--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 12:51
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> No progress since this PR was opened. Ping.
Yes, progress has been impossible until now. I expect to slowly getting some
content written in the next little while.
--
dnovillo
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-22 19:47
---
Proposed patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg01032.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41554
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-02 21:31
---
Subject: Bug 41548
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri Oct 2 21:31:43 2009
New Revision: 152422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152422
Log:
2009-10-02 Diego Novillo
* sourcebu
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-02 21:31
---
Subject: Bug 41547
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri Oct 2 21:31:43 2009
New Revision: 152422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152422
Log:
2009-10-02 Diego Novillo
* sourcebu
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: espindola at google dot com
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41550
s_elf for --enable-gold.)
--
Summary: LTO configuration should detect if the target is ELF
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu d
x27;t yet looked at the patches
with the bulk of the LTO sources to see if there are suitable comments
there); a wiki page that has moved on to describing new arrangements for
4.6 is of less use when fixing a bug on 4.5 branch. But this is secondary
to getting a proper description for
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 20:17
---
More portability concerns from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg02157.html
> +/* This needs to be included after config.h. Otherwise, _GNU_SOURCE will not
> + be defined in time to set __U
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 19:50
---
Other portability concerns:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg02157.html
> The host portability issue with __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")))
> has already been noted. I sugg
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41526
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-28 16:24
---
Should be fixed now. We now test for libelf features during configuration.
Please reopen if it still fails.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-14 21:41
---
This is likely fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg00819.html,
could you try again?
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-17 21:13
---
Fixed.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-17 21:12
---
Subject: Bug 31567
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:11:46 2009
New Revision: 146292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146292
Log:
PR 31567
* gcc.c (create_at_fi
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-17 20:51
---
Proposed patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg01379.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-04 12:40
---
Fixed.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-19 17:12
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I agree with pinskia, and think this should be closed as invalid.
Likewise. At most we could emit a warning when we see p = &i.
Diego.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 21:40
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00796.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 21:38
---
Subject: Bug 39203
Author: dnovillo
Date: Tue Feb 17 21:38:05 2009
New Revision: 144248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144248
Log:
2009-02-17 Diego Novillo
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 16:15
---
I think the easiest way to handle this would be for the driver to disable
-fwhole-program when the IL is being generated. Otherwise, all the symbols are
privatized.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 21:23
---
The recent patch only fixes the case for x86_64. This is still broken on ppc.
Will try to implement the first suggestion from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00074.html
/* confdefs.h. */
#define
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 18:06
---
Subject: Bug 39001
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Feb 4 18:05:51 2009
New Revision: 143935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143935
Log:
PR 39001
* toplev.c (eh_personal
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 17:49
---
Testing patch with the more straightforward of the two suggestions from Cary:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00105.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39001
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-31 18:51
---
The patch
2009-01-30 H.J. Lu
PR lto/39010
* lto-function-out.c (output_string): Properly handle the
trailing '\0'.
(output_
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-31 18:49
---
Subject: Bug 39010
Author: dnovillo
Date: Sat Jan 31 18:49:10 2009
New Revision: 143828
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143828
Log:
Revert
2009-01-30
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:08
---
*** Bug 39011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 21:08
---
This is the same issue reported in 39001, except that it happens on a different
file.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39001 ***
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:17
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg01367.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:05
---
Subject: Bug 39004
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Jan 28 15:05:16 2009
New Revision: 143731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143731
Log:
PR middle-end/39004
* lto-funct
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 13:41
---
Additional information on the failure and a suggestion on a possible fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00074.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 23:00
---
No, of course not. This is by design. The lto1 binary is the front end for
GIMPLE, as with any other front end, it has to be specifically requested when
configuring the compiler. You have to add 'lto
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 22:10
---
The libelf included in Red Hat based distros is different than the one we used
to develop LTO. There was a thread on IRC recently where Jakub proposed a way
of working around this:
(16:27:18) jakub: dnovillo
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 15:23
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Created an attachment (id=17107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17107&action=view) [edit]
> Here is the updated patch.
OK.
Diego.
--
http:
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-31 19:32
---
Initial fix at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg00953.html
Keeping open as thunks with varargs are still broken.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-20 18:47
---
Subject: Bug 38178
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Nov 20 18:45:58 2008
New Revision: 142055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142055
Log:
2008-11-20 Rafael Espindola <[EMAI
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-08 20:13
---
Subject: Bug 37421
Author: dnovillo
Date: Mon Sep 8 20:12:38 2008
New Revision: 140119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140119
Log:
2008-09-08 Diego Novillo <[EMAI
ion
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37421
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 15:39
---
Subject: Bug 36245
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Jun 11 15:39:09 2008
New Revision: 136672
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136672
Log:
2008-06-11 Diego Novillo <[EMAI
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-02 17:04
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-05/msg02061.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-30 16:12
---
Subject: Bug 36245
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri May 30 16:11:58 2008
New Revision: 136212
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136212
Log:
2008-05-30 Diego Novillo <[EMAI
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-11 05:56
---
Fixed on mainline (4.4).
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-06 20:01
---
Thanks. This is known and I'm working on a fix. In the meantime, you can get
a clean build of the branch if you configure with --disable-bootstrap
--disable-libmudflap --disable-libgomp --enable-langua
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-24 16:41
---
Subject: Bug 33738
Author: dnovillo
Date: Sun Feb 24 16:40:32 2008
New Revision: 132591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132591
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 16:58
---
Why was I CC'd on this PR?
