--- Comment #16 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2007-04-05 13:15 ---
Subject: Re: Floating point computation far slower
for -mfpmath=sse
bonzini at gnu dot org wrote on 04/05/07 08:03:
Is there a way to ensure ordering of PHI functions unlike what Uros's
dumps suggest?
No.
I
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2007-03-10 00:07 ---
Subject: Re: Revision 121302 causes 30% performance
regression
hjl at lucon dot org wrote on 03/09/07 19:04:
--param max-aliased-vops=100 works:
OK, thanks. I'll add this PR to the mix then.
--
http
--- Comment #22 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 15:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 10:05:
One thing i'm going to try later is to try to partition all the
stores/load statements and figure out how many
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 17:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 12:22:
Right, but the difference is, In the scheme i propose, you'd never
have overlapping live ranges of vuse/vdefs
--- Comment #33 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 21:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote on 11/09/06 16:28:
Uh, LIM and store sinking are too. Roughly all of our memory
optimizations
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-13 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: gimplifying return CONSTANT creates
unneeded temporaties
dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu wrote on 06/13/06 10:42:
--- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu 2006-06-13
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-12 12:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size
with volatile and call to static
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote on 06/05/06 18:37:
Diego, what say you?
Shouldn't COMPLETE_TYPE_P imply that we can
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-05-01 16:11 ---
Subject: Re: [gomp] firstprivate not working properly with
non-POD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-01
--- Comment #34 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-04-12 14:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Repeated SSA update
during loop header copying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/12/06 08:20, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #36 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-04-12 14:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Repeated SSA update
during loop header copying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/12/06 10:20, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
wrote:
forgot
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-03-09 19:10 ---
Subject: Re: ICE (segfault) on C++ OpenMP code
On 03/09/06 14:03, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Then there are two issues, one for the reduced testcase which is PR 26076 and
another issue. But please
--- Comment #12 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-03-09 19:28 ---
Subject: Re: ICE (segfault) on C++ OpenMP code
On 03/09/06 14:17, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If you had written a status on this bug before I closed it as a dup,
I would not have closed it as a dup
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-01-16 18:18 ---
Subject: Re: [GOMP] ICE with SAVE attribute and (FIRST|LAST)PRIVATE
On Monday 16 January 2006 12:40, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
ICEs the same. I can't reproduce this in the Fedora Core gcc though,
so I
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 18:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Missing 'used unintialized' warning
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 13:50, law at redhat dot com wrote:
I'd rather you not assign it to me just yet -- while I think my approach
is better
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-22 17:32 ---
Subject: Re: gcc generates incorrect assignment because of reordering
On Saturday 22 October 2005 13:20, manus at eiffel dot com wrote:
Would it make sense to have a new option in `gcc' to say that target is
always
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-22 17:42 ---
Subject: Re: gcc generates incorrect assignment because of reordering
On Saturday 22 October 2005 13:32, Diego Novillo wrote:
The bug in your code is exposed when GCC creates the intermediate
representation
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-20 16:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: [gomp] Trouble with threadprivate and extern
On Thursday 20 October 2005 12:34, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I'd expect that i is threadprivate in file1.c and file2.c.
But you have
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-20 17:07 ---
Subject: Re: [gomp] Trouble with threadprivate and extern
On Thursday 20 October 2005 12:50, reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de
Doesn't translation unit cover the include file?
But anyway. How should I mark
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-12 14:16 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global symbols
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:07, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Diego, will this allow you to reactivate your optimization? And, if so
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-12 15:00 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global symbols
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 10:55, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
OK, so my patch is no longer directly useful then? (It still seems like
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-02 02:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] VRP ICE in compare_name_with_value, at
tree-vrp.c:2965
On October 1, 2005 13:00, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Diego, you only fixed the ICE, not the wrong-code. Please
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-30 13:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
On September 30, 2005 09:24, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
2005-09-30 13:24 --- Jim's patch certainly worked for me. But
the question is if we
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 12:30
---
Subject: Re: CCP is broken
On September 23, 2005 01:29, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-23 05:29 --- The reason why CCP thinks
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-08-04 19:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:191
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:18:13PM -, dank at kegel dot com wrote:
In general, once a ten-line testcase is found, do these get
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-27 20:38
---
Subject: Re: aliasing information in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-7.c should be
fixed properly
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:34:10PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Isn't this a simple fix
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-26 22:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] wrong alias information causes an incorrect
redundant load elimination
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:00:51PM -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
You just closed the bug
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-06 00:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:16:20AM -, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-28 12:16
---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression] ICE during GC
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:52:20AM -, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
Broken by patch from PR21959.
Are you sure? Kenner seemed to get good results from
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-28 12:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE during GC
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:42:03PM -, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
$1 = {name = 0x0, gate = 0,
execute = @0x41013990: 0x40b569d0
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-28 14:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE during GC
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:42:03PM -, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
Are you sure?
Yes.
You need to check your script then. The patch for 21959 had
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-17 13:44
---
Subject: Re: Divide_1 test case hangs
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:13:49PM -, rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
-2147483648
-2147483648
0
0
[...]
Note that the values are totally off
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-13 13:44
---
Subject: Re: local address incorrectly thought to escape
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 01:41:06PM -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Ping Diego, should this be closed??
