++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com
operators don't return reference if out of range
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4296.pdf
21.4.5 basic_string element access [string.access]
const_reference operator[](size_type pos) const
: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com
forwarded from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77580
Hello,
I've been testing GCC 4.9 for a virtual gentoo machine and I noticed that
you us flatten attribute in source code. In case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63242
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com ---
How I can create such testcase?
I can reproduce it on Gentoo by adding -flto to /etc/portage/make.conf
and running: emerge xf86-video-intel
but can't reproduce from command-line
gcc -std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com ---
there is difference also with O2 and branch 4.9
size in bytes
57199 -O2
55222 -O2 -flto
60681 -O2 -finline-functions
75301 -O2 -flto -finline-functions
67083 -O2 -flto -finline-functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61274
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com ---
gcc should probably support new level -O4 which will optimize for benchmarks,
which will equal to current -O3
-O3 and bellow will optimize for applications with saner --param values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56244
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wbrana at gmail dot com
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com
-finline-limit sets max-inline-insns-single and max-inline-insns-auto to same
value
max-inline-insns-auto is 40 by default which is sane, but
max-inline-insns-single is 400 which seems to be insane
all
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com
according to docs inline-unit-growth limit is effective only when unit size is
above large-unit-insns, which means if application consists of many small units
with many inlineable functions, application
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54108
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078
--- Comment #5 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 16:43:10 UTC ---
branch 4.9
without lto
101462 bytes
with -flto -fwhole-program
157243 bytes - linker bfd
155488 bytes - linker gold
other CFLAGS = -O3 -g0 -march
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078
--- Comment #6 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 17:01:27 UTC ---
executable is smaller with lto when I add -fno-inline-functions
95928 vs 93880
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078
--- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 17:34:23 UTC ---
-fno-inline-functions makes same tests 12% or 6% slower with lto/gold
NUMERIC SORT: 1689.2 : 43.32 : 14.23
NUMERIC SORT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-04-13 17:59:47 UTC ---
lto/gold
-finline-limit=43
99960 bytes
NUMERIC SORT: 1471.2 : 37.73 : 12.39
-finline-limit=44
149136 bytes
NUMERIC SORT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #15 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-12 14:28:43 UTC
---
I can see different results with different linkers - see above.
Your CPU is Nehalem quad core, but my CPU is Sandy Bridge dual core, which have
less L1/L2/L3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #5 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 14:17:52 UTC ---
weird results in comment 4 were caused by unexpected Gentoo patches and/or
broken GIT
I made own build which doesn't contain any Gentoo patches and still can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #6 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 14:22:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 29622
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29622
assign.c with main function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 14:23:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 29623
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29623
assign.c.164t.optimized.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 14:24:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29624
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29624
nbench1.c.164t.optimized.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 17:27:49 UTC
---
I found strange thing - result depends on linker
there is slow down with GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1
there is improvement with GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.23.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #11 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 17:36:10 UTC
---
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1
192263 - slow
192260 - fast
GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.23.1) 1.11
192263 - fast
192260 - slow
It is possible that result
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #12 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-08 17:41:09 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #11)
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1
192263 - slow
192260 - fast
I meant 196260 and 196263
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #4 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-03-07 18:35:10 UTC ---
compiled 196260 again using same way and nbench is now slow, which is strange.
When I compile nbench using gcc compiled from snapshot
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
Bug #: 56522
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56458
Bug #: 56458
Summary: support for crash on invalid array access
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
Bug #: 56182
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe
commences before first target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
--- Comment #1 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-02-02 12:31:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29335
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29335
build log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2013-02-02 12:33:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 29336
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29336
gcc/config/i386/t-linux64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55968
Bug #: 55968
Summary: Bytemark HUFFMAN 11% slower with -ftree-vectorize
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7 Regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #13 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-30 20:23:40 UTC
---
It seems it is caused by 182844
182839
ASSIGNMENT : 64.374 : 244.96 : 63.54
182844
ASSIGNMENT : 57.697
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #6 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:24:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 28715
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28715
Gentoo patches 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:25:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 28716
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28716
Gentoo patches 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:26:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28717
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28717
Gentoo patches 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #9 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:29:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28718
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28718
build log from non-broken gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:30:22 UTC
---
Created attachment 28719
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28719
build log from broken gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #11 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:52:44 UTC
---
It seems I was wrong. Reverting 175752 doesn't fix performance.
I used also Gentoo patches with patch which reverts 175752.
I thought that it isn't possible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #12 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 15:01:34 UTC
---
more exact CFLAGS
-fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -O3 -funroll-loops -g0 -march=corei7
-ffast-math -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector -static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 16:12:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28699
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28699
function Assignment without 175752
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #3 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 16:16:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28700
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28700
function Assignment with 175752
according to gprof Assignment is called
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #4 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 17:01:22 UTC ---
Bytemark source code
http://www.tux.org/~mayer/linux/nbench-byte-2.2.3.tar.gz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
Bug #: 55286
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10%
slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #17 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-12 13:17:08 UTC
---
there is another bug caused by revision 175752
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|Bytemark FP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54977
Bug #: 54977
Summary: example3 not vectorized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #15 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-10-04 14:25:29 UTC
---
I can reliably reproduce bug on Core 2.
