--- Comment #22 from law at redhat dot com 2006-10-30 09:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ACATS c35507m cd2a23e
cxh1001 fail
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 23:17 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #21 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-11-06 17:37 ---
Subject: Re: bootstrap comparision fails with
-ftree-vectorize -maltivec on ppc
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:39 +, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Comment #7 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11-06
--- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2006-11-07 21:03 ---
Subject: Re: bootstrap comparision fails with
-ftree-vectorize -maltivec on ppc
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 08:31 +, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Comment #9 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11
--- Comment #16 from law at redhat dot com 2006-11-08 18:29 ---
Subject: Re: bootstrap comparision fails with
-ftree-vectorize -maltivec on ppc
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 11:33 +, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Comment #14 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2006-11
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-21 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:34 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20
00:34
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: law at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: Any
GCC host triplet: Any
GCC target triplet
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-22 16:58 ---
Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 17:34 +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21
17:34 ---
Subject
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-02 18:23 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 11:50 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-06 05:59 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 10:39 +, stevenb at suse dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-05 10:39
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-06 19:56 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 09:30 +, stevenb at suse dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-06 09:30
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:44 ---
I just checked in a patch which should fix this problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:49 ---
Fixed with today's checkin. I'll add a test to the testsuite too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18134
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-11 00:51 ---
Subject: Re: [PR middle-end/18628] do not fold to label load from tablejump
to reg
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 17:37 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 10, 2005, Richard Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-16 19:24 ---
An update on the new jump threading selection code.
All the base infrastructure is in place (namely the code to avoid creating
irreducible regions). Benchmarking the new selection code has turned up one
issue
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-21 17:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra
assignment inserted on the tree level
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:53 +, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-21 17:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra
assignment inserted on the tree level
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 16:51 +, stevenb at suse dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-22 17:12 ---
The EON issue mentioned in my notes from last week is an instability in how IV
opts selects which induction variables to use. Zdenek has a patch which helps
increase the stability of the IV selection code
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-30 18:57 ---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/20460] add phi args to dests of
dce-redirected edges
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 02:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
When remove_dead_stmt() redirects a control stmt, the edge
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-31 17:59 ---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/20640] add phi args to dests of
dce-redirected edges
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 05:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-31 18:00 ---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/20640] add phi args to dests of
dce-redirected edges
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 05:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-02 01:31 ---
Some notes on recent poking and prodding.
The big perl speedup is consistent on my P4 -- but perl shows no significant
change on my AMD box. Perl spends ~50% of its time in one routine (regexec)
and, surprise
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 00:25 ---
Just more notes on the huge perl speedup with the threading changes...
For reasons yet unknown, we're seeing a lot less L2 cache traffic when perl
is compiled with the threading changes. The decreased L2 traffic
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 03:21 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] Jump threading
related bugs
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 02:05 +, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-06
02:05
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 17:41 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] Jump threading
related bugs
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 06:38 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-06
06
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 19:21 ---
More info.
It appears that threading one specific jump is responsible for triggering
the big speedup. And it could cause the kind of effects we're seeing.
Basically we're threading a conditional branch to a loop
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-08 18:19 ---
OK. I'm pretty sure the perl improvements are really just an artifact of
changes in what objects get spilled onto the stack on the offsets of each
particular object.
I can with a small amount of work twiddle
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 16:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading
on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 21:49 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-13 04:55 ---
Should be fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14627
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-13 17:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading
on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:04 +, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-15 18:25 ---
Subject: Re: [PR middle-end/20739] lvalue cond-expr gimplification may
crash on cv-qual diffs
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 14:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-19 17:59 ---
An update. The jump threading changes are blocked pending resolution of
a semi-latent bug in reload which is exposed by the combination of the
jump threading changes plus the recent merges from TCB.
I'm testing
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 01:08 ---
The threading issues in f0 have been addressed. Some simple code hoisting would
make f0 slightly better from a code size standpoint, but probably wouldn't
help runtime.
