--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-28 18:33
---
Subject: Bug 37861
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Feb 28 18:33:27 2009
New Revision: 144491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144491
Log:
2009-02-28 Martin Jambor
Backp
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-28 22:46
---
Fixed with revision 144491:
te: Sat Feb 28 18:33:27 2009
New Revision: 144491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144491
Log:
2009-02-28 Martin Jambor
Backport from
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-31 09:03 ---
I'm back from vacation and aware of this problem. I will look at it once I am
through all the mail and similar stuff (provided I don't find anything more
urgent) which will take a while.
--
http://g
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-01 14:01 ---
Indeed. SRA should not trigger here, that would make it too eager in other
cases (thus I'm removing myself from the CC, feel free to add me again if
there's any discussion that might concern me or
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-02 15:54 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I was able to re-produce and fix the error using the reduced test
case but the testcase given in the description - c43205b - does not
fail for me anywhere.
>
> Looks like the new
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-02 18:03 ---
Hi,
I have committed the patch as revision 151345 after another
bootstrap/testing. Unfortunately I forgot to annotate them with this
PR number in the change log and so the commits did not appear here
automatically
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 16:58 ---
I don't have access to powerpc-apple-darwin9 so I cannot investigate
this. Moreover, I doubt my commit (r151345) is the one that has caused
this. Therefore I'll remove myself from the CC.
However, if yo
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: hppa-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: hppa-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 19:09
---
As Richard Henderson pointed out, declarations with DECL_VALUE_EXPR
should not appear in the function body at all. I have filed bug 41250
about this.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 11:08 ---
Subject: Bug 41112
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Sep 4 11:08:12 2009
New Revision: 151420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151420
Log:
2009-09-04 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 11:29 ---
So this is hopefully fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 19:01 ---
For a reference, this is the patch I am testing:
Index: gcc/passes.c
===
--- gcc/passes.c(revision 151421)
+++ gcc/passes.c(working
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 19:05 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Running the stdarg pass too early, before at least some DCE, means functions
> that don't really need stdarg set up, might set it up unnecessarily.
>
The comment in http://
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-04 18:45 ---
At the moment I believe that I have basically reintroduced PR 30791
- except that the bug really does not provide the description of the
problem which is instead in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 10:53 ---
Mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 12:05 ---
Hm, I wonder how come we did not come across this when testing the
patch for exactly these kinds of problems in July. Anyway, I will
have a look at it.
Nevertheless, I believe we should split this bug in two so
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 14:30 ---
A reduced testcase is below. It fails only on x86_64 for me as does
the preprocessed source. SRA has different inputon i586. However,
the bug is generic and can probably be triggered on any platform.
struct S
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 15:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=18530)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18530&action=view)
Proposed patch
I am currently bootstrapping and testing the attached patch to fix this.
--
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 16:28 ---
We have discussed this in the mailing list thread that eventually lead
to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00374.html
The bottom line is that we two options:
1) Do not set DECL_VALUE_EXPR to callee
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 17:08 ---
Subject: Bug 41282
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Sep 7 17:08:12 2009
New Revision: 151484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151484
Log:
2009-09-07 Martin Jambor
PR middle-e
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 17:14
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 09:10 ---
Please try with the latest trunk, I reckon that this is fixed at least
since revision 151484. Above all, there are no asserts now in the
function.
I have already noticed the double c in "accross" some
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 11:58 ---
I tried to reproduce this manually (on thallium:/abuild/mjambor/) but
couldn't. I just get the same execution times with or without that
patch reverted... I am not sure what this means or how to proceed from
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 17:10
---
We have talked about this on IRC today and in the end I agreed that
pass_stdarg should be scheduled rather late. This means that we
probably should return to the old behavior of ignoring va_lists in the
early SRA
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 16:05
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
>
> > Thus I am now bootstrapping and testing the following patch on
> > x86_64-linux. Uros, can you please test it on Alpha? Thanks.
>
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 16:50
---
Subject: Bug 41089
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 9 16:50:15 2009
New Revision: 151566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151566
Log:
2009-09-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-11 23:38 ---
I ran into too many problems when I tried to inhibit value_expr
PARM_DECL substitutions in the gimplifier. At the moment I believe we
should not use the value_expr just for debug info and rather try
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jh at suse dot cz
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-18 14:42 ---
I can reproduce the problem. --enable-checking=assert is the key configure
option.
Thus, this bug is mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-18 15:34 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > --enable-checking=assert is the key configure option.
