https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017
New Revision: 255638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports
The patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #61 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42885
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885&action=edit
expand labels before markers
This patch fixes both ia64 problems. Basically, the ebb scheduler gets
thoroug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Right now, I can't see a reason to drop markers just because VTA is disabled.
Although they do lose some value, they're probably still useful on their own.
So I suggest dropping both lines that clear cfun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #60 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Joseph, thanks for the feedback. I've fixed the SH (and ARC) build error in my
tree.
Andreas, thanks for the ia64 testcases, I'm looking into them. From your email
address, is it correct to assume that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #50 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Dec 13 19:09:45 2017
New Revision: 255612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255612&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[SFN] don't eliminate regs in markers
Eliminate regs in debug bind in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42860
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42860&action=edit
additional patch for the sparc pr69102 FAIL
This patch fixes the testsuite regression reported by Rainier on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #18 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42859
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42859&action=edit
additional patch for the ia64 problem reported by andreas
Andreas, this patch (on top of the other) enables
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Rainier, I wasn't sure how "same" the bootstrap failure you'd observed was,
that's why I'd asked for a preprocessed testcase. Now, since the patch fixed
the problem, nevermind. I'll look into the regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42858
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42858&action=edit
candidate patch
This patch enables the initial bug report to compile successfully (though with
-f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva ---
the problem is that a concatn resulting from decomposing a reg is not unshared
in a debug insn because it's between blocks. reverting the
remove_forwarder_block part of the tree-cfgcleanup.c changes in r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Dec 11 22:36:07 2017
New Revision: 24
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=24&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine
When combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81019
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Dec 11 22:36:07 2017
New Revision: 24
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=24&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine
When combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80693
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Dec 11 22:36:07 2017
New Revision: 24
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=24&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR80693] drop value of parallel SETs dropped by combine
When combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00376.html
(before seeing Jeff's comments)
Anyway, I think this is simple enough to go into 8. It isn't hard to add
caching, should we find i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42802&action=edit
patch, second try (following backlinks from dead uses to maybe-dead defs)
Here's an alternate patch that get
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42800
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42800&action=edit
patch, first try
This is my first cut at it. I couldn't quite figure out how to determine
w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
The reason dom doesn't duplicate the loop entry test is that the additional phi
node grows it past the max-jump-thread-duplication-stmts limit. Compiling with
--param max-jump-thread-duplication-stmts=16 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
It is combine that simplifies a compare of _9 (aka t1) with 1: it knows _9 is
either -1 or 0 from the &1 followed by -1, so it can't be equal to 1. From
that simplification, others follow, and the loop exi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
it may very well be the case that it is gcc7 that's buggy in optimizing out the
loop. after all, there is a divide-by-x0 in the loop entry test and, save for
global optimizations, the compiler couldn't tel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 41371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41371&action=edit
patch I'm testing to fix the bug
The problem is that combine creates a single insn with the
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Patch posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01142.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243
Bug 63243 depends on bug 63238, which changed state.
Bug 63238 Summary: DWARF does not represent _Alignas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Mar 21 18:28:06 2017
New Revision: 246331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR63238] include alignment debug information in DIE checksum
Add DW_A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 40990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40990&action=edit
untested patch that appears to fix the problem
Bernd,
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Sorry about t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79570
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
> Alexandre, do you recall why debug insns at heads of basic blocks are special?
I'm afraid I don't remember, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's because debug
insns normally wouldn't be at the border of s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59319
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2017-01-31
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
The patch that was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Jan 31 01:03:15 2017
New Revision: 245052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR63238] output alignment debug information
Output DWARFv5+ DW_AT_ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78497
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
One aspect to the problem is the extra warnings you get. As more and more
projects adopt -Werror by default, it means you get a different error with
-save-temps. That's bad for users and inconvenient for
Priority: P3
Component: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since -save-temps performs separate preprocessing and drops comments, and
-Wimplicit-fallthrough machinery recognizes some of the
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
The ability to get a successful response from GDB for 'ptype X::t2::t2', given
the program plus a suitable main function, came about in revision 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77389
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Mine. Initial, incomplete patch just posted to gcc-patches.
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 39274
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39274&action=edit
Patch I'm testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243
Bug 63243 depends on bug 55641, which changed state.
Bug 55641 Summary: debug info for the type of a reference declared with a
typedef has spurious 'const'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55641
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55641
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243
Bug 63243 depends on bug 63240, which changed state.
Bug 63240 Summary: DWARF does not represent C++ defaulted methods
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63240
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243
Bug 63243 depends on bug 49366, which changed state.
