https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64507
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, the code could be slightly better by factorizing the return sequences
;; check length
mov#0,r0
;; goto .l2
;; else init r1,r0
;; goto .l1
.l2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64507
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64507
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Tue Jan 6 12:22:51 2015
New Revision: 219258
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219258&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64507
* config/sh/sh-mem.cc (sh_expand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64507
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Tue Jan 6 11:59:09 2015
New Revision: 219257
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64507
* config/sh/sh-mem.cc (sh_expand
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 34386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34386&action=edit
test case
Thought the check was emitted from the bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29349
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43934
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Jun 6 07:21:02 2014
New Revision: 211302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211302&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43934
* tree-ssa-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61195
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61195
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Mon May 19 08:04:22 2014
New Revision: 210608
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210608&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61195
* config/sh/sh.md (movsf_ie): Unset fp_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61195
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
movsf_ie forces the fp_mode attr for all constraints. Testing a fix.
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
for SH4/SH2A the compiler forces a PR mode switch for the floating point moves:
so
float
foo(float f)
{
return f;
}
compiles as:
mov.l .L2,r1
lds.l @r1+,fpscr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60884
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #11 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #9)
> > Although it seems that (1)-(5) in #3 are interesting points, they
> > are almos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60539
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
note also that instead of merging the 3 max remaining bytes after the
world-at-time loop with the byte-at-a-time loop I had a version that unrolled
the 3 of them of we have 2 different path (word
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60539
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60264
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60264
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:31:19 2014
New Revision: 208511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-12 Christian Bruel
PR targ
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 32164
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32164&action=edit
testcase
compiling the attached case with
-O2 -mapcs -mfl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2013-12-3
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #17 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Although not fully tested yet, could you guys please have a look at it?
> Christian, does it fix your Linux build problems, or are there still more /
> new ones?
the 2.6.32 kernel build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12306
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #15 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks Oleg, I'll give it a try for 4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31257
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31257&action=edit
test case
cc1 -O2 consolemap.c -quiet
drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: '
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Mon Sep 23 08:30:00 2013
New Revision: 202825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-23 Christian Bruel
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is that
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "arith_reg_dest" "=r")
(ior:SI (and:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "arith_reg_operand" "r")
accepts fpul re
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 30863
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30863&action=edit
test case
cc1 -Os -m4 swapb_ice.c -o 2.s -quiet
swapb_ice.c: In function 'kerninfo':
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Sep 13 08:38:22 2013
New Revision: 202559
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-13 Christian Bruel
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Sep 13 07:51:07 2013
New Revision: 202557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202557&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-13 Christian Bruel
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from
iority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 30746
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30746&action=edit
Reproduce
Reproduced in -Os with
- sh4-linux-gcc 4.8.1 (sh-superh-elf-gcc surpr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57968
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30208
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30208&action=edit
Alternative to fix the root cause.
This patch only produces dbx regno for the dbx regno lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30207
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30207&action=edit
Patch to avoid assertion
This patches restores to the previous state that don't check regn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
humm, this fix is false. Forget about this patch.. rs6000_dbx_register_number
should now handle this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
dbx translation should not be done in TARGET_DWARF_REGISTER_SPAN since this is
handled centrally by DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #14 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> In that post (comment 6) I was citing the patch you attached to this report,
> which says:
>
OK that's clear. Wrong attachment
> like you said. Presumably that attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #13 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 30156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156
patch
ndex: arm.c
===
--- arm.c(revis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #12 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 30156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156
patch
Index: arm.c
===
--- ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #9 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
no, in fact, you confused me. The patch was committed correctly :-)
> On a side note, in your patch you say:
> - t = one_reg_loc_descriptor (REGNO (XVECEXP (regs, 0, i)),
> + re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> (In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
> > > If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272
> > > which
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272 which
> seem to me like it could be reg number in DWARF numbering?
yes it is. strange, I can't see this new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Under test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30156
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156&action=edit
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57108
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57108
Bug #: 57108
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9] SH internal compiler error: in
int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:395
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56995
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56995
Bug #: 56995
Summary: sh4 -mfmovd: ICE in find_costs_and_classes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55301
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55301
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-16 08:30:05 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed Jan 16 08:29:54 2013
New Revision: 195230
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195230
Log:
PR target/55301
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55301
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 13:23:53 UTC ---
There is still the reorder-branch-and-partition issue pending...
