[Bug target/19746] printf() optimisation ignores longcall attribute

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 07:19 --- Confirmed for current 3.4 branch and mainline. -- What|Removed |Added Status|U

[Bug preprocessor/19411] Simple program causes gcc to run out of memory

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 06:58 --- I wouldn't blame the preprocessor. The macros in altivec.h for C support have multiple occurences of their arguments. __builtin_choose_expr only evaluates one occurence, but that doesn't stop the preproc

[Bug tree-optimization/19516] missed optimization (bool)

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 06:46 --- Note that PR 19804 is very closely related. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19516

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 06:46 --- Note that PR 19516 is very closely related. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19804

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 06:45 --- Here is a test case where a jump threading opportunity would be missed if the change suggested in the original post were made: void foo (int *p) { if (*p != 0) bar (); if (*p != 0) bar (); } Her

[Bug c/12719] Variables declaration can be anywhere.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 06:32 --- (In reply to comment #3) In 3.4.0 and above there is already a warning for this: -Wdeclaration-after-statement As mentioned this is standard C99 code also (yes most C compilers are not C99 compilers but ju

[Bug c/12719] Variables declaration can be anywhere.

--- Additional Comments From cwant at ualberta dot ca 2005-02-07 06:26 --- It would be nice to have a warning/error option for when these kind of declarations occur. Our application (blender) runs on many platforms and is built with a number of different compilers, some of which do not a

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 06:03 --- Fixed see . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/18041] OR of two single-bit bitfields is inefficient

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 06:02 --- This is a much harder problem than doing a simplification at combine time because we have five instructions to worry about. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041

[Bug tree-optimization/18031] OR of a bitfield and a constant is not optimized at tree level

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 05:55 --- For the RTL level (at least on PPC), we could combine the following instructions and simplify them: (insn 15 13 16 0 (set (reg:SI 124) (const_int 1 [0x1])) 293 {*movsi_internal1} (nil) (nil)) (i

[Bug tree-optimization/15618] Missed bool optimization

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 05:40 --- Here is the last tree SSA form: ;; Function f (f) f (f1) { _Bool D.1138; int D.1120; int D.1119; : D.1138_5 = f1_2 != 0; D.1120_1 = (int) D.1138_5; return D.1120_1; } ;; Function f3 (f3) f3 (

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 05:39 --- Subject: Bug 19800 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-07 05:39:05 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog simplify-rtx.c Log messag

[Bug rtl-optimization/15242] [3.3/3.4 regression] pessimization of "goto *"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 05:32 --- (In reply to comment #28) > Is this PR fixed? If so, please close it. it is fixed on the mainline but still not fixed on the 3.4 branch as this is a regression we should keep it open until The RM says ot

[Bug rtl-optimization/15242] [3.3/3.4 regression] pessimization of "goto *"

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 05:28 --- Is this PR fixed? If so, please close it. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug libstdc++/17627] M68060 fails with libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/m68k/atomicity.h

--- Additional Comments From cjohns at cybertec dot com dot au 2005-02-07 05:06 --- No change. I have arranged to get the MVME172 card back for an afternoon later this week (11-Feb-2005). I will have a look then. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17627

[Bug preprocessor/19801] [4.0 Regression] cppinternals.texi references old file names

-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-

[Bug libstdc++/17627] M68060 fails with libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/m68k/atomicity.h

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 04:51 --- Any news on this? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17627

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 04:50 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug target/19803] __builtin_expect does not modify branch prediction for power4/5

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 04:47 --- patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00225.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug other/14554] libffi: ASM error

-- What|Removed |Added CC||cjohns at cybertec dot com ||dot au http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/19796] [4.0 Regression] Bootstrap fails: Unresolved data symbol "set_fpc_csr"

-- What|Removed |Added Component|bootstrap |target Keywords||build Summary|Bootstrap fails: Unresolved |[

[Bug target/19803] __builtin_expect does not modify branch prediction for power4/5

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 03:39 --- (In reply to comment #1) > builtin_expect uses PROB_VERY_LIKELY. > > But powerpc64 only emits branch prediction hints when at 2% / 98%. See > rs6000.c:output_cbranch This is a target problem as mentioned a

[Bug tree-optimization/19803] __builtin_expect doesnt modify branch prediction for power4 target

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 03:28 --- builtin_expect uses PROB_VERY_LIKELY. >From predict.c #define PROB_VERY_UNLIKELY (REG_BR_PROB_BASE / 10 - 1) #define PROB_EVEN (REG_BR_PROB_BASE / 2) #define PROB_VERY_LIKELY(RE

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] New: Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

Consider: int foo (int a, int b) { if (a == 0) if (b != 2) return 10; if (b == 1) return 10; return 20; } Here is t21.dom1: foo (a, b) { int D.1120; : if (a_2 == 0) goto ; else goto ; :; if (b_4 != 2) goto ; else goto ; :; D.1120_7 = 10; goto (); :; if (b_4

