http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55596
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
--- Comment #5 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dehao
Date: Tue Oct 8 16:22:57 2013
New Revision: 203284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203284root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport r203269.
PR tree-optimization/58619
2013-10-08 Dehao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54649
--- Comment #4 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-21 15:35:51 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Fri Sep 21 15:35:46 2012
New Revision: 191614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191614
Log:
2012-09-21 Dehao Chen de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54649
--- Comment #5 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-21 17:01:46 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Fri Sep 21 17:01:36 2012
New Revision: 191615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191615
Log:
2012-09-21 Dehao Chen de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54655
--- Comment #4 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-21 17:01:47 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Fri Sep 21 17:01:36 2012
New Revision: 191615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191615
Log:
2012-09-21 Dehao Chen de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54645
--- Comment #8 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-25 13:19:39 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Tue Sep 25 13:19:33 2012
New Revision: 191706
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191706
Log:
gcc:
2012-09-25 Dehao Chen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54704
--- Comment #8 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-25 21:32:39 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Tue Sep 25 21:32:29 2012
New Revision: 191747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191747
Log:
libcpp:
2012-09-25 Dehao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54759
--- Comment #3 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-01 16:33:35 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Mon Oct 1 16:33:23 2012
New Revision: 191931
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191931
Log:
2012-10-01 Dehao Chen de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54782
--- Comment #4 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-03 20:34:30 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Wed Oct 3 20:34:26 2012
New Revision: 192049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192049
Log:
2012-10-03 Dehao Chen de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54782
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54811
--- Comment #2 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-04 16:33:00 UTC ---
I think in clear_unused_block_pointer, we already removed all block for debug
statements.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54826
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54826
--- Comment #1 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-06 02:27:27 UTC ---
A patch is sent to solve this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00596.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54826
--- Comment #2 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-06 16:19:43 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Sat Oct 6 16:19:34 2012
New Revision: 192165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192165
Log:
2012-10-05 Dehao Chen de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #1 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 15:47:47 UTC ---
I think r192285 already solve the problem. Could you help verify that?
Thanks,
Dehao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #6 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-24 17:56:32 UTC ---
I'll take a look at this case today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #7 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-24 21:25:24 UTC ---
I looked at this. Looks like even before r191494, this lexical block was there
already. So I'd think this is as expected.
Dehao
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dehao at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 32605
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32605action=edit
testcase
In execute_fold_all_builtins, the builtin is expanded to UNORDERED_EXPR, but
its lhs is not updated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60849
--- Comment #8 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Richard,
Thanks for the quick fix. Are both patches needed? Could you backport your
patches to gcc-4_9 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61384
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dehao at gcc dot gnu.org
#cat a.cc
#include iostream
#include memory
class ABC {
public:
ABC() {printf(abc\n);}
~ABC() {printf(xyz\n);}
};
int foo() {
std::unique_ptrABC a(new ABC());
}
#g++4.8 a.cc -c -O2 -std=c++11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64346
--- Comment #3 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For AutoFDO, we actually needs symbols from the symbol table because indirect
call promotion needs the symbol name to find the right callee.
You are right, ICF also causes trouble to AutoFDO
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dehao at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
#g++ -c -o ValueStore.o -O2 -g1ValueStore.ii
#objdump --dwarf=info ValueStore.o|grep -A 2 isDuplicateOf
615 DW_AT_name: (indirect string, offset: 0x490): isDuplicateOf
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dehao at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
#g++ -c -o ValueStore.o -O2 -g1ValueStore.ii
#objdump --dwarf=info ValueStore.o|grep -A 2 isDuplicateOf
615 DW_AT_name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
--- Comment #1 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36157
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36157action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
--- Comment #2 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36158
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36158action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
--- Comment #4 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right, in -g2 binary debug info, the decl_file is pointing to the header file
in which the function is declared. However, if the definition is available, it
makes more sense to point decl_file
29 matches
Mail list logo
