[Bug c/102337] New: possibly wrong warning about truncation

2021-09-14 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it via Gcc-bugs
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rootkit85 at yahoo dot it Target Milestone: --- The following code: #include // build with: -O2 -Werror=format-truncation void poke_kprobe_events(int add) { char cmd[192], probename[128], probefunc[128

[Bug go/71697] go link error

2016-06-29 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697 --- Comment #5 from Matteo Croce --- $ x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute

[Bug go/71697] go link error

2016-06-29 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697 --- Comment #4 from Matteo Croce --- /home/matteo/src/openwrt/build_dir/toolchain-i386_pentium4_gcc-5.3.0_glibc-2.22/gcc-5.3.0-final/./gcc/collect-ld -plugin

[Bug go/71697] go link error

2016-06-29 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697 --- Comment #2 from Matteo Croce --- I run Ubuntu 16.04, how can I check if --no-add-needed is default?

[Bug go/71697] New: go link error

2016-06-29 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
dot com Reporter: rootkit85 at yahoo dot it CC: cmang at google dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 38788 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38788=edit workaround to compile go tool the go tool fails to link. configure opti

[Bug middle-end/36550] Wrong "may be used uninitialized" warning (conditional PHIs)

2016-06-27 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550 rootkit85 at yahoo dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rootkit85 at yahoo dot

[Bug c/48546] lto-wrapper returned 1 exit

2011-04-11 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48546 --- Comment #2 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2011-04-11 13:48:52 UTC --- I'll try when Linaro will switch to 4.6 then

[Bug c/48546] New: lto-wrapper returned 1 exit

2011-04-10 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48546 Summary: lto-wrapper returned 1 exit Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug c/46536] New: ICE when compiling ARM kernel

2010-11-18 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
/bugs.html for instructions. --- Comment #1 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2010-11-18 11:25:06 UTC --- Created attachment 22442 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22442 the preprocessed source file

[Bug c/46536] ICE when compiling ARM kernel

2010-11-18 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46536 rootki...@yahoo.it rootkit85 at yahoo dot it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/45102] mm/page-writeback.c:820: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

2010-11-18 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45102 rootki...@yahoo.it rootkit85 at yahoo dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rootkit85

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2010-08-31 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #27 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2010-08-31 18:02 --- you could try but i'm not sure that NOPL is mandatory for the i686 arch -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2010-08-22 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #25 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2010-08-22 13:34 --- try -march=i686 it should be the best -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-16 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #23 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-16 10:02 --- Despite its name Geode GX, LX and NX are very different, I guess that we should split them to geode-gx and geode-lx, and alias geode-nx to k7 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-09 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #8 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 08:55 --- 1) define real geode 2) what CPU do I have? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-09 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #9 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 09:01 --- Read here pag. 15: http://www.amd.com/files/connectivitysolutions/geode/geode_lx/33234F_LX_databook.pdf The instruction set supported by the core is a combination of Intel Pentium® processor, AMD Athlon™ processor

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-09 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #16 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 13:17 --- Yes, it seems that even old Geode has such instructions: # cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : Geode by NSC cpu family : 5 model : 9 model name : Unknown stepping: 1 cpu

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-09 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #18 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 15:26 --- As I did here? http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/51410/ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-09 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #20 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 20:25 --- Yes K6 is the best fallback for geode-lx, while pentium-mmx is the best one for geode. I need to know if this new -march argument will be added so I edit the kernel patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-09 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #21 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-09 21:59 --- Created an attachment (id=19001) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19001action=view) A patch which adds Geode LX support to GCC -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug c/41989] New: Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-08 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: rootkit85 at yahoo dot it http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug c/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-08 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #1 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-08 18:51 --- Created an attachment (id=18994) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18994action=view) the dhrystone benchmark -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41989

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-08 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #4 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-08 19:52 --- # cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 5 model : 10 model name : Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS stepping: 2 cpu MHz : 498.060

[Bug target/41989] Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic

2009-11-08 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #6 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2009-11-08 22:34 --- (In reply to comment #5) Subject: Re: Code optimized for AMD Geode is slower than generic Sent from my iPhone On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:52 AM, rootkit85 at yahoo dot it gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote

[Bug target/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-07 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #8 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-07 19:47 --- Created an attachment (id=14895) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14895action=view) minimal testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug target/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-07 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #9 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-07 19:47 --- Created an attachment (id=14896) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14896action=view) minimal testcase, compiled with -mfpmath=387 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug target/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-07 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #10 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-07 19:47 --- Created an attachment (id=14897) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14897action=view) minimal testcase, compiled with -mfpmath=sse -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug target/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-07 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #11 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-07 19:49 --- very very minimal testcase added -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug c/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-05 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #1 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-05 21:31 --- Created an attachment (id=14882) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14882action=view) the source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug c/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-05 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #2 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-05 21:31 --- Created an attachment (id=14883) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14883action=view) the source compiled with -mfpmath=387 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug c/34682] 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-05 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #3 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2008-01-05 21:32 --- Created an attachment (id=14884) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14884action=view) the source compiled with -mfpmath=sse -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug c/34682] New: 70% slowdown with SSE enabled

2008-01-05 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
gnu dot org ReportedBy: rootkit85 at yahoo dot it http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34682

[Bug c/26407] ICE

2006-02-22 Thread rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--- Comment #2 from rootkit85 at yahoo dot it 2006-02-22 14:40 --- I have broken RAM. Sorry for complaining gcc -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26407