--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 09:52 ---
Patch submitted to mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01761.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 11:00 ---
I have just examined the Fortran testcase more thoroughly and to my
surprise I realized SRA did not create any new statements on i686. It
merely changed statements
res = *arg_1(D); into res$yr = MEM[(struct bar
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 15:33
---
gimple_has_location returns false for the return statement on both
i686 and x86_64. When I hacked SRA to set the location of return
statement to the location of the preceding statement
(retval = res; or D.1523
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 18:18 ---
I have a patch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-22 18:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=21863)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21863action=view)
Proposed fix
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45565
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:08 ---
This is the full backtrace:
#0 0x081e945d in cp_build_unary_op (code=ADDR_EXPR, xarg=0xb76d0dac,
noconvert=0, complain=3)
at /home/mjambor/gcc/icln/gcc/cp/typeck.c:5091
#1 0x080d10b3 in build_this (obj
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:14 ---
*** Bug 45563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:14 ---
The same patch works for both bugs so I assume they are duplicates.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45572 ***
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=21859)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21859action=view)
Proposed fix.
I'm testing this fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-20 18:51 ---
Mine
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 14:39 ---
I'll have a look at it but please be patient, my bug queue is rather long at
the moment.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 14:46
---
Honza submitted a patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01369.html) so I guess it is his
PR now :-)
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:08 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The added MEM = SR.1_10 uses location_t of the stmt after it, as
sra_modify_expr
emits statements before gsi. I'm arguing that in this case the MEM[(struct S
*)D.2694] = SR.1_10; stmt
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 18:21 ---
The problem is a big one. In short, placement new operator changes
the type of an object to another, which re-sets up the VMT. Then there
is call of a virtual method of the latter type. CCP however happily
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 16:00
---
(In reply to comment #15)
Like
Index: gimplify.c
===
--- gimplify.c (revision 164333)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -2477,10 +2477,13
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 18:42 ---
Well, it turns out that fold_stmt_1 is never called on that statement
(neither with -O -finline or -O2 or -O3). Where is it supposed to be
called from?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:25 ---
I have just sent a proposed fix to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01244.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 16:00 ---
Subject: Bug 45644
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 15 15:59:27 2010
New Revision: 164313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164313
Log:
2010-09-15 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR middle
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 16:06 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 11:53 ---
Sorry, I messed up when I tried to remove includes from the testcase. Thanks
for fixing it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 13:55 ---
Jakub, I have not understood whether you think the warning emitted
when compiling the c code from comment #4 has the correct line number
or not. I see it attributed to the line with the return statement
which I
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 15:02 ---
I can reproduce the problem and it does not happen with -fno-ipa-sra = mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 17:54 ---
The miscompiled file appears to be spxweightst.o, the miscompilation probably
happens when transforming a call to int soplex::DataSetDATA::number(const
soplex::DataKey) const [with DATA = soplex::SVSet::DLPSV
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 23:28
---
Subject: Bug 44972
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Sep 9 23:28:27 2010
New Revision: 164135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164135
Log:
2010-09-10 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 23:38
---
Subject: Bug 44972
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Sep 9 23:38:23 2010
New Revision: 164136
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164136
Log:
2010-09-10 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #17 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 23:41
---
Hopefully finally fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 17:01
---
Patches submitted to the mailing list for approval/comments:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00674.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44972
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 17:27 ---
Subject: Bug 45443
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 8 17:27:09 2010
New Revision: 164009
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164009
Log:
2010-09-08 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR other
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 17:36 ---
Subject: Bug 45443
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 8 17:36:40 2010
New Revision: 164011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164011
Log:
2010-09-08 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR other
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 18:13 ---
Subject: Bug 45443
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 8 18:13:03 2010
New Revision: 164018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164018
Log:
2010-09-08 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR other
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 18:15 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution
--- Comment #18 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 17:01
---
Subject: Bug 43665
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Sep 7 17:00:44 2010
New Revision: 163960
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163960
Log:
2010-09-07 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 17:28 ---
Patch posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00592.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 14:12
---
I tried compiling the testcase from comment #8 and it did not fail for
me either on i686-linux ox x86_64-linux. Can you please check that it
still fails for you?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 18:25
---
Created an attachment (id=21714)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21714action=view)
Patch to address IPA-CP parameter removal issues
This patch makes IPA-CP to refrain from modifying a function
--- Comment #27 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:10
---
As far as I understand it, this is fixed with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00577.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:13 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #28 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:23
---
Hm, no, I was too quick pruning my inbox. The patch apparently has
not been applied to the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:24
---
I'll do that, hopefully sooner rather than later.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #31 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:32
---
(In reply to comment #30)
(In reply to comment #28)
Hm, no, I was too quick pruning my inbox. The patch apparently has
not been applied to the 4.5 branch.
It's on its way. I've been testing
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 13:15 ---
No, I still get the same ICE (on both the reduced testcase and firefox
as such) even with a recent checkout of trunk (revision 163677 from
yesterday).
Not only I use the same version of gold but apparently also
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 18:31
---
Created an attachment (id=21438)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21438action=view)
My current WIP patch to fix this
This is my current WIP patch to fix this problem. I will resume work
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-08 18:39
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Created an attachment (id=21438)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21438action=view) [edit]
My current WIP patch to fix this
This is my current WIP patch to fix
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45194
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 11:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=21401)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21401action=view)
Original testcase
After extracting, set CC and CXX variables to paths to c and c++
compilers respectively
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 13:36 ---
Subject: Bug 42855
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Aug 5 13:36:18 2010
New Revision: 162913
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162913
Log:
2010-08-05 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 19:33 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I think the thread about the patch became confused.
First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.
