http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-08
12:12:59 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Dec 8 12:12:50 2012
New Revision: 194322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194322
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/55158
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-04
11:36:23 UTC ---
> Sometimes you have to fix things you haven't broken. Especially trivial
> bugs like this one. Look at all the REG_EQUAL stuff I've been trying
> to fix. I assure you I was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-12-04
11:06:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 28873
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28873
Another patch
Here's another attempt, given that it seems to be the speculation code that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #19 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-04
10:02:58 UTC ---
This line is of course supposed to compare bb_state_array and
old_bb_state_array:
for (int i = (bb_state != old_bb_state) ? 0 : saved_last_basic_block;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #18 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-04
09:56:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 28872
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28872
Updated tentative fix
(In reply to comment #16)
> I can provide IA-64 testing cycles, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-04
09:29:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 28871
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28871
Testsuite results with tentative fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-04
09:27:54 UTC ---
> So it's up to the only one in this discussion who does *not* have a paid
> GCC hacking position to fix this? Has Itanium really sunk so deep?
It's up to the author of the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-03 23:24:13
UTC ---
> > Someone needs to do something here because the C/C++/Fortran testsuite
> > results
> > are abysmal at -O3.
>
> And the tentative fix doesn't really help, it turns the ICEs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-03
21:06:23 UTC ---
> Someone needs to do something here because the C/C++/Fortran testsuite results
> are abysmal at -O3.
And the tentative fix doesn't really help, it turns the ICEs of the tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ia64-*-*
CC|
14 matches
Mail list logo
