[Bug libstdc++/65022] New: basic_string operator

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com operators don't return reference if out of range http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4296.pdf 21.4.5 basic_string element access [string.access] const_reference operator[](size_type pos)

[Bug lto/63242] memory starvation caused by flatten attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63242 --- Comment #2 from wbrana --- How I can create such testcase? I can reproduce it on Gentoo by adding -flto to /etc/portage/make.conf and running: emerge xf86-video-intel but can't reproduce from command-line gcc -std=gnu99 -O3 -shared -fPIC -f

[Bug lto/63242] New: memory starvation caused by flatten attribute

: lto Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com forwarded from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77580 Hello, I've been testing GCC 4.9 for a virtual gentoo machine and I noticed that you us flatten attribute in source code. In ca

[Bug driver/61274] excessive code size with large-unit-insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61274 --- Comment #2 from wbrana --- gcc should probably support new level -O4 which will optimize for benchmarks, which will equal to current -O3 -O3 and bellow will optimize for applications with saner "--param" values

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #10 from wbrana --- there is difference also with O2 and branch 4.9 size in bytes 57199 -O2 55222 -O2 -flto 60681 -O2 -finline-functions 75301 -O2 -flto -finline-functions 67083 -O2 -flto -finline-functions --param large-unit-insns=1

[Bug driver/61274] New: excessive code size with large-unit-insns

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com according to docs inline-unit-growth limit is effective only when unit size is above large-unit-insns, which means if application consists of many small units with many inlineable functions, application

[Bug driver/61270] New: max-inline-insns-single is too high

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com -finline-limit sets max-inline-insns-single and max-inline-insns-auto to same value max-inline-insns-auto is 40 by default which is sane, but max-inline-insns-single is 400 which seems to be insane all

[Bug driver/56244] -O3 should imply -funroll-loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56244 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wbrana at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from

[Bug lto/54108] 35% bigger binary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54108 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2013-04-13 17:59:47 UTC --- lto/gold -finline-limit=43 99960 bytes NUMERIC SORT: 1471.2 : 37.73 : 12.39 -finline-limit=44 149136 bytes NUMERIC SORT: 1705.2 :

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2013-04-13 17:34:23 UTC --- -fno-inline-functions makes same tests 12% or 6% slower with lto/gold NUMERIC SORT: 1689.2 : 43.32 : 14.23 NUMERIC SORT: 1483.2 : 3

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2013-04-13 17:01:27 UTC --- executable is smaller with lto when I add -fno-inline-functions 95928 vs 93880

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #5 from wbrana 2013-04-13 16:43:10 UTC --- branch 4.9 without lto 101462 bytes with -flto -fwhole-program 157243 bytes - linker bfd 155488 bytes - linker gold other CFLAGS = -O3 -g0 -march=corei7 -fomit-frame-pointer

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #15 from wbrana 2013-03-12 14:28:43 UTC --- I can see different results with different linkers - see above. Your CPU is Nehalem quad core, but my CPU is Sandy Bridge dual core, which have less L1/L2/L3 cache.

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #13 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:57:32 UTC --- There is almost no difference with reduced test case. Assignment in nbench can be tested with: ./nbench -cCOM.DAT where file COM.DAT has content: ALLSTATS=F DONUMSORT=F DOSTRI

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:41:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1 > 192263 - slow > 192260 - fast I meant 196260 and 196263

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #11 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:36:10 UTC --- GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1 192263 - slow 192260 - fast GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.23.1) 1.11 192263 - fast 192260 - slow It is possible that result also depends on CPU model (

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:27:49 UTC --- I found strange thing - result depends on linker there is slow down with "GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1" there is improvement with "GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.23.1) 1.11"

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:24:38 UTC --- Created attachment 29624 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29624 nbench1.c.164t.optimized.diff

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:23:35 UTC --- Created attachment 29623 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29623 assign.c.164t.optimized.diff

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:22:03 UTC --- Created attachment 29622 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29622 assign.c with main function

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #5 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:17:52 UTC --- weird results in comment 4 were caused by unexpected Gentoo patches and/or broken GIT I made own build which doesn't contain any Gentoo patches and still can reproduce 9% slow down cau

