On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM, koala01 koal...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to compile the gcc-4.8.0-20130217 snapshot with (eg) the last
version of isl.
This version has a bug fix which make that isl_version() returns
isl-1.11.1, as result that configure script fails to detect isl
Hi,
The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
if caller(s) to that function is located in another object. Of course,
no such problems if we could utilized LTO. And it is very interesting
to have such functionality of compiler even without LTO. It could be
changed, if
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov
dtemirbula...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
if caller(s) to that function is located in another object. Of course,
no such problems if we could utilized LTO. And it is very
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system
where the registers are 64 bits long?
I was looking at AArch64 and wondering about whether it mightn't be
better for a 32 bit system than AArch32 if all the pointers were 32 bit,
and as far as the ABI is concerned half the
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
Hi,
The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
if caller(s) to that function is located in another object.
That is not exactly true. With -fipa-cp-clone (default at -O3),
IPA-CP is happy to
On 6 March 2013 12:38, David McQuillan wrote:
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where
the registers are 64 bits long?
Yes, the new x32 ABI for x86_64, see
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ and
http://lwn.net/Articles/456731/
David McQuillan d...@fano.co.uk writes:
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system
where the registers are 64 bits long?
x32.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
And now
On 03/05/2013 08:00 PM, Alan Lehotsky wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that you can't put a branch instruction in the
delay slot of a branch instruction?
Semantically, the HW I'm looking at annuls the branch in the delay slot if the
first branch is taken, but any other instructions are
On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:38 AM, David McQuillan wrote:
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where
the registers are 64 bits long?
MIPS (N32 ABI, and if you want, also O64) is another example.
paul
On 03/06/2013 07:21 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:38 AM, David McQuillan wrote:
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where
the registers are 64 bits long?
MIPS (N32 ABI, and if you want, also O64) is another example.
The PA2.0 chips
Status
==
We've reached the goal of zero P1 regressions again, and have less
than 100 P1-P3 bugs, but the number of changes going daily is still too
high. If no new P1 appears within a week, I'd like to create first
release candidate in the middle of next week, but please try to decrease
the
Am 04.03.2013 21:34, schrieb N.M. Maclaren:
(quoting documentation about DEC UNIONs for Fortran)
However, if you overlay one variable with another smaller variable,
that portion of the initial variable is retained that is not overlaid.
Depending on the application, the retained portion of an
However, if you overlay one variable with another smaller variable,
that portion of the initial variable is retained that is not overlaid.
Depending on the application, the retained portion of an overlaid variable
may or may not contain meaningful data and can be utilized at a later
point in
On Mar 6 2013, Russell Brennan wrote:
Ouch.
This seems to be at odds with C's unions, where it is not allowed to do
type punning.
As of gcc 4.4.6, the description above seems to match the C behavior:
Er, no. One simple test does not prove that it will always work; this
sort of thing is
Perhaps I misunderstand how you are defining failure here... what
would be the failure mode? Perhaps if you could provide an example of
the ill-effects that could be seen as a result of this behavior it
would clarify the issue?
v/r,
Russell
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM, N.M. Maclaren
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Koenig tkoe...@netcologne.de wrote:
Am 04.03.2013 21:34, schrieb N.M. Maclaren:
(quoting documentation about DEC UNIONs for Fortran)
However, if you overlay one variable with another smaller variable,
that portion of the initial variable is retained
On Mar 6 2013, Russell Brennan wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand how you are defining failure here... what
would be the failure mode? Perhaps if you could provide an example of
the ill-effects that could be seen as a result of this behavior it
would clarify the issue?
Generating bad code. In:
Doing a bit more light reading on type-punning wrt unions I came upon
the following (from
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/gcc/Structures-unions-enumerations-and-bit_002dfields-implementation.html#Structures-unions-enumerations-and-bit_002dfields-implementation):
- A member of a union
On Mar 6 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Except GCC implements C's unions as allowing to do type punning as an
extension and as far as GCC is concerned that is not going to change
any time soon.
This is a documented exception to the aliasing/type punning rules.
The problem is that this is worse
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
On Mar 6 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Except GCC implements C's unions as allowing to do type punning as an
extension and as far as GCC is concerned that is not going to change
any time soon.
This is a documented exception to the aliasing/type
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:46 AM, N.M. Maclaren n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Mar 6 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Except GCC implements C's unions as allowing to do type punning as an
extension and as far as GCC is concerned that is not going to change
any time soon.
This is a documented exception
Thanks for that about the MIPS and PA. Gosh now I feel rather silly, I
remember doing something like this years and years ago in a company I
was in at the time with MIPS and PowerPC but it was roll our own rather
than gcc. Parameters were passed on stack at the size they were rather
than
This is now bugzilla 56558.
Thierry Moreau wrote:
Hi,
The C++ template code in annex triggers a
compile-time error on 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, but not on 4.7. (I suppose this bug
has been found and tracked before.)
===
templateint SIZE class t1
{
public:
int
I'm using the CCmode model for condition-code handling in a 4.6.1 based
compiler. Every other port I've done used the CC0 model, so I'm probably doing
something misguided here.
