--- Comment #22 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-16 22:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=16341)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16341action=view)
gcc44-pr36741.patch
Only lightly tested patch that reverts the tree.c change and instead does size
computation in
--- Comment #19 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-04 20:25 ---
The patch for this bug significantly degrades PowerPC performance.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-04 20:42 ---
Hello,
It would be nice to provide a testcase that could help reproduce the
performance degradation easily.
Moreoever, I don't have access to a ppc box yet. How could I have that ?
--
--- Comment #15 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-28 14:50 ---
Subject: Bug 36741
Author: dodji
Date: Thu Aug 28 14:49:25 2008
New Revision: 139711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=139711
Log:
2008-08-28 Dodji Seketeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #16 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-28 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 36741
Author: dodji
Date: Thu Aug 28 14:49:48 2008
New Revision: 139712
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=139712
Log:
2008-08-28 Dodji Seketeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #17 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2008-08-28 14:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus large integer implicitly truncated
passing size_t constant to new
2008/8/28 dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Log:
2008-08-28 Dodji Seketeli [EMAIL
--- Comment #18 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-28 15:29 ---
Fixed in trunk and gcc-4_3-branch.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:05 ---
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-22 17:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=16131)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16131action=view)
8th version
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-20 12:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=16108)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16108action=view)
6th patch
Another refinement.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-20 19:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=16117)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16117action=view)
7th patch
Another iteration :-)
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-19 11:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=16097)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16097action=view)
5th patch
This patch makes sure the integer type used in the conversion to a zero
extended unsigned integral has
--- Comment #7 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 15:47 ---
Manuel, yes I know that patches go to gcc-patches@ :-)
I am stacking these here to not loose them, but at the same time, I am not sure
if they are solid enough for submission to gcc-patches. I am still working on
--- Comment #8 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 15:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=16083)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16083action=view)
Fourth fix candidate
The previous patch was broken for say cross-compilers addressing a 64 target on
a 32 bits
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 16:03 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I am stacking these here to not loose them, but at the same time, I am not
sure
if they are solid enough for submission to gcc-patches. I am still working on
them.
s/loose/lose/
OK but
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-15 20:16 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created an attachment (id=16074)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16074action=view) [edit]
third fix candidate
This patch tries another approach.
Patches go to [EMAIL
--- Comment #5 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-14 16:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=16074)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16074action=view)
third fix candidate
This patch tries another approach.
Basically it changes the low level function (shared with
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-12 14:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=16058)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16058action=view)
primary candidate fix
This minimal patch fixes the problem for me and regtests on x86_64.
I have some questions
--- Comment #4 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-12 16:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=16060)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16060action=view)
second fix candidate
This patch should be better than the previous one because it one must use
size_binop() with a
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-10 14:24 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 02:53 ---
This is another sizetype issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
22 matches
Mail list logo