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 16:32
---
Subject: Bug 33738
Author: dnovillo
Date: Tue Feb 5 16:31:20 2008
New Revision: 132124
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132124
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 04:29
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00110.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 04:18
---
Subject: Bug 33738
Author: dnovillo
Date: Tue Feb 5 04:17:58 2008
New Revision: 132111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132111
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
.html
--
Summary: Testcase gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20070302-1.c is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
Repor
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-08 14:24
---
Will work on this.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 15:47
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00719.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 15:20
---
Subject: Bug 33870
Author: dnovillo
Date: Tue Nov 13 15:20:40 2007
New Revision: 130141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130141
Log:
pr 33870
* tree.h
--- Comment #21 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 00:26
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00374.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 00:01
---
Subject: Bug 33870
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Nov 8 00:01:38 2007
New Revision: 129976
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129976
Log:
PR 33870
* tree.h
--- Comment #19 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-02 15:31
---
Working on a fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33870
hen comparing enums
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-30 16:00
---
Subject: Bug 33593
Author: dnovillo
Date: Sun Sep 30 16:00:36 2007
New Revision: 128893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=128893
Log:
PR 33593
* tree-s
wrap around
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33099
--- Comment #15 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-16 15:22
---
If not an exact duplicate, it's strongly related to 18501. The code pattern is
slightly different so it may be worth keeping around. Adding a dependency on
18501.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-03 13:12
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg00174.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-03 13:08
---
Subject: Bug 31521
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri Aug 3 13:08:29 2007
New Revision: 127180
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127180
Log:
2007-08-03 Andrew Pinski <[EMAI
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-18 12:30
---
Fixed symptoms with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01081.html.
Real fix still being discussed.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32390
--- Comment #24 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-15 22:10
---
Subject: Bug 32327
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri Jun 15 22:10:09 2007
New Revision: 125748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125748
Log:
PR 32327
* tree-ssa-op
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-15 13:27
---
Working on this today.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
causing removal of live code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC bui
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-12 00:28
---
Hmm, I may have triggered this one with the fix for 30735. I had inadvertently
tested with checking disabled. Will take a look.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 17:14
---
Subject: Bug 30735
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Apr 11 17:14:06 2007
New Revision: 123719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123719
Log:
PR 30735
PR 31090
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 17:14
---
Subject: Bug 31090
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Apr 11 17:14:06 2007
New Revision: 123719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123719
Log:
PR 30735
PR 31090
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-05 12:49
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> So, why does SSA pass have to interfere with computation dataflow? This
> interferece makes things worse and effectively takes away user's control on
> the
> flow
--- Comment #15 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-31 19:28
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg02059.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-31 19:22
---
Subject: Bug 29585
Author: dnovillo
Date: Sat Mar 31 19:21:46 2007
New Revision: 123386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123386
Log:
2007-03-31 Diego Novillo <[EMAI
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 19:55
---
I can't reproduce this on mainline anymore. It does fail on the 4.2 branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29585
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|dnovillo at redhat dot com |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 23:53
---
I'm already handling this family of performance problems. I need a few more
days to finish the WIP patch I have. In the meantime, see if increasing
--param max-aliased-vops works around the pr
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-06 12:55
---
Might as well take this one too.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-04 19:04
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> If you have a run directory:
> cd gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/c4/c41307d
> gdb .../gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.3.0/gnat1
> r -I../../../support -quiet -dumpbase c41
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-04 18:37
---
I've just reproduced these failures locally. Two options:
1- The Ada FE is somehow tricking alias analysis into thinking that some
call-clobbered symbols are not call-clobbered.
2- Alias analysis i
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 12:35
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Frankly, I think it would make sense to remove completely this XFAIL-ing mess
> and just wait for Diego to fix the compiler issue.
>
Agreed. I don't understand why the r
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:54
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Diego, is this something that you might be able to help with?
>
Sure.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30791
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 00:59
---
I have now reproduced this locally and I'm working on a fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30735
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-08 17:10
---
Fix http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00727.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30562
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-08 16:56
---
Subject: Bug 30562
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Feb 8 16:55:43 2007
New Revision: 121715
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121715
Log:
PR 30562
* tree-flow.h (struct v
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-07 23:33
---
I cannot reproduce this bug with mainline as of 2007-02-06. The bug is still
latent though, so I will commit a variant of this patch to fix it.
Essentially, we should leave every TREE_ADDRESSABLE variable alone
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 19:48
---
Testing alternate patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30562
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:49
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Is this now being looked into by Diego or Aldy?
>
It wasn't. It is now.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-19 13:49
---
This is not a valid bug report. You have failed to include even the bare
minimal information needed. Read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #12 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-14 19:50
---
Subject: Bug 30194
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Dec 14 19:50:11 2006
New Revision: 119867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119867
Log:
PR 30194
* gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c:
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-14 19:29
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760,
> > > then
> > &
--- Comment #12 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-14 02:50
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I'll give the bitmaps a try for the operand scanner and see how it works.
>
OK. Hopefully that won't introduce a huge slowdown in the operand scanner.
Assig
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 23:54
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The memory problem is quite simple: We just have a *lot* of pointers and a
> *lot* of addressable symbols. Here is a breakdown of what happens on the
> first
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 23:50
---
The memory problem is quite simple: We just have a *lot* of pointers and a
*lot* of addressable symbols. Here is a breakdown of what happens on the first
call to compute_may_aliases:
During the first call to
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 22:37
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760, then
> > let me know and I'll take a look.
>
> I can rep
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 17:49
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Looks like the mem-ssa patches cause this.
> There are no other patches in that time frame.
>
There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760, then
le
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 17:41
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > You completely misunderstood. It works for me on my *mainline* tree that
> > has
> > the mem-ssa patch applied.
> Then why does it
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 17:32
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00959.html fixes the ICE in the
operand scanner.
The alias times should be back to saner values, but the memory consumption
problem is still there. Still looking into
1 - 100 of 377 matches
Mail list logo