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2013-03-07 18:35:10 UTC --- compiled 196260 again using same way and nbench is now slow, which is strange. When I compile nbench using gcc compiled from snapshot ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130224/

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] New: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 Bug #: 56522 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug c/56458] New: support for crash on invalid array access

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56458 Bug #: 56458 Summary: support for crash on invalid array access Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug bootstrap/56182] [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/56182] [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Host|

[Bug bootstrap/56182] [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2013-02-02 12:33:30 UTC --- Created attachment 29336 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29336 gcc/config/i386/t-linux64

[Bug bootstrap/56182] [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2013-02-02 12:31:45 UTC --- Created attachment 29335 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29335 build log

[Bug bootstrap/56182] New: [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 Bug #: 56182 Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.4

[Bug tree-optimization/55968] New: Bytemark HUFFMAN 11% slower with -ftree-vectorize

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55968 Bug #: 55968 Summary: Bytemark HUFFMAN 11% slower with -ftree-vectorize Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7 Regression] Bytemark

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #13 from wbrana 2012-11-30 20:23:40 UTC --- It seems it is caused by 182844 182839 ASSIGNMENT : 64.374 : 244.96 : 63.54 182844 ASSIGNMENT : 57.697 : 219.55 : 56.95

[Bug bootstrap/54329] [4.8 Regression] gcc/cfgcleanup.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2012-11-17 15:01:34 UTC --- more exact CFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -O3 -funroll-loops -g0 -march=corei7 -ffast-math -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector -static

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #11 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:52:44 UTC --- It seems I was wrong. Reverting 175752 doesn't fix performance. I used also Gentoo patches with patch which reverts 175752. I thought that it isn't possible, but it seems some of Gen

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:30:22 UTC --- Created attachment 28719 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28719 build log from broken gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #9 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:29:20 UTC --- Created attachment 28718 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28718 build log from non-broken gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:26:18 UTC --- Created attachment 28717 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28717 Gentoo patches 3

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:25:23 UTC --- Created attachment 28716 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28716 Gentoo patches 2

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:24:44 UTC --- Created attachment 28715 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28715 Gentoo patches 1

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2012-11-15 17:01:22 UTC --- Bytemark source code http://www.tux.org/~mayer/linux/nbench-byte-2.2.3.tar.gz

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #3 from wbrana 2012-11-15 16:16:05 UTC --- Created attachment 28700 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28700 function Assignment with 175752 according to gprof Assignment is called 1574 times without 175752

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-11-15 16:12:57 UTC --- Created attachment 28699 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28699 function Assignment without 175752

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #17 from wbrana 2012-11-12 13:17:08 UTC --- there is another bug caused by revision 175752 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] New: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 Bug #: 55286 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|Bytemark FP EMULATION

[Bug tree-optimization/54153] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54977] New: example3 not vectorized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54977 Bug #: 54977 Summary: example3 not vectorized Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #15 from wbrana 2012-10-04 14:25:29 UTC --- I can reliably reproduce bug on Core 2. Reverting 175752 reliably fixes bug.

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/54329] [4.8 Regression] gcc/cfgcleanup.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-09-24 11:48:51 UTC --- still broken

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/cfgcleanup.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #28055|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 201

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 --- Comment #3 from wbrana 2012-08-20 12:04:05 UTC --- configure --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.8.0-pre --includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.8.0-pre/include --datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linu

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2012-08-20 11:20:33 UTC --- Created attachment 28055 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28055 build log

[Bug bootstrap/54329] New: gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 Bug #: 54329 Summary: gcc/reginfo.o differs Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug target/54246] Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower with glibc 2.16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower |Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower |i

[Bug tree-optimization/54271] New: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271 Bug #: 54271 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54246] New: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246 Bug #: 54246 Summary: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #53 from wbrana 2012-08-13 08:26:13 UTC --- It seems it was improved. 4.8 20120806 NUMERIC SORT: 1543.7 : 39.59 : 13.00 4.8 20120813 NUMERIC SORT: 2007.8 : 51.49 : 16.91

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #52 from wbrana 2012-08-12 12:30:21 UTC --- This bug celebrated 7th anniversary this year. Congratulations!