Bug 49366 Summary: pointer-to-member-function not given value in
DW_TAG_template_value_param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63240
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55641
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Aug 12 07:11:36 2016
New Revision: 239402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR55641] drop spurious const_type from reference_type variables
Alth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63240
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Aug 12 07:11:50 2016
New Revision: 239403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR63240] generate debug info for defaulted member functions
This impl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Aug 12 07:11:23 2016
New Revision: 239401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR49366] emit loc exprs for C++ non-virtual pmf template value parms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72799
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Uhh, sorry, I pasted the error messages from a compiler with changes that
attempted to fix the problem. Here's what gcc version 5.3.1 20160406 (Red Hat
5.3.1-6) (GCC) reports:
/l/tmp/build/gcc/trunk/gcc/te
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-std=c++11" }
// Make sure we don't drop ref-qualifiers...
typedef void rqft(void) con
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
It appears to me that this should have long been closed, no? The patch that
implements it is in, and functional. I'm closing it; please reopen if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243
Bug 63243 depends on bug 60782, which changed state.
Bug 60782 Summary: DWARF does not represent _Atomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60782
What|Removed |Added
---
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 39046
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39046&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
||2016-08-01
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68468
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37606
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37606&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
REG_N_CALLS_CROSSED's computation didn't always disregard debug insns, which
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
On it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |vmakarov at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37498&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
LRA wants harder than reload to avoid creating a stack slot to satisfy insn
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I'm looking into this one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69466
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37486&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the problem
The problem occurs because we call set_current_def for phi nodes after
d
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
On it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69315
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37436
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37436&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
Delayed folding may have to instantiate and evaluate template constexpr
func
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Looking into this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #16 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:40:12 2016
New Revision: 232217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR69123] make dataflow_set_different details more verbose
for gcc/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Mon Jan 11 10:40:33 2016
New Revision: 232218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR69123] fix handling of MEMs in VTA to avoid dataflow oscillation
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #15 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37284
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37284&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
The problem arises because we used to drop overwritten MEMs from loc lists
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Mine.
H.J., thanks for the reduced testcase. I'm afraid the patch is not right,
though. All the test you removed does is to allow an optimization in the
comparison between two dataflow sets, n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Dec 13 20:43:44 2015
New Revision: 231600
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231600&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67355] drop dummy zero from reverse VTA ops, fix infinite recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sun Dec 13 20:37:26 2015
New Revision: 231599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67355] drop dummy zero from reverse VTA ops, fix infinite recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva ---
The reason we don't coalesce on s390 is that there's no PROMOTE_MODE defined
there, so i_1 and j_2 promote to SImode, whereas x_3 and y_4, being function
arguments, promote to DImode as per s390_promote_fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I'm not comfortable with your relaxing the assert in cfgexpand.c:set_rtl. It
means we could have a PARALLEL for a RESULT_DECL *and* other variables, because
of coalescing. Although we can deal with PARAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Eric, apologies for the slow response, I'm in the middle of an all-week trip
with little Internet access.
I think the best course of action is to adjust gimple_can_coalesce_p so that it
returns false for R
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Mine. Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg03302.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
In case someone gets here digging for more information about the patch above
than what's in comments, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02018.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Nov 26 21:57:40 2015
New Revision: 230985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67753] adjust for padding when bypassing memory in assign_parm_setup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #57 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Nov 26 21:57:40 2015
New Revision: 230985
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230985&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67753] adjust for padding when bypassing memory in assign_parm_setu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67753, which changed state.
Bug 67753 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: cxg1005, cxg2002, cxg2006, cxg2007,
cxg2008, cxg2018, cxg2019 and cxg2020
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #56 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Nov 6 10:34:13 2015
New Revision: 229840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67753] fix copy of PARALLEL entry_parm to CONCAT target_reg
In ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Nov 6 10:34:13 2015
New Revision: 229840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67753] fix copy of PARALLEL entry_parm to CONCAT target_reg
In assi
||2015-11-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 36645
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36645&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49454
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Nov 3 00:30:07 2015
New Revision: 229690
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229690&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR68083] don't introduce undefined behavior in ifcombine
The ifcombin
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 36622
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36622&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the problem
This patch stops ifcombine from introducing this kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
s/ifcvt/ifcombine/ above, sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
This is a latent problem in ifcvt, that pulls the computation involving the
uninitialized k out of the always-false condition. Things go down the hill
when k's default def gets coalesced with b, and rtl op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25844
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36472|0 |1
is obsolete|
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Mine. Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67912
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Oct 13 16:34:29 2015
New Revision: 228774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
support BLKmode inputs for store_bit_field
Revision 228586 changed use
||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #21 from Alexandre Oliva ---
This is fixed in all active branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #37 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Oct 10 12:05:56 2015
New Revision: 228674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reset inlined debug variables at the end of the inlined function
for
501 - 600 of 1101 matches
Mail list logo