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||19804 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19803] New: __builtin_expect doesnt modify branch prediction for power4 target

gcc version 4.0.0 20050203 (experimental) The following code snippet shows how branch prediction isnt used even when specifying builtin_expect. flags used: -O2 -mcpu=power4 #if 1 #define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 1) #else #define likely(x) x #endif int i; void foo(void) {

[Bug tree-optimization/19686] [4.0 Regression] loop performance decrease, not comparing against 0

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-07 03:01 --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) Understood, Thanks (apparently it' becomming more important to get the costs more correct). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19686

[Bug tree-optimization/19686] [4.0 Regression] loop performance decrease, not comparing against 0

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 02:46 --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) It is minor because it is a missed optimization. (this really is a target dependent bug in that different cost matrixes give different answers so it mig

[Bug tree-optimization/19686] [4.0 Regression] loop performance decrease, not comparing against 0

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-07 02:42 --- (In reply to comment #2) Might it be possible to change the severity to at least "normal" and possibly reclassify it as a "mis-optimization", as it's very typical for folks who know processors to intentionally w

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 02:13 --- In reply to comment #3, will do, as soon as that machine is done with cris-elf testing. (In the meantime, let me remind that anyone, including you, can check out a combined tree and try it.) -- http://gcc.gnu

[Bug other/19802] New: scan-not-hidden breaks with unknown object format

testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp:hidden-scan-for returns an empty string for object formats other than elf and mach-o. This causes any tests using scan-not-hidden to fail. Instead, they should be UNRESOLVED when how to test for hidden symbols on that object format is not known. Likewise, scan-hidden sh

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-02-07 02:08 --- Untested fix here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00223.html HP, could you check whether it fixes mmix-knuth-mixware for you? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19800

[Bug preprocessor/19801] [4.0 Regression] cppinternals.texi references old file names

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 02:05 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added CC||bonzini at

[Bug other/17135] -freorder-functions mis-documented

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 02:04 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/19799] sibcall-3.c and sibcall-4.c fail on hppa64-*-hpux*

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:58 --- Hmm, for sibcall-3.c (likewise for 4) we have the following comment: This test is xfailed on targets without sibcall patterns (except targets where the test does not work due to the return address not

[Bug c++/19797] [4.0 Regression] g++.dg/abi/inline1.C fails on hppa*-*-hpux*

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:54 --- I want to say this is target bug, because there was a change to move hppa*-*-hpux* over to weak symbol support. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19797

[Bug other/17135] -freorder-functions mis-documented

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:52 --- Subject: Bug 17135 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-07 01:52:27 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/doc: i

[Bug other/14402] gccbug confusion

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:52 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

-- What|Removed |Added CC|pinskia at physics dot uc |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |dot edu |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:49 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Adding CC:s based on the accusation and description in > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00220.html>. > To repeat, build a combined tree for mmix-knuth-mmixware > (sim

[Bug target/19800] [regression 4.0] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:23 --- Adding CC:s based on the accusation and description in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00220.html>. To repeat, build a combined tree for mmix-knuth-mmixware (simtest-howto.html yadda yadda no simulat

[Bug preprocessor/19801] New: cppinternals.texi references old file names

cppinternals.texi refers to old file names cpphash.h, cpplex.c, cppfiles.c. In 4.0 the files have been renamed. -- Summary: cppinternals.texi references old file names Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/19800] [regression 4.0] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

-- What|Removed |Added Summary|mmix-knuth-mmixware broken |[regression 4.0] mmix-knuth- ||mmixware broken http://gcc.gnu.o

[Bug target/19800] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware broken

With LAST_UPDATED: "Mon Feb 7 00:40:47 UTC 2005" I get: /home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/gcc/xgcc -B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/gcc/ -nostdinc -B/home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/mmix-knu\ th-mmixware/gnuabi/newlib/ -isystem /home/hp/combined/mmixware-sim/mmix-knuth-mmixware/gnuabi/newlib/targ-inclu

[Bug other/14402] gccbug confusion

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:10 --- Subject: Bug 14402 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-07 01:10:14 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/doc: i

[Bug other/18871] Should use -Wextra instead of -W during bootstrap

--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 01:02 --- I see no reason we'd ever want to carry the deprecation of the -W name through to removing it or making it warn that it is deprecated; synonyms for warning options don't cause any implementation problems or co

[Bug c/11751] wrong evaluation order of an expression

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-07 00:19 --- *** Bug 19798 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/19798] Prefix ++ doing wrong in an addition

--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-07 00:19 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11751 *** -- What|Removed |Added Statu

[Bug rtl-optimization/19799] New: sibcall-3.c and sibcall-4.c fail on hppa64-*-hpux*

