http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31454
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31454action=edit
Reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46371
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
Bug ID: 59535
Summary: [4.9 regression] -Os code size regressions for
Thumb1/Thumb2 (with LRA)?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
CSiBE code size results for Thumb2
2013/12/09 2543786
2013/12/11 2563522
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Patch from comment #7 didn't cure Android build as well..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #10)
Patch from comment #7 didn't cure Android build as well..
Can you try the patch from PR58252 comment 7?
I've build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think BIT_FIELD_REF's type can't be a vector, so it has to be integral type
in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
CSiBE code size results for Thumb1
2013/12/09 2634640
2013/12/11 2683980
=1.8% size regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A case from libmpeg2/slice.c:
mov.b @(1,r10),r0// load of shift amount
shldr7,r6
add #1,r6
extu.b r0,r0 // zero extend shift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 regression] -Os code |[4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57189
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
Likely caused by r198611.
This is the patch that exposes the problem.
I have filled this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31455
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31455action=edit
testcase
Compile with -Os -mthumb -mcpu=arm7tdmi -fno-short-enums and either -mlra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59536
Bug ID: 59536
Summary: [4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in
cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2376 breaks m68k-linux
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Number of register-register move operations in the testcase
lra:208
no-lra: 105
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57189
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
Likely caused by r198611.
This is the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265
--- Comment #21 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
Hmm, it may be someone altering the insns during streaming process. You may
try to check
who is doing that while streaming out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59505
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I was wondering whether it would make sense to convert sequences such as
SH4 SH4A
mov.l @r15,r3 LS/2 LS/2
mul.l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another question is whether the following is OK to do on all SH
implementations:
int test33 (int x, int y, int z)
{
return x * y + z;
}
currently compiles:
mul.l r5,r4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #21)
What happens is that the sequence is expanded to RTL as follows:
(insn 7 4 8 2 (set (reg:SI 163 [ D.1856 ])
(and:SI (reg/v:SI 162
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57422
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #21)
I've tried to bisect the issue, but it's messy.
However I think I can rule out any commit since r205447.
If r205447
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
--- Comment #31 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31456
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31456action=edit
C source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
--- Comment #32 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
Same error with gcc trunk, dated 20131215, for attached
source code.
Flags -O3 -g -fPIC -fstack-protector-strong required.
[dcb@zippy4 foundBugs]$ ../results/bin/gcc -c -O3 -g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31457
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31457action=edit
Another testcase
Another testcase, but this one has some obvious examples of poor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 31458
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31458action=edit
reduced test case
c11-atomic-exec_5.c reduced to the test of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 31459
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31459action=edit
test without the complex instances
The running time fluctuates between 1.6 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55500
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
I will take a look and report back. -freorder-blocks-and-partition was
recently enabled by default,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59534
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59486
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On 12/17/13 9:29 AM, amker.cheng at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59486
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55498
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59534
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 17 15:17:00 2013
New Revision: 206051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206051root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/59534
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59523
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35913
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41823
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42478
Bug 42478 depends on bug 41823, which changed state.
Bug 41823 Summary: gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.c: possible null pointer dereference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41823
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51610
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47316
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47316
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase provided now generates:
void foo(A*) (struct A * a)
{
int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) () * _3;
int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) () _4;
int i.0_6;
int i.1_7;
void * PROF_9;
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47462
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #10)
Patch from comment #7 didn't cure Android build as well..
Can you try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45631
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59511
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
One movdqa started appearing with r204212, the second movdqa started
appearing with r204752. Vlad, can you please have a look?
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42949
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45814
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49521
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43588
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45885
Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59147
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59466
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59147
--- Comment #5 from rglindley at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #4)
I've tested testcase on x86_64-w64-mingw32 cross-compiler, and I can't
reproduce issue with current trunk.
As 4.6.1 isn't supported anymore upstream,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45631
davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 17 17:35:59 2013
New Revision: 206062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206062root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/58290
* gfortran.dg/pr58290.f90: New
with NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
You may redistribute copies of GNU Fortran
under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING
# ~/sys/stow/gcc-2013-12-17/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.9.0 20131217
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Following patch gets rid of OBJ_TYPE_REF
Index: value-prof.c
===
--- value-prof.c(revision 206040)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
I've looked at this some more and it seems Richard's change was the right
fix for this, so I've committed the testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58290
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is actually the same testcase, just somewhat manually reduced and with
symbol names simplified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Main issue seems to be that VRP messes up on:
# ap_2 = PHI ap_8(5)
# prephitmp_14 = PHI MEM[(void *)_ZTV1A + 16B](5)
_19 = *prephitmp_14;
here it somehow won't constant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59085
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
I think BIT_FIELD_REF's type can't be a vector,
Er, I am quite sure a BIT_FIELD_REF can be a vector. Maybe that wasn't a
general statement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You mean BIT_FIELD_REF argument can be a vector? Sure. But the type of the
BIT_FIELD_REF itself?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59533
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is basically the same issue as PR 54685.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59519
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
You certainly don't want to put something between DOM and phi-only-cprop.
Jump
threading will tend to expose lots of degenerate PHIs. phi-only-cprop
eliminates those degenerates. We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is basically the same issue as PR 59533. emit_store_flag_1 in expmed.c
always expands the not-shift because the assumption there is that it's cheaper,
which is not true for SH.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59431
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
Bug ID: 59538
Summary: Optimization of -O2 or higher creates incorrect code
in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265
--- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's a testcase:
tmp % wget trippelsdorf.de/cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o.bz2
tmp % bzip2 -d cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o.bz2
tmp % g++ -xlto -fltrans cceI2Nud.ltrans22.o
In member
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59147
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Tracer depends on the usual estimate_num_insns limits
(it is 12 years since I wrote it, so what I recall)
note that one impotant thing that changed in those 12 years is that I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
It's not a matter of cost model, but if propagating the values to their uses.
I haven't looked closely at the tracer, but wouldn't it benefit by having
constants in particular
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59433
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39578
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
You mean BIT_FIELD_REF argument can be a vector? Sure. But the type of the
BIT_FIELD_REF itself?
Yes, the type of the BIT_FIELD_REF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59432
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59430
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59538
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
It's not a matter of cost model, but if propagating the values to their uses.
I haven't looked closely at the tracer, but wouldn't it benefit by having
constants in particular
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