OK, I've re-submitted the patch to the mailing list and will commit
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-03 09:53 ---
Subject: Bug 44914
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Aug 3 09:52:46 2010
New Revision: 162839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162839
Log:
2010-08-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-03 12:11
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 13:28 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Is there a patch for 4.5.1 for this somewhere? I'm hitting this issue at gcc
4.5.1 java boostrap (#45154)
The patch is really the same. I did not commit it because the branch
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 17:40 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The patch is really the same. I did not commit it because the branch
was frozen for the release of 4.5.1. I'm re-testing it on the branch
now and hopefully will commit it today
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 14:00 ---
I have submitted a proposed fix to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01859.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44915
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 16:32 ---
Subject: Bug 44914
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jul 23 16:31:48 2010
New Revision: 162468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162468
Log:
2010-07-23 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 16:36 ---
Subject: Bug 44915
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jul 23 16:35:52 2010
New Revision: 162469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162469
Log:
2010-07-23 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 16:36 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 19:14
---
I'll take over.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:52 ---
Subject: Bug 44891
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jul 22 12:52:14 2010
New Revision: 162413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162413
Log:
2010-07-22 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:54
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15:25 ---
I have a fix.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 18:07 ---
I have submitted a proposed fix to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01760.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44914
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 18:22 ---
We should not be attempting indirect inlining at -O0. I'll make sure we don't.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 18:29
---
OK, I have finally reached this one, I will have a look at it tomorrow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44972
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 08:27
---
(In reply to comment #12)
So I wonder what code removes the arguments then.
IPA-CP can do that for quite some time please try with -fno-ipa-cp.
(I don't have a trunk built with enabled fortran at hand and I
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 12:51 ---
With MEM_REFs we now have fewer explicit typecasts and this has made
replace_uses_with_default_def_ssa_name create invalid statements.
FYI, this is not the ordinary replacing code path but rather the one
removing
--- Comment #25 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 13:57
---
Subject: Bug 44900
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jul 21 13:57:12 2010
New Revision: 162374
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162374
Log:
2010-07-21 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #26 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 14:17
---
Subject: Bug 44900
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jul 21 14:17:11 2010
New Revision: 162375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162375
Log:
2010-07-21 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 17:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so
the
testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?
I do not think I got an approval to commit the patch
--- Comment #27 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 17:21
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 17:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=21279)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21279action=view)
Proposed fix
I'm testing this patch as a fix. Will submit it tomorrow if everything goes
fine.
--
http
--- Comment #24 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 13:34
---
I posted a proposed fix to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01570.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44900
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 12:28 ---
On revision 161693, the backtrace to the spot where a CANONICAL_TYPE
is assigned to a type which already is a CANONICAL_TYPE of another one
is:
#0 0x009529e4 in build_array_type (elt_type=0x77e947e0
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 13:28
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 13:27
---
Subject: Bug 43905
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 30 13:26:17 2010
New Revision: 161604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161604
Log:
2010-06-30 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 15:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=21044)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21044action=view)
Another testcase.
I believe I ran into this bug when trying WHOPR bootstrap at -O3 (on
x86_64-linux). I
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44133
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 29 13:08:46 2010
New Revision: 161532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161532
Log:
2010-06-29 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
Backport
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:10 ---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:16 ---
4.5 patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02896.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43905
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 15:42 ---
Subject: Bug 44535
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jun 28 15:42:01 2010
New Revision: 161498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161498
Log:
2010-06-28 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR c
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 17:00 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 08:29
---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
... I cannot reproduce the problem.
I can send you either the compiler binaries (hosts: cygwin/linux i386/linux
x64/darwin x64) or the configuration options
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 08:35 ---
Honza, does this look familiar to you?
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-20 16:50
---
(In reply to comment #14)
Let me know how to proceed if you need more dumps.
Well, at this point I'd generate all tree dumps with -fdump-tree-all
and start looking through them. You can tar-gzip them
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 13:14 ---
A request for approval to backport the two patches sent to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01663.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44133
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 14:02 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Subject: Re: switch/case optimization produces an invalid lookup table index
I bet it could be reproduced on any target with -fshort-enums.
Unfortunately no, this switch does
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 15:00
---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #5)
Could you please first try to reproduce the bug with the
-fno-tree-switch-conversion swithch?
Using GCC 4.5.0 (tarball)
With -fno-tree-switch
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-17 16:37
---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
With -fno-tree-switch-conversion switch option switch, the bug does not
appear.
Really? See below...
Below is the dump WITHOUT the `-fno-tree
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 12:22 ---
Subject: Bug 43905
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 16 12:21:56 2010
New Revision: 160832
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160832
Log:
2010-06-16 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 16:25 ---
Patch posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01653.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44535
--- Comment #21 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 17:01
---
Subject: Bug 44464
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 16 17:01:06 2010
New Revision: 160852
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160852
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR lto
--- Comment #22 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 17:02
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 09:48
---
Subject: Bug 44423
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 09:48:39 2010
New Revision: 160775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160775
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:03
---
Subject: Bug 44258
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 10:03:35 2010
New Revision: 160776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160776
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:04
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:05
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 11:09
---
Subject: Bug 44464
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 11:09:12 2010
New Revision: 160777
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160777
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR lto
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 15:08 ---
Unfortunately I don't see this happening on the x86_64-linux -
arm-linux-gnueabi cross compiler I built for myself. The generated
assembly has all four elements in the initialization of CSWTCH.2
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 17:55 ---
We seem to be folding the virtual call to the wrong method. I'm
investigating...
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:39
---
(In reply to comment #14)
SSE performance is fine again, thanks a lot!
One more question, if that's OK...
Depending on ARRSZ the testcase uses wildly varying amounts of CPU time; it's
about half a second
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:44 ---
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01146.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43905
1 - 100 of 434 matches
Mail list logo