>
> Are you sure about that? For me, configuring with --enable-checking=no still
&g
--- Comment #28 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-18 15:52
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Today we regressed with the introduction of IPA-SRA at -O2 and -O3:
>
The problem is that I call compute_inline_parameters() whenever I
change a single call site, even when the
--- Comment #24 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-21 19:49
---
OK, so I have finally got to the root of the assert failure in
reg-stack.c described in the bug description. The file is indeed
miscompiled, and the miscompiled function is VEC_char_base_replace.
A very short
--- Comment #29 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-23 09:28
---
Thanks. With the patch fixing the problem described in #24, we get
further when compiling with release checking but run into syntax
errors when compiling stage3 libstc++. And the debug info is still
corrupted
: 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=41451
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-23 16:29 ---
Bootstrap of trunk revision 152041 with fold checking fails on x86_64
with:
/home/jamborm/gcc/trunk/obj/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/jamborm/gcc/trunk/obj/./prev-gcc/
-B/home/jamborm/gcc/inst/trunk/x86_64-unknown-linux
Component: middle-end
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=41463
--- Comment #31 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 22:53
---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Thanks. With the patch fixing the problem described in #24, we get
> further when compiling with release checking but run into syntax
> errors when compiling stage3 libstc
--- Comment #32 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-25 14:43
---
(In reply to comment #30)
> (In reply to comment #29)
> > Thanks. With the patch fixing the problem described in #24, we get
> > further when compiling with release checking but run into syntax
--- Comment #31 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 13:49
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Thus I believe SRA has nothing to
> do with these remaining failures. If you want to confirm this
> independently, compile them with -fno-tree-sra.
>
...and so I un-ass
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=41503
--- Comment #37 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 16:16
---
(In reply to comment #34)
> It is tree.o object of stage2 gcc that gets miscompiled when -fipa-sra is
> added
> to BOOT_CFLAGS. If tree.o is substituted with the one from the build without
> BOOT_CF
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 16:42 ---
The following patch fixes the problem, I will send it to the mailing
list soon:
2009-09-29 Martin Jambor
PR c++/41503
* cp/pt.c (function_parameter_expanded_from_pack_p): Return false if
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 16:52 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The following patch fixes the problem, I will send it to the mailing
> list soon:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg02105.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #41 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 11:35
---
(In reply to comment #38)
> (In reply to comment #37)
>
> > Can you please attach pre-processed source of it so that I can try
> > running it through a cross-compiler?
> >
> > A
--- Comment #42 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 11:37
---
Created an attachment (id=18676)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18676&action=view)
Making IPA-SRA ignore va_lists
This patch prevents IPA-SRA from considering va_list structs as can
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-01 09:31 ---
Subject: Bug 41503
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 1 09:31:08 2009
New Revision: 152365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152365
Log:
2009-10-01 Martin Jambor
PR c
--- Comment #44 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-01 11:30
---
Subject: Bug 41395
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 1 11:30:12 2009
New Revision: 152366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152366
Log:
2009-10-01 Martin Jambor
PR bootstr
--- Comment #29 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-01 11:48
---
Subject: Bug 12392
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 1 11:48:24 2009
New Revision: 152368
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152368
Log:
2009-10-01 Martin Jambor
PR middle-e
--- Comment #45 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-01 14:47
---
Right, so I belieive all problems that were reported here (and were
indeed relevant to IPA-SRA) are now dealt with. x86_64 and i386
bootstraps and checks nicely with both "yes" and "release&q
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-02 11:39 ---
Fixed
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-05 13:22 ---
On IRC, Jakub told me to remove the value_expr flag after
gimplification and to introduce a new dummy var decl with the flag set
for the purpose of debugging. My first attempt is the following
patch. It did
--- Comment #46 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 13:31
---
Subject: Bug 41395
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Oct 6 13:31:40 2009
New Revision: 152492
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152492
Log:
2009-10-06 Martin Jambor
PR bootstr
--- Comment #47 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 14:11
---
Finally, all problems that have cause this havoc are fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-10 19:46 ---
Thanks, I'll have a look at it early next week.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-12 17:34 ---
Proposed patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg00771.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41661
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 11:31 ---
Subject: Bug 41661
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Oct 13 11:31:08 2009
New Revision: 152702
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152702
Log:
2009-10-13 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-13 11:32 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 10:11 ---
This looks like PR 40556.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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 #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-26 21:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=18903)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18903&action=view)
Proposed fix
Indeed, the users of build_ref_for_offset in ipa-prop.c and ipa-cp.c
do not unshare t
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 13:59 ---
The problem here is that build_ref_for_offset_1() cannot find a field
corresponding to a replacement within its own aggregate. The field is
identified by its offset (zero) and type. Unfortunately
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:04 ---
I have just sent the patch to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01625.html
I had to change the testcase a bit so that it compiles on x86_64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:39 ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #7)
> Maybe IPA SRA gets
> those two types from unrelated places?