Reverting 175752 reliably fixes bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
--- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-09-24 11:48:51 UTC ---
still broken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28055|0 |1
is obsolete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #12 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-27 08:42:38 UTC
---
4.8 has improved
20120813
FP EMULATION: 229.84 : 110.29 : 25.45
20120827
FP EMULATION: 281.4 : 135.03 : 31.16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
Bug #: 54329
Summary: gcc/reginfo.o differs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
--- Comment #1 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-20 11:20:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 28055
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28055
build log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329
--- Comment #3 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-20 12:04:05 UTC ---
configure --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.8.0-pre
--includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.8.0-pre/include
--datadir=/usr/share
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower |Bytemark FOURIER 54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271
Bug #: 54271
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
--- Comment #53 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-13 08:26:13 UTC
---
It seems it was improved.
4.8 20120806
NUMERIC SORT: 1543.7 : 39.59 : 13.00
4.8 20120813
NUMERIC SORT: 2007.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246
Bug #: 54246
Summary: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
--- Comment #52 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-12 12:30:21 UTC
---
This bug celebrated 7th anniversary this year. Congratulations!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #18 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-11 07:01:18 UTC
---
I can use it, but other people don't have to know about this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #20 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-11 07:39:37 UTC
---
Why -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default without -fPIE, but disabled with
-fPIE?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #23 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-11 15:17:04 UTC
---
Why lot of program's makefiles have to be changed?
If this change breaks some program, developers of that program will fix it.
You don't have to.
New versions of GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fPIE -pie shouldn't|-fvisibility=hidden
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-10 13:40:29 UTC ---
int func() {
return random();
}
int main(){
return func();
}
$ gcc-4.7.2 -O2 1.c -o 1
$ nm -CD ./1
w __gmon_start__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-10 13:49:19 UTC
---
How can I tell linker to not export symbols?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #12 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-10 17:27:02 UTC
---
Created attachment 27986
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27986
bash compiled with -fPIE -pie -fvisibility=hidden
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
--- Comment #13 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-10 17:29:15 UTC
---
Created attachment 27987
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27987
bash compiled with -fPIE -pie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|build |
Summary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
Bug #: 54187
Summary: liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-06 08:57:43 UTC ---
Executables are smaller and loads faster with -fvisibility=hidden.
Since which version -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default?
4.7.2 pre doesn't use -fvisibility
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #11 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-05 10:56:58 UTC
---
I found something strange. There is much smaller slow down in ASSIGNMENT
without 175752 with Gentoo Hardened patches
gcc version 4.7.2 20120804 (prerelease) (Gentoo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #5 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-05 12:00:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
And what type of super-computer is that ?
outdated, almost 5 years old: Core 2 Quad 3.2 GHz, 4 GB RAM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-05 12:27:52 UTC ---
2 GB RAM isn't enough.
It isn't good idea to use x86_64 with 2 GB RAM.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #12 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-05 13:31:28 UTC
---
embedded systems compiler doesn't mean you can run gcc on embedded system, but
you can cross compile for embedded system.
Average user doesn't build or use compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #18 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-05 14:11:37 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #17)
Sorry, but this is just rubbish.
You didn't confute my statements.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
Bug #: 54182
Summary: enable -fvisibility=hidden
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 10:59:46 UTC ---
If I didn't make mistake it seems big slow down is caused by revision 175752
Date: Fri Jul 1 10:00:25 2011 +
2011-07-01 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152
Bug #: 54152
Summary: add Bytemark
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153
Bug #: 54153
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-01 22:35:29 UTC
---
Reversion of 175752 on latest 4.7 branch improved FP EMU by 41%, but made
ASSIGNMENT worse by 8%.
with 175752
NUMERIC SORT: 1562.9 : 40.08
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #6 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-31 10:11:48 UTC ---
clang
FP EMULATION: 405.92 : 194.78 : 44.95
4.4.7
FP EMULATION: 337.44 : 161.92 : 37.36
4.5.4
FP EMULATION
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
Bug #: 54143
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
--- Comment #1 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-31 17:48:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27908
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27908
20120422
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-31 17:50:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 27909
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27909
20120429
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-31 22:45:25 UTC ---
4.7 20110626
FP EMULATION: 318.44 : 152.80 : 35.26
4.7 20110703
FP EMULATION: 228.08 : 109.44 : 25.25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54118
Bug #: 54118
Summary: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078
--- Comment #4 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-07-28 06:54:06 UTC ---
one of tests is faster
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