If the testcase now works
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 13:15
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:52:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
extern char *s;
extern int i;
printf(%d, i);
printf(%.5s
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 13:56
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:49:54PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Not that I really see the benefit of printf merging in any case; without
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 14:25
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:22:05PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I have the cpu time, but it seems premature. Your patch as it
stands only
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 14:35
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:28:36PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Since putc and puts are typically faster than printf (not needing
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 16:55
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:49:40PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 19:03
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 05:02:28PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
int i=0, j=2;
printf(%d, i);
j++;
printf(%d, j);
Pushing
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 19:38
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:29:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Although it may not be valid to manipulate the FILE * directly, it seems
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 19:57
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:52:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
Suppose an implementation defines e.g. clearerr as a macro
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-01 19:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in compare_values, at tree-vrp.c:301
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:31:24PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-24 23:06
---
Subject: Re: bogus uninitialized variable warning for powerpc64
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:02:09PM -, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Diego, can this PR be closed as fixed?
Yes. Apologies
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-14 20:00
---
Subject: Re: A numeric range is spoiled by a symblic one in VRP
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 07:40:04PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-10 23:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Not copy propagating single-argument PHIs
causes out-of-ssa coalescing failure
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:07:24PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-10 23:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Not copy propagating single-argument PHIs
causes out-of-ssa coalescing failure
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:27:17PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-02 15:29
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:57:43PM -, ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot
de wrote:
Unfortunately, even with the patch
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-29 14:59
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:55:58PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
I have not sent my current patch to gcc-patches
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-29 21:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:57:43PM -, ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot
de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ro
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-29 21:39
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:11:12PM -, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
Huh. Odd. I just finished a bootstrap
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-27 19:43
---
Subject: Re: New: Teach VRP to pick up a constant from case label.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:38:04PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
I think Diego already knows about this, but I think it's
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-24 18:07
---
Subject: Re: Generates unneeded test
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 05:56:50PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
i_15: [1, 2147483647]
i_16: [0, 2147483647]
i_20: VARYING
# i_20 = PHI i_15(3
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 15:46
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 03:11:52PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-18 22:21
---
Subject: Re: New: copy-prop leaks memory
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:12:12PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
tree-ssa-copy.c:844
cached_last_copy_of = xmalloc (...)
does not have
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 20:18
---
Subject: Re: New: vrp miscompiles Ada front-end, drops loop exit test in
well-defined wrap-around circumstances
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:16:09PM -, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Unfortunately
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-13 13:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch
statements with large # of cases
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:55:20PM -, law at redhat dot com wrote:
That mental model doesn't
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 04:15
---
Subject: Re: New: copyprop dump files have wrong names
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:48:10AM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
test.c.t21.copyprop1
test.c.t26.copyprop2
test.c.t40.copyprop3
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 01:36
---
Subject: Re: alias analysis doesn't take into
account that variables that haven't their address taken can't alias arbitrary
MEMs
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
void g();
int
f(int s, int
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:16
---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Why isn't the tree level loop
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-04 17:59
---
Subject: Re: RFE: add attribute to specify that a function never
returns NULL
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-04
17:53
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-25 01:05
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] miscompilation
of asm-declared registers
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 00:59
---
I forgot
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-25 01:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] miscompilation
of asm-declared registers
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I can certainly understand that a typo changed some assigmnent such that
asm-declared registers
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-21 19:33
---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/19786] fix alias grouping lossage
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
PR tree-optimization/19786
* tree-ssa-alias.c (compute_flow_insensitive_aliasing): Add one
tag
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-16 15:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Is that what you want?
Yes, thanks. I can now reproduce this on my ppc box with your reduced
test case. I'll
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 19:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] incorrect vops
after exposing a new global variable
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
When SRA scalarizes this initializer,
it is gimplified; the Ada-specific
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 19:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] incorrect vops
after exposing a new global variable
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I only have the Ada test case for this; I can try to simplify it
a bit further
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 22:13
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
22:10 ---
From PR 18706 when I
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-01-20 02:32
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointers
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
$ gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -O2 -c pr19299.C --version
xgcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050117 (experimental
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-17 22:54
---
Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized tricked by conditional
assignments
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
22:41 ---
Isn't
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-08 20:28
---
Subject: Re: New: missed SRA of a block copy
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The following function:
int f(int a)
{
int i = a -129;
return i == 144;
}
Should be compiled to:
int f1(int
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-01 00:55
---
Subject: Re: New: segfault with cc1 compiled
with checking disabled
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:51 +, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
I get internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-11-29 13:42
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE: vector
VEC(basic_block) push domain error, in insert_phi_nodes_for at
tree-into-ssa.c:1049
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 13:37 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-11-26 22:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression]: ICE in
merge_alias_info
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:50 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-11-21 15:22
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] bootstrap comprison
failed
On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 08:02 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
Since I've been unable to trigger the failure here, I can't say for
certain whether
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-10-08 13:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Infinite
recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 09:03, sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr
wrote:
Then the following patch solves
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-02-25 19:52 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] miscompilation of
__exchange_and_add (atomicity.h)
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 13:20, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot com
75 matches
Mail list logo
