--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #14 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-10 00:04 ---
Subject: Bug 20772
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Dec 10 00:04:44 2005
New Revision: 108327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108327
Log:
PR testsuite/20772
* g++.old-deja/g++.p
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-10 00:01 ---
Subject: Bug 20772
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Dec 10 00:01:25 2005
New Revision: 108326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108326
Log:
PR testsuite/20772
* g++.old-deja/g++.p
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 23:56 ---
Subject: Bug 20772
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 9 23:56:34 2005
New Revision: 108325
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108325
Log:
PR testsuite/20772
* g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 23:46 ---
Subject: Bug 20772
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 9 23:46:42 2005
New Revision: 108324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108324
Log:
PR testsuite/20772
* g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 23:38 ---
Subject: Bug 20772
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 9 23:38:19 2005
New Revision: 108323
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108323
Log:
PR testsuite/20772
* g++.dg/opt/li
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 23:34 ---
Subject: Bug 20772
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 9 23:34:09 2005
New Revision: 108322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108322
Log:
PR testsuite/20772
* g++.dg/opt/life1.C,
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 03:54 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Subject: Re: builtin *printf handlers are confused by -fexec-charset
> "ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Backporting this fix to 3.4
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 16:23 ---
Backporting this fix to 3.4 requires also backporting the infrastructure patch
for the lang hook to_target_charset posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00780.html
We'd also need to backpor
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 15:09 ---
With current 3.4 branch, the logfile error for vector-1 says:
gcc.dg/compat/vector-1_x.c: In function `pass_v2hi':
gcc.dg/compat/vector-1_x.c:10: internal compiler error: in classify_argument,
at config/i386/i
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 15:07 ---
This one was closed for 3.4 without any investigation. Perhaps the fix in 4.0
can be backported if we identify what it was.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 01:54 ---
Fixed on all active branches
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 01:37 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Sun Dec 4 01:37:23 2005
New Revision: 108010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108010
Log:
2005-12-03 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 23:32 ---
3.4 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00284.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 20:06 ---
Here's a reduced testcase, configure 4.0.x with --enable-checking=yes,rtl
--target=i686-pc-linux-gnu and compile with:
cc1plus -fpreprocessed mmx2.ii -quiet -dumpbase mmx2.C -mmmx -mtune=pentiumpro
-auxbase mmx
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 19:41 ---
Here's a reduced testcase, compile it with cc1 targetted to
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
cc1 -fpreprocessed i386-sse-2.i -quiet -dumpbase i386-sse-2.c -msse -mtune=k8
-auxbase-strip i386-sse-2.s -O0 -version -o i38
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 19:39 ---
I configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl however I don't think that's
necessary to trigger the error. I see another report without checking here
that fails the test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresul
iority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25242
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:05:09 2005
New Revision: 107891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107891
Log:
2005-11-30 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:05:09 2005
New Revision: 107891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107891
Log:
2005-11-30 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 02:12 ---
Subject: Bug 18491
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 02:12:15 2005
New Revision: 107860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107860
Log:
2005-12-01 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAI
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:50 ---
testsuite logfile says:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
.../gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c:18: error: can't find a register in class
'GENERAL_REGS' while
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:48 ---
Rth thinks it's an actual bug requiring investigation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01899.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25216
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.3 4.1.0 4.2.0
Target Milestone
t org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
OtherBugsDependingO 23224
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25216
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:33 ---
On i686-pc-linux-gnu with the 3.4 branch, I'm getting a failure in the
following testcase when running with -fpic or -fPIC:
FAIL: gcc.dg/i386-local2.c scan-assembler-not sub[^n]*sp
Current testsuite repo
mmary: [4.0/4.1/4.2] -fpic/-fPIC failure in gcc.dg/20050503-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi a
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||23224
nThis||
Known to
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25214
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.5
Known to work||4.0.3
Target
arget
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25213
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 22:45 ---
Updated 4.0 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00089.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 22:24 ---
Fixed, clean test results here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00028.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 14:05 ---
My results from last night confirm it's fixed now, thanks.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25203
cking, ssemmx
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25203
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 02:33 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Dec 1 02:32:58 2005
New Revision: 107763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107763
Log:
PR middle-end/25158
* bu
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 02:31 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Dec 1 02:31:49 2005
New Revision: 107762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107762
Log:
PR middle-end/25158
* bu
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 00:05 ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02127.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 00:00 ---
Patch installed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:58 ---
Patch installed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:56 ---
Patch installed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:40 ---
3.4 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:38 ---
3.4 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:41 ---
Patch backported to 3.4 and 4.0.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:06 ---
Subject: Bug 19275
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Nov 30 18:06:01 2005
New Revision: 107730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107730
Log:
PR testsuite/19275
Backport from
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 19275
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Nov 30 18:04:46 2005
New Revision: 107729
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107729
Log:
PR testsuite/19275
Backport from
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25169
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 00:44 ---
Based on the date it started failing, I'm guessing it was this patch that
triggered it:
2005-11-07 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c/24599
* c-typeck.c (build_c_cast): Try usi
mal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25169
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 21:46 ---
Hmm this is convoluted, but I think I know what's going on:
We're running the builtin fprintf check. I recently added a small sanity check