The lameness in f1 isn't really a jump
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 01:14 ---
Fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19804
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-22 18:30 ---
The reload bug has been resolved or at least it's in a state where we can
move forward with the jump threading changes.
I've finally got the dynamic branching data which shows pretty much what I
expected -- we
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 00:55 ---
Should be fixed with today's checkin -- with the caveat that Kazu's
desired code is incorrect. We thread everything fully in this code now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15352
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 00:57 ---
This appears to be fixed now (probably the combination of Dan's aliasing
work and the jump threading changes).
Can a bugmaster please close this :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16538
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 00:52 ---
Sould be fixed with today's checkin (with caveats mentioned earlier regarding
the invalidity of the statement that the two tests should compile into the
same code).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 01:01 ---
The threading part of this has been fixed Now we just need to fix DSE to
finish cleaning things up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18076
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 01:10 ---
We're performing the requested optimization now. This should probably be
closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19516
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-24 15:31 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra
assignment inserted on the tree level
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 14:22 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu
--
Bug 19794 depends on bug 15221, which changed state.
Bug 15221 Summary: a jump threading opportunity blocked by a few intervening
instructions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15221
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 04:57 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02426.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 04:58 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02426.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 19794 depends on bug 15352, which changed state.
Bug 15352 Summary: [tree-ssa] missed jump threading opportunity due to lack of
short circuit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15352
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 05:02 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading
optimization
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 16:54 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
16:54
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 05:05 ---
Subject: Re: missed optimization (bool)
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:49 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
13:49 ---
I guess
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 05:05 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02426.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 19794 depends on bug 19516, which changed state.
Bug 19516 Summary: missed optimization (bool)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19516
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 05:07 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02426.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 19794 depends on bug 19804, which changed state.
Bug 19804 Summary: Missed jump threading opportunity on else arm of COND_EXPR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19804
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-25 05:09 ---
Correct, it's not fixed. I have an idea why, but haven't really investigated
yet.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-02 16:46 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading/bypassing
optimization with loop and % (or ands)
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 16:29 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-03 19:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may
generate stores to read-only memory
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:10 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-04 15:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE compiling
with -O
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 14:56 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If you want, go ahead and assign this to me...
Jeff
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-05 18:01 ---
I know what's causing this and I'm testing a fix now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21380
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-06 16:44 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:33 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
Further helps this situation in both testcases referenced below. Basically
it removes the unwanted ADDR_EXPRs earlier in the optimization path. While
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:39 ---
Fixed with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 19626 depends on bug 17141, which changed state.
Bug 17141 Summary: *a-b is not folded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17141
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 19986 depends on bug 17141, which changed state.
Bug 17141 Summary: *a-b is not folded
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17141
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 17:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may
generate stores to read-only memory
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 16:52 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-18 21:17 ---
Subject: Re: no folding back to ARRAY_REF
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 20:37 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
20:37 ---
The new
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-25 05:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE:
-ftree-vectorize, segfault
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 14:21 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-25 21:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE:
-ftree-vectorize, segfault
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 07:28 +, dorit at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2005-05-25
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-06-02 05:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE:
-ftree-vectorize, segfault
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 13:22 +, dorit at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
The best thing would be to detect such redundant phis and clean them up
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-06-13 13:52 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] missed jump thread
optimization on the tree-level
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 20:41 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-06-20 21:22 ---
Subject: Re: no compile time array index checking
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 09:36 +, falk at debian dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-06-20 09:36
---
(In reply
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-06-21 01:20 ---
Subject: Re: no compile time array index checking
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:10 +, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-21
00:10
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-07 20:03 ---
With today's changes we thread the break edge out of the loop. We could
still do better.
