http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-29
18:51:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sun May 29 18:51:48 2011
New Revision: 174413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174413
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #13 from Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org 2011-05-29
18:56:44 UTC ---
Thanks guys.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24366|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #6 from Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org 2011-05-27
14:15:25 UTC ---
Jakub - the patch looks sane, although I don't currently have a gcc build
environment to actually test it with, and there is no way I'm going to claim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27
14:47:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Jakub - the patch looks sane, although I don't currently have a gcc build
environment to actually test it with, and there is no way
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #8 from Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org 2011-05-27
15:32:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
BTW, the patch bootstrapped/regtested on both x86_64-linux and i686-linux, I'm
just running second set of bootstrap without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-27
16:33:33 UTC ---
.text sizes before/after the patch (in each case on identical sources, for
cc1plus I've reverted the patch afterwards and did make -j64 cc1plus in gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #10 from Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org 2011-05-27
16:48:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
32-bit before32-bit after64-bit before64-bit after
libstdc++.so.60x717080x716e8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #2 from Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org 2011-05-21
18:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
On the RTL side combine tries to do
Trying 7, 8 - 9:
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
(set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49095
--- Comment #3 from Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org 2011-05-21
20:42:26 UTC ---
Hmm. Looking at that code generation, it strikes me that even with the odd load
store situation, why do we have that test instruction?
c:8b 10
13 matches
Mail list logo
