http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.3 |4.7.4
--- Comment #19 from Ric
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.alfonsi at st dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.2 |4.7.3
--- Comment #17 from Jaku
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #16 from Matt Hargett 2012-08-23 18:01:08 UTC
---
Back/forward-porting of the "trivial" restoration of the old behavior is
acceptable to me, as it would remove a major barrier to our adoption of 4.7.x.
That being said, if there's mult
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-22
09:17:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > No, it's only the commit referenced in this PR. No optimization regressions
> > warrant a backport as they always come wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-22
08:46:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I've been doing research into LLVM 3.1 and other GCC versions. LLVM 3.1
> correctly eliminate the (near) empty loop, and their current trunk does not
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett 2012-08-21 21:40:11 UTC
---
I've been doing research into LLVM 3.1 and other GCC versions. LLVM 3.1
correctly eliminate the (near) empty loop, and their current trunk does not
regress like 4.7 has.
Is the trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-28 08:26:12 UTC ---
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, matt at use dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
>
> --- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-27 18:26:55
> UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-27 18:26:55 UTC
---
Is there a fix targeted for 4.7.2? I can apply the patch and do some testing,
if that helps. Let me know what I can do, if anything, so we can make 4.7
deployable for us.
Thanks for t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3, 4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3, 4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4
14 matches
Mail list logo
