[Bug middle-end/35854] [4.3/4.4 Regression] life passes dump option still documented

--- Comment #5 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2009-01-28 19:42 --- Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] life passes dump option still documented On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >> --- C

[Bug target/37808] [4.4 Regression]: Revision 141067 breaks Linux/x86

--- Comment #9 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2008-10-12 21:17 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Revision 141067 breaks Linux/x86 On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >> ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

--- Comment #12 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-12-10 20:56 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering On Dec 10, 2007 9:46 PM, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch fixes where the move insn is inserted on pre increments.

[Bug tree-optimization/33826] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] GCC generates wrong code for infinitely recursive functions

--- Comment #12 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-11-08 09:08 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] GCC generates wrong code for infinitely recursive functions On 11/7/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch keeps recursive functions f

[Bug tree-optimization/32461] [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700

--- Comment #29 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-24 19:53 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700 On 6/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMA

[Bug tree-optimization/32461] [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700

--- Comment #23 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-24 12:59 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700 On 6/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/24/07, Richard Guenthe

[Bug tree-optimization/32461] [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700

--- Comment #20 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-24 11:40 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700 On 6/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMA

[Bug tree-optimization/32461] [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700

--- Comment #10 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-23 19:24 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700 On 6/23/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/23/07, Sebastian Po

[Bug tree-optimization/32461] [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700

--- Comment #9 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-23 18:36 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Segmentation fault in build_classic_dist_vector_1() at tree-data-ref.c:2700 On 6/23/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > In data dependence

[Bug target/32437] [4.3 Regression] MIPS: FAIL in gcc.dg/cleanup-[8|9|10|11].c

--- Comment #10 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-23 16:12 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] MIPS: FAIL in gcc.dg/cleanup-[8|9|10|11].c On 6/23/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch changes dce:deletable_insn_p so that it looks at a

[Bug middle-end/20623] ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with --enable-checking=fold

--- Comment #25 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-21 10:07 --- Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with --enable-checking=fold On 6/21/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > On 6/21/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTE

[Bug middle-end/20623] ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with --enable-checking=fold

--- Comment #22 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-21 08:16 --- Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with --enable-checking=fold On 6/21/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, here is the final fix for the remaining cases

[Bug tree-optimization/21829] [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump threading after unroller

--- Comment #11 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2006-03-22 15:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump threading after unroller On 3/22/06, Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 12:14 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >

[Bug tree-optimization/21829] [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump threading after unroller

--- Comment #9 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2006-03-22 11:14 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] missed jump threading after unroller On 3/21/06, Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It turns out this specialized PHI optimization pass is as effec

[Bug tree-optimization/22236] [4.1 Regression] wrong code for casts and scev

--- Additional Comments From richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2005-07-26 10:38 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code for casts and scev You should also add the (two) testcases from the PR. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22236

[Bug tree-optimization/15524] [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases

--- Additional Comments From richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2004-11-03 15:44 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:07:58 -0500, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > &