of -O2
This is not a patch review, lets move this to gcc@gcc.gnu.org.
On 15/07/2014 17:03, Roman Gareev wrote:
I've found out that int128_integer_type_node and
long_long_integer_type_node are NULL at the moment of definition of
the graphite_expression_size_type. Maybe we should use
Hi Eli,
Corinna has asked me to take a look at your bug report[1] on this
problem (since she has now encountered it in an Cygwin environment).
Unfortunately I am not an x86 expert so I am not really able to dig
deeply into it. But what I would recommend is filing an official gcc
bug
Hi Gerald.
Are you still interested in the mirrors?
Thanks,
Dan Go-Parts
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Pfeifer
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 11:52 AM
To: Dan D.
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: PLEASE RE-ADD MIRRORS (small correction)
Hi Dan,
I see there is a later mail from
Some useful information for the conference this weekend:
Friday, 18th July 2014, 6.30pm to 9pm
The Centre for Computing History
Rene Court
Coldhams Road
Cambridge CB1 3EW
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/
Saturday, 19th July 2014, 7.30pm to 10.30pm
Murray Edwards College
University of
Hi,
I am the author of a deterministic memory manager:
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/block_ptr/
I just have a quick question: is it possible to overload all raw
pointers with a template smart pointer?
If not then I would hope this can be made possible.
Regards,
-Phil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60324
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #6)
This change introduces a dependency on strndup -- which, alas, is absent
from libSystem in OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), although later
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #14 from Joshua Kinard kumba at gentoo dot org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
What is the kernel version? There has been some recent (this year) fixes
inside the kernel for futex.
Though I admit I have seen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joshua Kinard from comment #14)
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
What is the kernel version? There has been some recent (this year) fixes
inside the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, law at redhat dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
--- Comment #32 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61805
Bug ID: 61805
Summary: Demangler crash (GDB PR 17157)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61632
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Its sort of like Steve said earlier. The coder is choosing to ignore an
error condition so anything gfortran does is valid. In this case the
output got writen to buffer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61806
Bug ID: 61806
Summary: [C++11] Expression sfinae w/o access gives hard error
in partial template specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61782
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Like
@item always_inline
@cindex @code{always_inline} function attribute
Generally, functions are not inlined unless optimization is specified.
For functions declared inline, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There's actually quite a lot of -flto failures (all of them?) besides the ones
posted here all over the gcc testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #10 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #7)
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #0)
I'm also very intrigued by that last line - I can reproduce it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61671
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Auto-reduring (matching the bogus assembler pattern).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #11 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3)
libgcc is built with:
make -C cris-linux-gnu tooldir=/usr all-target-libgcc
I'd expect make all-target-libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #12 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
Created attachment 33121 [details]
Patch to config.gcc
Correct patch to config.gcc required to actually build the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33122
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33122action=edit
autoreduced testcase
Autoreduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I just applied your fix and now gcc compiles succesfully with -Og.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61782
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
Like
@item always_inline
@cindex @code{always_inline} function attribute
Generally, functions are not inlined unless optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61807
Bug ID: 61807
Summary: genautomata.c fails to compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33123
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33123action=edit
more reduced
On trunk reproduces with the following slightly more manual reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61808
Bug ID: 61808
Summary: Linking error with explicit template instantiation and
default template param
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61782
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25992
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61809
Bug ID: 61809
Summary: [4.10 regression] fold-const.c:14865:47: error:
'DECL_ARGUMENT' was not declared in this scope
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-none-elf|aarch64-none-elf, arm*
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61810
Bug ID: 61810
Summary: init-regs.c papers over issues elsewhere
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61809
Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61809
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Are you sure that r212549 fails? I'ld rather suspect a typo in r212550, i.e.,
DECL_ARGUMENT instead of DECL_ARGUMENT_FLD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
r212555 addresses this issue for certain std::lib types, but not for the
general case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61772
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Jul 15 14:11:06 2014
New Revision: 212563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212563root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/61772
* ifcvt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61809
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61809
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Are you sure that r212549 fails? I'ld rather suspect a typo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
;; --- Region Dependences --- b 12 bb 0
;; insn codebb dep prio cost reservation
;; -- --- ---
...
;; 23990
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
how those tests fail?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #12)
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #6)
Created attachment 33121 [details]
Patch to config.gcc
Correct patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61802
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
how those tests fail?
They seem to hit abort ();
signal 6 in the emulator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61811
Bug ID: 61811
Summary: [4.10 Regression] Firefox LTO build error due to
undefined symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #10)
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #7)
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #0)
I'm also very intrigued
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61632
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
This:
+fmt-format_string_len = strrchr (f-source, ')') - f-source + 1;
Is taking the difference between two string pointers, ie memory addresses
This:
printf(pos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
Bug ID: 61812
Summary: gcc ICE says The bug is not reproducible, so it is
likely a hardware or OS problem.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
For an example ICE, see: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
This is easily reproducible, so the line is incorrect. It might be better
stated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61737
--- Comment #15 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #14)
Could you please consider open a separate PR for the is not reproducible
misdisagnosis?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61632
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:08:44AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61632
--- Comment #15 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61803
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I forgot to mention that my code fragment comes from
#include sys/sdt.h
void
f(void)
{
for (;;)
_SDT_PROBE(0, 0, 1,(0));
}
Maybe you can find intelligent ways to exercise this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ABI does not document a model for stack chains, so any use of a frame
pointer is, by definition, purely private to that function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61632
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I did not say that iostat had to be used. However, one can find
things like:
9.10.1 Error conditions and the ERR= specifier
If an error condition occurs during
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61813
Bug ID: 61813
Summary: __attribute__((__packed__)) does not pack struct
containing uint16_t with uint32_t
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25992
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61814
Bug ID: 61814
Summary: [c++1y] cannot use decltype on captured arg-pack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So looks like fast unwinding in libsanitizer is not portable to GCC for ARM
Linux target because of incompatible frame pointer value. But how is
libsanitizer going to identify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
After providing all the missing 'USE' items:
Where did you get them?
Adding the following at the beginning of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #3 from Evgeniy Stepanov eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com ---
Yes, FP on ARM is non-standard and differs in GCC and Clang implementations.
Disabling fast unwind is not really an option, as you are looking at 10x, maybe
100x slowdown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61803
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #2)
In this case yes, but this is not always the case: See PR5252.
I think that's the wrong PR number but I couldn't easily find the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61803
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #15 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 61803 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #16 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've tripped across this enough that I've actually filed dups twice now.
I think it would be best to change the ordering here.
That is, the initial error ought to generally be the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 33126
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33126action=edit
Session showing erratic behavior of gfortran
gfortran-fsf-4.5 is 4.5.4,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
--- Comment #3 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Hmmm... It appears you're right. The 'upstream tarball' in the Fedora gcc SRPM
seems already to be altered from what's upstream - even before the spec file
applies any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #20)
Based on this I believe the resolution of this bug is 'INVALID'. ...
I fully agree. If there is no objection before next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also even though it might be a true gcc issue, it does not say it is a hardware
issue, the message says likely. This could also mean a gc or a memory issue
inside gcc. Except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61662
--- Comment #2 from David gccbugzilla at limegreensocks dot com ---
Sent July 9, 2014: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00604.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
--- Comment #5 from dhowells at redhat dot com dhowells at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
Also even though it might be a true gcc issue, it does not say it is a
hardware issue, the message says likely. This could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61812
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is with the original version of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00819.html
As discussed on IRC, the issue is that the RTL includes host address in the
stderr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61815
Bug ID: 61815
Summary: precedence of operators is not being followed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61815
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61792
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61815
--- Comment #2 from saisusheelsunkara at hotmail dot com ---
its from left to right order?
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
The precedence of operators is being followed but what the C standard does
not say which side of the * is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61815
--- Comment #3 from saisusheelsunkara at hotmail dot com ---
if it is following the precedence then output must have been 216?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61815
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 15 19:16:29 2014
New Revision: 212574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212574root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60848
PR c++/61723
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 15 19:16:29 2014
New Revision: 212574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212574root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60848
PR c++/61723
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
