--- Comment #45 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-11 12:58
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] points-to analysis slow and memory hungry
Uh, it's not slow anymore since I committed the patch last month.
On 11 Sep 2007 10:59:31 -, giovannibajo at libero dot it
<[EMAIL
--- Comment #47 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-11 19:54
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] points-to analysis slow and memory hungry
On 11 Sep 2007 19:51:00 -, belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot
ru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #46 from belys
--- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-20 15:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] tree struct aliasing goes into a loop marking
call clobbers.
On 20 Sep 2007 13:52:11 -, ramana dot radhakrishnan at celunite
dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Commen
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-01 21:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 119502 causes significantly slower
results with 4.3 compared to 4.2
I'm not fixing this until someone can tell me what exactly is going
wrong. There have been *so* many chang
--- Comment #34 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-10 17:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] reassoc2 can more extra calculations into a loop
On 10 Oct 2007 08:58:00 -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #33 from steven at gcc
--- Comment #14 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 17:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 126326 causes 12% slowdown
On 17 Oct 2007 16:59:25 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-20 20:49 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Exponential time behavior in PRE
We may just want to disable PPRE of constants entirely :)
On 20 Oct 2007 10:14:53 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-22
00:19 ---
Subject: Re: New: 176.gcc miscompare with
-m64 after DOM change
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 00:12 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The SPEC CPU2000 test 176.gcc has been failing on powerpc64-
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
02:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Simple loop
runs out of stack at -O1
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 00:51 +, fjahanian at apple dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From fjahanian at apple dot
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-28
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression]: Macro debug info
broken due to lexer change
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 20:48 +, dpatel at apple dot com wrote:
> I extensively tested my patch using GDB tests
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
03:30 ---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of
general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause
performance degradation.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 03:18 +, pinskia at physics
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-09
20:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2
output that breaks gdb
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:10 +, jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From jbuck at
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
04:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2
output that breaks gdb
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 03:54 +, wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From wilson
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-18
21:33 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 Regression] Bootstrap
failure at -Os
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 21:21 +, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> Bootstrapping with BOOT_CFLAGS="-Os -g" fails when the stage2
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19
03:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2
output that breaks gdb
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 03:07 +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From cvs
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-26
00:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: Tree loop optimizer does
worse job than RTL loop optimizer
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 22:21 +, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
> In the attached test case, 3.4.* GCC generates bet
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-29
04:58 ---
Subject: Re: unexpected result from floating compare
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 23:05 +, piaget at us dot ibm dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From piaget at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-28
> 23
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-31
21:26 ---
Subject: Re: [PR debug/19345] remap TYPE_STUB_DECL during inlining
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> TYPE_STUB_DECL was NULL in the testcase given in the bug report
> because tree inlining fa
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
17:56 ---
Subject: Re: New: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-8.c
scan-tree-dump-times Eliminated: 4 1 fails on 64-bit systems
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 17:44 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-05
18:41 ---
Subject: Re: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-8.c
scan-tree-dump-times Eliminated: 4 1 fails on 64-bit systems
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 18:14 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional C
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-06
02:05 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] Jump threading
related bugs
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 00:25 +, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 00:25
> ---
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-06
12:34 ---
Subject: Re: 64 bit shift by non-constant implemented as
libcall on PPC32
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 06:46 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-06
12:35 ---
Subject: Re: 64 bit shift by non-constant implemented as
libcall on PPC32
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 06:46 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07
00:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: Pseudo-infinite recursion
in ivopts
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 00:16 +, dalej at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Compile the following with -O1 in 4.0 branch. Don't be in a hurry; I
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07
12:48 ---
Subject: Re: Aliasing says stores to local
memory do alias
> Other than that, struct aliasing (or just removing the casts) doesn't fix the
> aliasing problems - though struct aliasing doesn't hand
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07
16:43 ---
Subject: Re: Aliasing says stores to local
memory do alias
> >
> >
> > > Other than that, struct aliasing (or just removing the casts) doesn't fix
> > > the
> > > aliasing problems - though struct
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-11
18:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regressopm] ICE: tree
check, in recent builds
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 17:49 +, paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12
13:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree
check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in
value_exists_in_set_bitmap,
at tree-ssa-pre.c:437
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 09:56 +, steven at gc
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12
16:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE tree check:
expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at
tree-ssa-pre.c:437
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 15:19 +, marcus at jet dot
--- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 17:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] calculix gets wrong answer for -O1 -ffast-math
>
> It already does (I fixed that recently), but we only phi-translate during
> insertion and we
> don't insert for that case, as obvio
--- Comment #18 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 13:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] calculix gets wrong answer for -O1 -ffast-math
Making PRE do this is somewhat trivial.
