--- Comment #17 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-19 02:20 ---
Regarding
"
> Is it that gcc-4.1.1 falsely aligns the memory location in question ?
Well it can be 8byte aligned and accidently also 16byte aligned (which does
happen every once in a while).
"
The original report sho
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-19 02:06
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Is the alignment requirement always applicable in all the cases, or just
> for gcc-3.4.6 ?
It segfaults for me with gcc-4.1.2.
>
> Remember, in this case gcc-4.1.1 produces code which
--- Comment #15 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-19 01:59 ---
Is the alignment requirement always applicable in all the cases, or just
for gcc-3.4.6 ?
Remember, in this case gcc-4.1.1 produces code which doesn't segfault.
Is it that gcc-4.1.1 optimizes out the failing line ?
Is
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-19 01:27
---
This like the other you filed is not a GCC bug, you are accessing a SSE vector
that is not aligned so you have to use the SSE intrinsic that does unaligned
access.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #13 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 02:23 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I'm only a bug master and don't do any work on the compiler anyway, so my
> say isn't worth much, but here's my take:
>
> You propose that you can give us 15,000 lines of obfuscated code thr
--- Comment #12 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-17 02:12 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> down, or to make the code significantly slower. Typically, the bug reports
^^ smaller, sorry W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-17 02:09 ---
I'm only a bug master and don't do any work on the compiler anyway, so my
say isn't worth much, but here's my take:
You propose that you can give us 15,000 lines of obfuscated code through which
we will have to dig ou
--- Comment #10 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 02:03 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Please see
> >
>
> Can you try the patch mentioned in:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01005.html
>
> (I am about to submit a new version of the
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-17 01:45 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Please see
>
Can you try the patch mentioned in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01005.html
(I am about to submit a new version of the patch but it does not change
functiona
--- Comment #8 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 01:27 ---
Please see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29874
- another proof that gcc-3.4.6 generates better SSE code than gcc-4.1.1, and
the
proof uses only widely available and well known GPL'ed code.
--
http://
--- Comment #7 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-14 02:54 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > We can make a deal: I obfuscate and publish the code, you guys fix the
> > bug preserving, if possible, performance.
> >
> > The code is really complex, and it's n
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-14 02:29 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> We can make a deal: I obfuscate and publish the code, you guys fix the
> bug preserving, if possible, performance.
>
> The code is really complex, and it's not realistic for me to make it smal
--- Comment #5 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-14 01:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I am developing pretty heavy SSE-based code, and performance-wise gcc-3.4.6
> > is
> > the best so far. Sorry, I cant' post the code, but here are performance
> >
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-11-14 01:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am developing pretty heavy SSE-based code, and performance-wise gcc-3.4.6 is
> the best so far. Sorry, I cant' post the code, but here are performance
> figures (output of 'time' command):
Then
--- Comment #3 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-14 01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> You should note that 3.4.x is no longer being maintained so this bug will most
> likely be closed as fixed as you already mention it works in 4.1.1.
>
That's too bad.
I am developing pretty
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 00:53 ---
You should note that 3.4.x is no longer being maintained so this bug will most
likely be closed as fixed as you already mention it works in 4.1.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29818
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
Component|c |target
http:
17 matches
Mail list logo