to ensure that fprintf_unlocked also works. Now we're gettin
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 14:25 ---
These two patches fixed the problem on mainline/4.1 and need to be backported:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02322.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02828.html
I'll do it after te
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 14:03 ---
Fixed in 4.0.3 and later by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01889.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19227
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 13:55 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01889.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 20109
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:18:13 2005
New Revision: 107654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107654
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 25120
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:18:13 2005
New Revision: 107654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107654
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 25120
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:56 2005
New Revision: 107653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107653
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 20109
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:56 2005
New Revision: 107653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107653
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 25120
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:20 2005
New Revision: 107652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107652
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 20109
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:20 2005
New Revision: 107652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107652
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 03:36 ---
4.0 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01918.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25120
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 03:23 ---
Getting stdout wrapped in an inline function is not hard. I can create
something fixincl or whatever to capture that. The part I don't know how to do
is expand that inline function's body into the code s
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 03:16 ---
Andrew, any progress on this one?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7098
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 02:45 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25120 ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 02:45 ---
*** Bug 20109 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25120
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 17:01 ---
builtin sprintf (and _chk friends) also have the problem, changed summary to
reflect that.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 16:59 ---
Yes same conceptual problem, but entirely different GCC location. This bug
lies in builtins.c and PR 20110 lies in c-format.c.
What I mean is that they be fixed separately and should not have any bugzilla
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 15:52 ---
This is the same bug as PR 18785 and probably has a similar solution. I'm
working on a patch.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
t;.
--
Summary: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2] builtin printf/fprintf is confused by
-fexec-charset
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code, missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 14:47 ---
4.0 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01845.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 01:31 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Nov 26 01:31:54 2005
New Revision: 107536
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107536
Log:
PR middle-end/25022
* bu
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 01:25 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Nov 26 01:25:20 2005
New Revision: 107535
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107535
Log:
PR middle-end/25022
* bu
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 17:03 ---
Here's a version of the testcase that doesn't rely on _unlocked functions since
25022 inhibits the unlocked transformations. Compile at -O2 with and without
-DPUTCHAR_DIRECT to see the effect. Using putcha
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 16:51 ---
This happens because the replacement functions are obtained in builtins.c from
the array implicit_built_in_decls. This array is initialized to null when the
replacement function is an "extension" builtin,
eywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25022
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 03:27 ---
Updated patch installed on mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01575.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 01:00 ---
Builtin fputs{_unlocked} et al. are transformed via fold_builtin as well as
expand. AFAICT folding is done rather early, so perhaps this can be fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24729
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 04:28 ---
I'm not convinced it's the same issue. With regard to 17402, comment #6 by
Joseph there refers specifically to static inlines in that builtins shouldn't
generate calls to "file-scope statics&q
When doing transformations on builtins, if the builtin results in a function
call that has an inline expansion, GCC emits a library call not the inline
function body. E.g. glibc defines an inline for fputc_unlocked. Given this
code:
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
#define MAX 1
int main (
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-15 17:07 ---
C++ bits checked in as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01339.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-07 14:18
---
Updated patch for mainline here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00302.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-24 19:06
---
By the way, a patch to fix this in early 2004 was posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00168.html
I never got an official "okay" in the discussion thread:
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-19 12:15
---
Fixed for C, need to create a similar patch for C++ frontend
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22476
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-14 20:25
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> convert_for_assignment would be a plausible place to add this check.
Agreed, I was just looking into that. It appears that it handles all the
various ways assignment can oc
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-14 18:49
---
Here's another case we should catch, passing a function pointer as a parameter:
#include
static void foo (int (*ptr)(const char *, ...))
{
ptr("hello world %d\n", 5L);
}
int main (void)
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22476
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 15:05
---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
> calls
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Since putc and puts are typically faster than
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 14:22
---
(In reply to comment #30)
> 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 th
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 12:55
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
> calls
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > Case (b) involves fmemopen, and I assume you
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 12:42
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
> calls
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> POSIX defines how streams and file descriptors
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 01:20
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:52:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
wrote:
> > (a) It could be stdio&#
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 19:48
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:29:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
wrote:
> > that function on th
d printf("foo")
into fputs(foo,stdout)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 17:21
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio
> calls
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > --- Additional Comments From
--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-09 17:02
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
> But remember that we are not optimizing C, we are optimizing
> GIMPLE. And in GIMPLE we don't have those pro
501 - 600 of 633 matches
Mail list logo