Basically we need to realize that bytes can never have the value zero when we
hit the loop test while (toread != 0). Once we realize
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-07 21:24 ---
The jump threading code is *very* conservative when threading across a backedge
in the CFG. The fundamental issue is that you'll have the result of the
conditional in your hash tables from the normal DOM walk and you may
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-08 07:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE in
duplicate_ssa_name
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 04:22 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 04:22
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-08 16:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE in
duplicate_ssa_name
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 16:10 +, uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 16:10
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-08 17:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE in
duplicate_ssa_name
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 12:43 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 12:43
--- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-08 17:46 ---
Fixed with attached patch.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-09 02:36 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading
opportunity on trees
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 16:17 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 16:17
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-09 02:36 ---
Fixed with today's change to tree-ssa-threadedge.c
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-09 03:19 ---
I'll note this really isn't a jump threading issue. This is a fundamental
weakness in a dominator based optimizer vs a truly global optimizer.
What we've got is a block which looks something like this:
# u_18 = PHI u_13(4
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-09 16:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] ICE in
is_old_name, at tree-into-ssa.c:466
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 15:10 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02
--- Comment #2 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-10 16:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] new (within
last few days) infinite loop with -O1
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:24 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-10 19:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] new (within
last few days) infinite loop with -O1
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:24 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-10 20:24 ---
This is a bug in the vectorizer and has absolutely nothing to do with PR26169.
The vectorizer is twiddling things such that the set of virtual operands
changes
for the statement in question. ie, if you look
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-15 23:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression]
25_algorithms/prev_permutation/1.cc on powerpc{64,}-linux and
powerpc-darwin
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 15:19 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-16 03:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression]
25_algorithms/prev_permutation/1.cc on powerpc{64,}-linux and
powerpc-darwin
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 02:59 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #9 from
--- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-17 00:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression]
25_algorithms/prev_permutation/1.cc on powerpc{64,}-linux and
powerpc-darwin
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 15:37 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #7 from
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-17 02:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression]
25_algorithms/prev_permutation/1.cc on powerpc{64,}-linux and
powerpc-darwin
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:17 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #12 from
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-17 18:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:21 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-1.c scan-tree-dump-times
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-17 21:19 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:21 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-1.c scan-tree-dump-times
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-18 14:47 ---
Subject: Re: ICE compiling a-textio.adb at -O1 -ftree-vrp
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 11:15 +, laurent at guerby dot net wrote:
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-02-18 11:15 ---
Jeff mentionned
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-18 21:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE compiling a-textio.adb at
-O1 -ftree-vrp
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 17:02 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-18 21:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE compiling a-textio.adb at
-O1 -ftree-vrp
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 17:02 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-19 00:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE compiling a-textio.adb at
-O1 -ftree-vrp
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 17:02 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02
--- Comment #17 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-20 20:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] bootstrap
failure on Alpha: xgcc runs out of memory compiling libiberty/md5.c
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 05:11 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #16 from
--- Comment #19 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-20 20:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] bootstrap
failure on Alpha: xgcc runs out of memory compiling libiberty/md5.c
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 20:35 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #18 from
--- Comment #20 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-20 20:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] bootstrap failure on
Alpha: xgcc runs out of memory compiling libiberty/md5.c
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 03:11 +, roger at eyesopen dot com wrote:
--- Comment #10 from roger
--- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-22 15:24 ---
Subject: Re: Fowardprop does harm for VRP to
figure out if a point is non zero
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 10:32 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-22 16:22 ---
Subject: Re: Fowardprop does harm for VRP to
figure out if a point is non zero
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 12:47 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
A little history...
DOM was pretty clever in that it had
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-22 18:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ice on valid C
code with flag -Os
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 18:07 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 18:07
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-22 21:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ice on valid C
code with flag -Os
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 18:07 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-22 18:07
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-22 21:45 ---
Subject: Re: Fowardprop does harm for VRP to
figure out if a point is non zero
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 20:55 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #36 from law at redhat dot com 2006-02-23 16:31 ---
Subject: Re: no compile time array index checking
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 16:18 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #35 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-23 16:18
---
I
1 - 100 of 3054 matches
Mail list logo