The tests gcc.dg/sibcall-3.c and gcc.dg/sibcall-4.c (execution tests) fail on hppa64-hp-hpux11.{11,23}. Not a regression relative to 3.4.x. -- Summary: sibcall-3.c and sibcall-4.c fail on hppa64-*-hpux* Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/19798] New: Prefix ++ doing wrong in an addition

A program as simple as: int b = 10; int a; a = (++b) + (++b) + (++b); printf("%d", a); shows the wrong answer. It should be 36, it shows 37. Optimisations on or off throw the same result. Source of the problem: Generated code. Pseudo C/asm code: ++b; ++b; %eax = b; %edx = b; %edx += %ea

[Bug c++/19797] New: [4.0 Regression] g++.dg/abi/inline1.C fails on hppa*-*-hpux*

The test g++.dg/abi/inline1.C scan-assembler-not _ZTV1S fails on hppa{2.0w,64}-hp-hpux11.{11,23}. This is a regression from 3.4.x. -- Summary: [4.0 Regression] g++.dg/abi/inline1.C fails on hppa*-*- hpux* Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0

[Bug bootstrap/19796] New: Bootstrap fails: Unresolved data symbol "set_fpc_csr"

My mips-sgi-irix6.5 bootstraps have been failing since 25 Jan. (I have been travelling and didn't notice). - The last successful build was 2005-01-24 09:07 UTC - First failure was approx 2005-01-25 09:00 UTX I suspect that the problem is due to: 2005-01-24 Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED

[Bug tree-optimization/19686] [4.0 Regression] loop performance decrease, not comparing against 0

--- Additional Comments From andrewhutchinson at cox dot net 2005-02-06 23:06 --- Taking X as the initial value of x on function entry. The loop is defined as i=X to 0, step -1. Which is a simple do loop. It gets "optimized" as i=0 to -X, step -1. (Which is something bizarre!) The cod

[Bug tree-optimization/17790] [4.0 Regression] Significant compile time increases for sixtrack with tree LICM and IV optimization

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 20:25 --- Updated version of the patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00205.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17790

[Bug other/7549] gcc3.1: Documentation glitches in info-files

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 19:42 --- Fixed in 4.0.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOL

[Bug other/7549] gcc3.1: Documentation glitches in info-files

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 19:37 --- Subject: Bug 7549 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-06 19:37:25 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/doc: in

[Bug c/19795] GCC needs mechanism to expose compile-time declared reserved global registers to asm programs.

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19795

[Bug c/19795] New: GCC needs mechanism to expose compile-time declared reserved global registers to asm programs.

If such a mechanism existed, asm programs would able to be structured to honor their declaration as such; thereby enable implementations of set/longjump to exclude them from being otherwise improperly save/restored, for example, etc. -- Summary: GCC needs mechanism to expose compile-ti

[Bug tree-optimization/19789] tree optimizers do not know that constant global variables do not change

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:51 --- This dump shows a number of problems. For starters, global_constant should not be call clobbered. This is something diego should look at. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/18219] [4.0 Regression] gcc-4.0.0 bloats code by 31%

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:47 --- Subject: Bug 18219 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-06 18:47:14 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c Lo

[Bug other/18961] Large output causes testsuite failure

--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:46 --- Does your version of expect include the patch in bug 12096? If not, and if using a version with that patch fixes your problem, then this would be a duplicate of that bug. -- What|Removed

[Bug fortran/18003] Parser failure in printing of array intrisics (lbound)

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Last reconfirmed|2004-11-06 16:09:59 |2005-02-06 18:44:13 date|

[Bug fortran/19777] -fbounds-check catches non-existent bounds violation

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:38 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug tree-optimization/19782] New: Aliasing optimisation bug

The attached C++ program triggers an assertion violation when compiled with -O2 (it should not). The assertion is not triggered when adding -fno-strict-aliasing, or when removing -O2. It is also working when slight changes to the program are made (see comments in the source). It is the smallest

[Bug rtl-optimization/19786] [4.0 Regression] Aliasing optimisation bug

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:34 --- *** Bug 19784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19786

[Bug rtl-optimization/19786] [4.0 Regression] Aliasing optimisation bug

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:35 --- *** Bug 19782 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19786

[Bug rtl-optimization/19786] [4.0 Regression] Aliasing optimisation bug

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:34 --- *** Bug 19784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:34 --- *** Bug 19783 has been marked as a duplicate of this b

[Bug tree-optimization/19783] New: Aliasing optimisation bug

The attached C++ program triggers an assertion violation when compiled with -O2 (it should not). The assertion is not triggered when adding -fno-strict-aliasing, or when removing -O2. It is also working when slight changes to the program are made (see comments in the source). It is the smallest