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #23 from wbrana 2012-08-11 15:17:04 UTC --- Why lot of program's makefiles have to be changed? If this change breaks some program, developers of that program will fix it. You don't have to. New versions of GCC always break many progra

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #20 from wbrana 2012-08-11 07:39:37 UTC --- Why -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default without -fPIE, but disabled with -fPIE?

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #18 from wbrana 2012-08-11 07:01:18 UTC --- I can use it, but other people don't have to know about this bug.

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #13 from wbrana 2012-08-10 17:29:15 UTC --- Created attachment 27987 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27987 bash compiled with -fPIE -pie

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2012-08-10 17:27:02 UTC --- Created attachment 27986 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27986 bash compiled with -fPIE -pie -fvisibility=hidden

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-08-10 13:49:19 UTC --- How can I tell linker to not export symbols?

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-10 13:40:29 UTC --- int func() { return random(); } int main(){ return func(); } $ gcc-4.7.2 -O2 1.c -o 1 $ nm -CD ./1 w __gmon_start__ U __libc_start_main

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-fPIE -pie shouldn't|-fvisibility=hidden |disable -

[Bug other/54182] -fPIE -pie shouldn't disable -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|build | Summary|enable -fvisibility=hidden

[Bug other/54182] enable -fvisibility=hidden with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug lto/54187] liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug lto/54187] liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-08-06 08:57:43 UTC --- Executables are smaller and loads faster with -fvisibility=hidden. Since which version -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default? 4.7.2 pre doesn't use -fvisibility=hidden by default.

[Bug other/54182] enable -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WORKSFORME

[Bug lto/54187] New: liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187 Bug #: 54187 Summary: liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug other/54182] New: enable -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 Bug #: 54182 Summary: enable -fvisibility=hidden Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 C

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #18 from wbrana 2012-08-05 14:11:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > Sorry, but this is just rubbish. You didn't confute my statements.

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2012-08-05 13:31:28 UTC --- embedded systems compiler doesn't mean you can run gcc on embedded system, but you can cross compile for embedded system. Average user doesn't build or use compiler. It is only done by devel

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-05 12:27:52 UTC --- 2 GB RAM isn't enough. It isn't good idea to use x86_64 with 2 GB RAM.

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #5 from wbrana 2012-08-05 12:00:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > And what type of super-computer is that ? outdated, almost 5 years old: Core 2 Quad 3.2 GHz, 4 GB RAM

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wbrana at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #11 from wbrana 2012-08-05 10:56:58 UTC --- I found something strange. There is much smaller slow down in ASSIGNMENT without 175752 with Gentoo Hardened patches gcc version 4.7.2 20120804 (prerelease) (Gentoo Hardened 4.7.2 p1.2, pie

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-08-01 22:35:29 UTC --- Reversion of 175752 on latest 4.7 branch improved FP EMU by 41%, but made ASSIGNMENT worse by 8%. with 175752 NUMERIC SORT: 1562.9 : 40.08 : 13.16 STRING SORT

[Bug tree-optimization/54153] New: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153 Bug #: 54153 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug testsuite/54152] New: add Bytemark

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152 Bug #: 54152 Summary: add Bytemark Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-01 10:59:46 UTC --- If I didn't make mistake it seems big slow down is caused by revision 175752 Date: Fri Jul 1 10:00:25 2011 + 2011-07-01 Kai Tietz * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bi

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-07-31 22:45:25 UTC --- 4.7 20110626 FP EMULATION: 318.44 : 152.80 : 35.26 4.7 20110703 FP EMULATION: 228.08 : 109.44 : 25.25

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-07-31 17:50:20 UTC --- Created attachment 27909 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27909 20120429

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2012-07-31 17:48:57 UTC --- Created attachment 27908 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27908 20120422

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] New: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 Bug #: 54143 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2012-07-31 10:11:48 UTC --- clang FP EMULATION: 405.92 : 194.78 : 44.95 4.4.7 FP EMULATION: 337.44 : 161.92 : 37.36 4.5.4 FP EMULATION: 320.08 :

[Bug lto/54118] New: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54118 Bug #: 54118 Summary: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

  1   2   >