--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 06:36 ---
Subject: Bug 32285
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:35:55 2007
New Revision: 125873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125873
Log:
PR middle-end/32285
* calls.c
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 06:44 ---
Subject: Bug 32285
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:44:26 2007
New Revision: 125877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125877
Log:
PR middle-end/32285
* calls.c
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 06:50 ---
Subject: Bug 32285
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:50:23 2007
New Revision: 125879
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125879
Log:
PR middle-end/32285
* calls.c
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 09:24 ---
Fixed in SVN, the performance regression caused by PR25550 patch is still
present though.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-15 11:27 ---
*** Bug 30493 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 08:03 ---
Yes, I mean performance and size regressions. But your changes to tree-nrv
never mentioned you found bugs in it and therefore are making NRV more strict,
on the contrary, PR25505 was fixing a performance/size issue
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-13 15:22 ---
I see that PR25505 caused a bunch of code generation regressions.
On i?86, with -O2 -m32:
_Complex double foo (_Complex double x)
{
return __builtin_cexp (x);
}
generated code got much worse, similarly:
elemental
--- Comment #7 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-13 17:09 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I see that PR25505 caused a bunch of code generation regressions.
On i?86, with -O2 -m32:
...
When you say regressions, I assume you mean size/performance, not correctness,
right? If so,
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 10:05 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 15:43 ---
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00951.html
I'm slightly worried about backporting this to gcc-4_1-branch though.
Has that been resolved?
--
--- Comment #2 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-11 16:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00951.html
I'm slightly worried about backporting this to gcc-4_1-branch though.
Has that been resolved?
I recall being told that the
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:36 ---
Actually IIRC the machine's glibc was upgaded at the same time.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-11 18:59 ---
Sorry, yes, reading back I wasn't being very clear. I meant to say that the
impression I was left with was that it wasn't a result of my change, but of the
test environment, an idea which was supported by my own
14 matches
Mail list logo