I'm down to just 170 failures in the check-gcc testsuites, so it's looking
pretty solid; of the failures about 30
I am not a fan of the new definition of a regression. Yes the new
definition helps out release managers but it does not help out our
users at all. In fact I think it hurts them more as some don't update
as fast as the release managers think they do. I still support a 4.3
based GCC and only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
08:38:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 6 08:38:46 2013
New Revision: 196487
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196487
Log:
2013-03-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56534
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
08:51:30 UTC ---
Note that a bit-test instruction can only be used if the and only feeds a
comparison against zero. Not sure how canonical bit-test patterns should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55473
--- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com 2013-03-06
08:53:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 29593
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29593
Added cplusplus macro usage
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
Bug #: 56548
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3486
with -march=pentium{pro,2,3} -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56541
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56549
Bug #: 56549
Summary: #pragma once ineffective with BOM in include file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56549
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Khan yurivkhan at gmail dot com 2013-03-06 09:52:01
UTC ---
Also reproduced on 4.7.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56534
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-03-06
10:13:07 UTC ---
Thanks Jakub, that seems consistent with my simple analysis.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56470
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55402
--- Comment #11 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
10:30:20 UTC ---
Maybe the issues in this bug are the same as those for bug 55135.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56378
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53958
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56379
Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc 4.3.1 cannot compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56550
Bug #: 56550
Summary: cortex-m3: incorrect write to member of volatile
packed structure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]|cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.4.5 |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
10:51:27 UTC ---
This bug looks like the wrong idea to me. Old is apparently anything
older than the maintained release branches, but many users in the field
still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12850
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
10:53:50 UTC ---
I've added the testcase to http://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/random/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-06 10:57:15 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
--- Comment #7 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Some optimization slowness
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-06 11:11:28 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896
Steven Bosscher steven at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
11:13:23 UTC ---
The second is NULL if there are no explicit arguments, or a
TREE_VEC of arguments.
Thus, perhaps:
-if (TREE_CODE (fullname) ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
11:24:20 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 6 11:24:07 2013
New Revision: 196488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196488
Log:
2013-03-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
11:38:07 UTC ---
4.7.2 -O0 25s 2189981kB
integrated RA : 8.96 (35%) usr 0.89 (28%) sys 9.89 (34%) wall
206439 kB (16%) ggc
reload
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
12:07:28 UTC ---
I agree with Richard here, it isn't that much hidden, simplifies RM tasks and
allows us to actually release the compiler in roughly timely manner.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #25 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
12:10:31 UTC ---
(NB 4.6.3 known to work w.r.t. comment #5, not w.r.t. original bug report)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
12:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
All these regressions clutter the list of important regressions.
And why would all of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-06 12:14:03 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Steven Bosscher steven at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
12:16:06 UTC ---
Btw, I wouldn't call
gcc-4.6.3: 1:39.92 total
work ;) Also the reporter says the bug is in 4.4.5 (so we are again
turning a bug into a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #28 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
12:18:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Posted for discussion here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00193.html
OT: Another trivial speed-up for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-06 12:23:21 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #28 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51884
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
14:28:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
-if (TREE_CODE (fullname) == TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR)
+if (TREE_CODE (fullname) == TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
15:06:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 29598
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29598
assign.c
With -O3 -march=corei7 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56539
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
15:08:29 UTC ---
The patch fixes the problem for both 4.7 and 4.8, using the testcase above and
the original C++ one it was reduced from.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #179 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
15:14:35 UTC ---
I'm currently (gcc revision 196427, FF changeset 123831:c95439870e05)
facing a few ICEs during the compilation phase with the following
backtrace:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
15:19:17 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 6 15:19:11 2013
New Revision: 196491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196491
Log:
PR c++/56543
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56551
Bug #: 56551
Summary: A faster implementation of std::function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
15:27:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 6 15:27:13 2013
New Revision: 196492
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196492
Log:
PR c++/56543
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
15:34:19 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 6 15:34:11 2013
New Revision: 196493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196493
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
16:11:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 29599
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29599
do not set overflow on [+-]INF
This is Richi's suggestion from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
16:18:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 6 16:18:40 2013
New Revision: 196497
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196497
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #19 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-03-06 16:18:50
UTC ---
Those tests are more or less the whole point of the strict-overflow warning.
-Wstrict-overflow exists to have an optional warning that tells you when you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56551
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
16:24:20 UTC ---
I've only glanced at the code but it's good to see you support passing an
Allocator to the constructor (though it should use std::allocator_traits to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
16:28:12 UTC ---
Oh, no worries Ian. I totally agree. I just wanted to put all this out there,
since I'm unfortunately about to drop it.
We should probably close
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #23 from Sergei Steshenko sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2013-03-06
16:49:51 UTC ---
FYI, the original file ( http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17377 )
can be compiled with 'clang', albeit slowly:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
17:18:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 6 17:18:46 2013
New Revision: 196498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196498
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
17:19:42 UTC ---
Note the hacks all boil down to the fact that FEs use signed array
domains but unsigned sizetype TYPE_DOMAIN. The C and C++ FE were
adjusted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
17:54:41 UTC ---
This is ICEing here:
/* ?? If this fails, we should temporarily restore the default
target first (set_cfun (NULL) ??), do the rest of this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06 18:04:30
UTC ---
For the record, this does undo the performance regression fix on MIPS. I will
submit a new bug for that issue. The problem (on mips) is that we want to do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06 18:22:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
But you can't achieve that through generation of invalid RTL.
Agreed.
Anyway, I wonder why nonzero_bits during combine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
18:18:52 UTC ---
But you can't achieve that through generation of invalid RTL.
Anyway, I wonder why nonzero_bits during combine doesn't figure out that the
upper bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
Bug #: 56552
Summary: conditional move can generate unnecessary conversion
code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56492
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-06
20:08:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 29600
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29600
Patch for after 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56492
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