(In reply to comment #3)
> Even though simple_return is not supported on SHmedia, is it OK to cl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54933
Bug #: 54933
Summary: 'builtin symbol' referenced in section ... defined in
discarded section
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54789
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-14 13:22:34 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Sep 14 13:22:29 2012
New Revision: 191301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191301
Log:
PR target/54546
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-13 06:40:54 UTC ---
shrink-wrapping exposes a few problems related to partitioning.
1) Tries to duplicate a Basic block that has only one predecessor coming from a
different partition. Since
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
Bug #: 54546
Summary: SH: Enable -fshrink-wrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #26 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-10 08:08:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Christian, do you have anything to add regarding this matter?
>
> I'm not sure whether this should be back ported to 4.6.x o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54029
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54029
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-19 13:46:51 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Thu Jul 19 13:46:46 2012
New Revision: 189657
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189657
Log:
PR target/54029
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54029
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-19 11:56:14 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Thu Jul 19 11:56:09 2012
New Revision: 189652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189652
Log:
PR target/54029
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54029
Bug #: 54029
Summary: SH: Fix ICE in find_dead_or_set_registers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-13 11:00:55 UTC ---
I see the MAC only as a global optimization, since its interest is to spawns
across several loop BBs as you said. Their is also problem on clear the
accumulator.
That
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #20 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 15:36:59 UTC ---
> I'm having a look at your implementation to see how they compare and
> > possibly combined together. Both approaches look interesting.
>
> I guess
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #19 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-11 15:24:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Created attachment 27775 [details]
> > plus add combine
> >
> > Here is the patch t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53689
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-11 13:21:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > > Under target (sh-el
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53689
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #17 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-11 12:35:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 27775
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27775
plus add combine
Here is the patch that I've been running since some time, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #16 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-11 09:05:03 UTC ---
humm I forgot about this case. It works in one of my dev branches, Let me
extract the uncommitted change and send it to gcc-patches.
Cheers
Christian
(In reply to comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #21 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-14 08:55:41 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Thu Jun 14 08:55:36 2012
New Revision: 188601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188601
Log:
PR target/53621
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #20 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-14 08:43:26 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Thu Jun 14 08:43:20 2012
New Revision: 188599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188599
Log:
PR target/53621
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #19 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-14 08:38:37 UTC ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Thu Jun 14 08:38:22 2012
New Revision: 188598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188598
Log:
PR target/53621
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #17 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 08:22:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> > +/* { dg-options "-fstack-usage -fomit-frame-pointer" { target { sh-*-* } }
> > }
> */
>
> Looks OK. Pre-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #15 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 07:47:16 UTC ---
+/* { dg-options "-fstack-usage -fomit-frame-pointer" { target { sh-*-* } } }
*/
(In reply to comment #14)
> l(In reply to comment #13)
> > I th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #14 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 07:45:37 UTC ---
l(In reply to comment #13)
> I thought that the test depends the optimization level and it assumes
> -O0. I agree that enforcing -fomit-frame-pointer give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #12 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 07:14:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Looks a problem with the test. It should be tweaked with adding
>
> #elif defined (__sh__)
> # define SIZE 252
>
> for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #10 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-13 05:59:16 UTC ---
currently analyzing a regression
gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c scan-file foo\t(256|264)\tstatic
Don't know yet if it's a problem with the test or a side effect. But t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #8 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 13:26:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 27612
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27612
fix
All the suspicious flags reviewed and looked OK excepted maybe
-maccumulate-outgo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 06:25:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I thought that -pg and -fomit-frame-pointer are always incompatible.
> Agree with the possible issues for old unwinders.
>
> I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #20 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 13:32:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> does it help if you link to libpthread using --whole-archive ?
>
> g++ deallocate_global_thread-1.cc -static -Wl,--whole-archive
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #16 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 12:37:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time
> problem.
> Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #9 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 10:23:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27181
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27181
test ?
For the record, here is the modified version of the test I'm play
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52771
Bug #: 52771
Summary: name found in contexts not referring to the same
entity should not compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52766
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52766
Bug #: 52766
Summary: unambiguous member lookup rejected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
101 - 200 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
