[DEAD] APPEAL to steering committee: [Bug target/23605] memset() Optimization on x86-32 bit

2005-08-28 Thread Kevin McBride
Joe Buck wrote: I've looked at the bug in bugzilla; it's not marked as invalid, though I tend to agree with Andrew and Ian's comments in the log. I set the bug back to unconfirmed after I noticed that, in my opinion, there can be more optimization done. In any case, the SC doesn't get invol

APPEAL to steering committee: [Bug target/23605] memset() Optimization on x86-32 bit

2005-08-28 Thread Kevin McBride
Everyone, Please take notice that I am appealing my bug (number 23605) to the steering committee of GCC on the basis that it is a legimate bug/enhancement in need of a through research. I believe that Andrew Pinski is trying to keep the research from occuring by means of marking the bug as inval

memset() Optimization on x86-32 bit

2005-08-26 Thread Kevin McBride
I have a bit of a disagreement with the optimization toward memset() calls. In one of my libraries, libteklti, I have a function named ucharempty(), which frees a uchar_t (unique character structure) from memory. If the user elects to have the memory erased prior to calling free(), memset() is s

Re: Problems with bootstrapping 4.0.1

2005-08-14 Thread Kevin McBride
ave to run "make bootstrap4" to successfully bootstrap gcc-4.0.x - that's what I noticed. - KJM On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 17:11 -0700, James E Wilson wrote: > Kevin McBride wrote: > > I have been having comparison errors while building a native 4.0.1 > > compiler for my Fedor

Problems with bootstrapping 4.0.1

2005-08-13 Thread Kevin McBride
I have been having comparison errors while building a native 4.0.1 compiler for my Fedora Core 4 system. I checked the flags for a file I randomly chose, c-pragma.c, and the flags don't differ from initial build of xgcc to stage2. I have included a tarball of the object files for c-pragma.c and a