https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
With something like:
diff --git a/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
b/benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c
index 05cad501..ad79ddae 100755
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 48169
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48169=edit
qsort patch
I'm sending spec_qsort patch we use. I'm going to prepare a patch that will
revert this and add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Huh, looks like this is the (patched by us) memory copying done in
> > spec_qsort?
>
> Yes
>
> > I wonder if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Huh, looks like this is the (patched by us) memory copying done in
> spec_qsort?
Yes
> I wonder if you can re-measure with our patching undone but then with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94364
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, looks like this is the (patched by us) memory copying done in spec_qsort?
I wonder if you can re-measure with our patching undone but then with
-fno-strict-aliasing (though I think that only was