>
I believe they are quite elated. The body of the function is:
:
init = c_parser_initializer (0B); [re
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:45
---
I have downloaded binutils 2.20 and compiled the file on a native ia64
compiler. I have only managed to look at the dumps but so far could
not see any problem there. I will have another look on Thursday
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 12:41 ---
Subject: Bug 41775
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 29 12:40:48 2009
New Revision: 153699
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153699
Log:
2009-10-29 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 12:50 ---
I did. This is now fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 13:44
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I'm not sure, but by my impression that's a host issue, no? So, I doubt that
> working on target will get you any further.
>
Perhaps, I don't know (or do you
--- Comment #24 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 18:22
---
Thanks for the simple testcase, it has certainly helped me. I have
sent a patch to address this issue to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01814.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #25 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 14:14
---
Subject: Bug 41750
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Nov 2 14:13:49 2009
New Revision: 153809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153809
Log:
2009-11-02 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #26 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 14:33
---
Tthis is now fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-04 16:10 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is -O vs. -O2 ICE because different IPA passes are selected
> then. I think we have a dup for this - Martin, is it somehow easy
> to avoid the ICE?
>
Well, it seems
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-10 16:20 ---
Proposed patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00501.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42009
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 14:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=19004)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19004&action=view)
Testcase
This is the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42009
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 41932
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Nov 11 15:07:18 2009
New Revision: 154095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154095
Log:
2009-11-11 Martin Jambor
PR l
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 15:10
---
Basile, can you please confirm that this is now fixed? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41932
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-13 16:36 ---
This seems to be IPA SRA and thus mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-13 19:34 ---
Yep, this is definitely mine. Even though I have a fix for the above
testcase, it unfortunately does not work for my all-time favorite
one-filed structures, e.g.:
typedef struct
{
void *p;
} Ptr;
struct A
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-13 21:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19012)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19012&action=view)
Proposed fix.
Proposed fix I am currently bootstrapping.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #20 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-08 13:24
---
Subject: Bug 42898
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Feb 8 13:24:12 2010
New Revision: 156599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156599
Log:
2010-02-08 Martin Jambor
PR middle-e
--- Comment #21 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-08 13:31
---
The testcase now passes. The issue is fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 09:46
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Well, just pretending that a particular parameter never existed isn't
> > acceptable from a debugging standpoint; I think we need to
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 14:49 ---
I'm about to test a fix.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 19:44
---
Do your problems go away with -fno-indirect-inlining ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41290
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 11:23 ---
Subject: Bug 42985
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Feb 10 11:22:55 2010
New Revision: 156651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156651
Log:
2010-02-10 Martin Jambor
PR l
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 11:23 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 18:29
---
Created an attachment (id=19852)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19852&action=view)
Patch making call statement redirection based on cgraph edges clearer
You may (or may not) be se
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 12:31 ---
Mine, I'll make type_internals_preclude_sra_p return true for arrays
with elements with zero-sized type.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-18 14:53 ---
Subject: Bug 43066
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Feb 18 14:53:05 2010
New Revision: 156863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156863
Log:
2010-02-18 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-22 18:01 ---
Thanks for filing this separate PR. I am aware of this problem and it is quite
high on my todo list. My first attempts to address this however don't
bootstrap. I would like to get back to this by the end o
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-25 13:07 ---
Mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 14:45
---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> This caused testsuite regressions for 4.4 on (at least) powerpc64 and arm:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-02/msg02633.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-test
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 14:56 ---
Mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 11:24 ---
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00207.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43164
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 11:25 ---
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00207.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43191
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 14:55 ---
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00208.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 18:16 ---
Subject: Bug 43191
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Mar 4 18:16:32 2010
New Revision: 157232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157232
Log:
2010-03-04 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 18:16 ---
Subject: Bug 43164
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Mar 4 18:16:32 2010
New Revision: 157232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157232
Log:
2010-03-04 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 18:17 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 18:17 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
101 - 200 of 442 matches
Mail list logo
