http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61081
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:33:03PM +, peter_e at gmx dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61081
>
> --- Comment #2 from Peter Eisentraut ---
> No, these "functions" need to have a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-22
20:03:59 UTC ---
It happens in cunrolli pass. It might be propagate_constants_for_unrolling.
It seems we eventually end up removing BB 9 and 11, which might be wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-22
14:22:46 UTC ---
With very slightly modified testcase:
int a[10];
void
foo (void)
{
int x;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1;)
{
int b[3];
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
b[i] = a[i];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-21
15:11:08 UTC ---
Hmm. I hoped that something like this will show the leak, but no (it does a
lot of threading with -O2--through conditionals, through loop headers and also
through latches). Bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54621
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54486
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-01
13:15:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> May I ask why?
See e.g. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-02/msg00943.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-01
11:10:10 UTC ---
Also, __attribute__((naked)) for x86 will never be implemented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2012-08-31
05:46:07 UTC ---
Reduced. Note that the typedef is needed to trigger ICE.
typedef double _Complex fftw_complex;
extern fftw_complex *fftw_alloc_complex (int);
int
cf (int n)
{
int K = 75;
int n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
17 matches
Mail list logo