[Bug tree-optimization/19784] New: Aliasing optimisation bug

The attached C++ program triggers an assertion violation when compiled with -O2 (it should not). The assertion is not triggered when adding -fno-strict-aliasing, or when removing -O2. It is also working when slight changes to the program are made (see comments in the source). It is the smallest

[Bug rtl-optimization/19786] [4.0 Regression] Aliasing optimisation bug

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:34 --- *** Bug 19785 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19786

[Bug tree-optimization/19785] New: Aliasing optimisation bug

The attached C++ program triggers an assertion violation when compiled with -O2 (it should not). The assertion is not triggered when adding -fno-strict-aliasing, or when removing -O2. It is also working when slight changes to the program are made (see comments in the source). It is the smallest

[Bug fortran/19754] Shape conformance not checked

--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2005-02-06 18:12 --- An updated patch that does not have the regression is here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-02/msg00039.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19754

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

--- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 18:08 --- If you want to compare how the memory footprint has affected performance, use these flags in 3.3 and later: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096 Those are the hardcoded values that 3.2 us

[Bug tree-optimization/19789] tree optimizers do not know that constant global variables do not change

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-06 18:08 --- Yes, global_constant is considered call clobbered. Here is the full dump of .t18.alias1. ;; Function foo (foo) foo: Total number of aliased vops: 1 Referenced variables in foo: 5 Variable: global_constant

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||19516 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||18832 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||18076 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||18046 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||17116 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||16538 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||15352 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794

[Bug tree-optimization/19794] New: [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs

Please make jump threading related bugs block this meta bug. -- Summary: [meta-bug] Jump threading related bugs Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: meta-bug Severity: enhancement Priority: P2

[Bug tree-optimization/19516] missed optimization (bool)

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-06 17:49 --- Hi Richard, I didn't say that load elimination is the *only* way to take this optimization opportunity. DOM *can* thread incoming edges to a basic block with more than COND_EXPR or SWITCH_EXPR in limited cir

[Bug middle-end/19721] [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 17:41 --- Arguably, PR16961 is not directly related. But if we fix that bug and the similar "long long" issues on 32 bits hosts, then the "64 bits arith on 32 bits hosts" thing should be a non-issue (assuming the tr

[Bug tree-optimization/19788] Inconsistent handling of -1.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 17:17 --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) Really TREE_OVERFLOW/TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW should go away, there has been some talk about removing them. on the tree level, having that flag set we rea

[Bug tree-optimization/19788] Inconsistent handling of -1.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-06 17:14 --- (In reply to comment #1) - as I'm curious as to what the "proper" interpretation/handling of target dependant constant value casts should be; it seems that in the provided example, the optimized transformati

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:54 --- Considering the numbers from #44, #48, and #49, I think we can conclude that we are back to the compile times GCC 3.0 used to have. It should be noted that we have a significantly larger memory foot print

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:49 --- Similar numbers on a 1.4GHz Xeon (i686): gcc32 gcc33 gcc34 gcc40 -O0 18.865s 15.107s 13.286s 10.193s -O1 33.511s 30.096s 24.693s 23.543s -O2 46.527s 42.657s 42.618s 33.549s -O

[Bug tree-optimization/19789] tree optimizers do not know that constant global variables do not change

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:26 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at

[Bug tree-optimization/19791] [tcb] A constant not fully propagated

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:25 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at

[Bug c/19664] libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around the declarations

--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-06 16:23 --- I don't think emitting R_X86_64_PC32 is a bug since -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden is used and the undefined function can be defined in another .o file. The real bug is gcc doesn't emit .hidden f

[Bug tree-optimization/19792] Missed optimizations due to signedness in the way

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:17 --- Confirmed, For bar, my tree combiner fixes the missed optimization. Not for foo. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:12 --- Confirmed but guess what my tree combiner fixes the problem: # i_24 = PHI ; :; D.1165_26 = (unsigned int) i_24; D.1166_25 = D.1165_26 + 1; i_9 = (int) D.1166_25; bar (i_9); D.1121_5 = D.1165_26 >

[Bug tree-optimization/19788] Inconsistent handling of -1.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:04 --- Confirmed. The problem is from TREE_OVERFLOW/TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/8361] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] C++ compile-time performance regression

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:04 --- All compilers were bootstrapped, with the following flags: "--disable-{nls,checking} --enable-languages=c,c++" Below, gcc40 is CVS HEAD. This was on a 1.6GHz Opteron, with -m32. The machine has 4GB of

[Bug bootstrap/19793] testing pr

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 15:53 --- Person having trouble has confirmed it is fixed now -- What|Removed |Added Statu

[Bug tree-optimization/19792] Missed optimizations due to signedness in the way

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||19721 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19792

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||19721 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19790

[Bug tree-optimization/19791] [tcb] A constant not fully propagated

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||19721 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19791

  1   2   >