Just extend fully_constant_expression to fold builtins, like it used
to, and it should just DTR
t; Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] calculix gets
>> wrong answer for -O1 -ffast-math
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>>
>> > --- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 17:55
>> > ---
>
--- Comment #25 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-16 23:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] calculix gets wrong answer for -O1 -ffast-math
I fixed the PRE issue with builtin_pow here.
:)
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM, dberlin at dberlin dot org
<[EMAIL PROTEC
--- Comment #27 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-20 16:22
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] calculix gets wrong answer for -O1 -ffast-math
Err, works for me with -O2 -ffast-math
Replaced D.1587_48 - D.1591_50 with prephitmp.17_60 in D.1600_23 =
D.1587_48 - D.1591_50;
Repla
--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-02 20:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] excessive memory consumption - possible hang
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:04 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot
--- Comment #9 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 16:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Tree memory partitioning is spending 430 seconds
of a 490 second compile.
On 25 Jan 2008 16:40:54 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we are a
--- Comment #20 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 14:56
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] crash by too deep recursion in DFS
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1898
So, there are better SCC algorithms.
In particular, Nuutilla's algorithm will avoid placing a bunch of
nodes on the stack (pe
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-03 14:16 ---
Subject: Re: PTA constraint processing for *x =
y is wrong
There used to be a *ANYTHING = ANYTHING constraint + ANYTHING
containing all the variables pointing to ANYTHING that would have
taken care of this
-03 14:24 ---
> Subject: Re: PTA constraint processing for *x
> = y is wrong
>
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: PTA constraint processing for *x =
>> y is wrong
>>
>> There used to be a *ANYTHING = ANYTHING const
Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-02-04 09:35 ---
> Subject: Re: PTA constraint processing for *x
> = y is wrong
>
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
>> --- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 00:29
>&
suse dot de 2009-02-04 16:26 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] PTA
> constraint processing for *x = y is wrong
>
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
>> --- Comment #13 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 16:09
>> ---
--- Comment #83 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 18:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inordinate
compile times on large routines
These numbers claim a leak of the graph->preds bitmap (and related
bitmaps) which are quite clearly freed all the time.
These
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 21:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing
miscompilation
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-0
--- Comment #17 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-05 16:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]
-fprofile-generate = huge SCCs for PRE
Ugh.
It might make sense to just replace the hash table implementation we
use with something better (simple power of 2, key-value
--- Comment #18 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-05 17:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]
-fprofile-generate = huge SCCs for PRE
My hacking will seriously improve this, since it doesn't iterate over
pieces of the SCC that aren't changing (which often is most
--- Comment #94 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-14 23:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inordinate
compile times on large routines
One of the reasons LCM in RTL is so slow is because it uses a crappy
iteration order.
With the right iteration order, it shoul
--- Comment #96 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-16 02:07
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inordinate
compile times on large routines
Uh, it's most certainly disabled on testcases like his.
look at is_too_expensive in gcse.c
This is in fact done because LCM i
--- Comment #20 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-18 02:54
---
Subject: Re: loop number of iterations analysis
not working
If the program terminates before i would wrap, then the number of
iterations was not MAXINT.
And since it can't wrap, it is not infinite in any
--- Comment #101 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-21 04:13
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inordinate
compile times on large routines
PRE already gives up on this testcase, at least on my computer, and
takes no memory.
All of the memory here is being eaten by
--- Comment #106 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-21 22:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Inordinate
compile times on large routines
Right.
Basically, the value numbering PRE uses as a pre-pass is known as SCCVN.
It value numbers by doing a depth first searc
--- Comment #41 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-21 13:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] missed
load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck
Fernando was an intern of mine, and while his algorithm is a great
algorithm, AFAIK he hasn't gotten better code out of it than
--- Comment #14 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 14:15
---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] ICE in
compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2419
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:41 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #16 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 14:19
---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] ICE in
compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2419
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:50 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #3 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-29 20:31 ---
Subject: Re: Doesn't optimize the following (obvious) sequence
On 29 Apr 2007 15:21:40 -, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-0
--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-30 18:26
---
Subject: Re: ICE in lambda_loopnest_to_gcc_loopnest, at lambda-code.c:1982
This one is unimplemented functionality, it's going to take longer to solve.
(Sadly, at the point where we hit it, we can't back out grac
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-30 18:42 ---
Subject: Re: ICE with -O1 -ftree-pre -ftree-loop-linear
Something in perfect_nestify is fucking up the dominators, but it's
not clear why every set_immediate_dominator there is not correct.
On 30 Apr 2007 09:17:48
--- Comment #9 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-07 00:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] infinite loop in tree-ssa-pre or ICE
I'm waiting till i can actually produce PRE dumps again before i can
debug this :(
On 6 May 2007 23:22:33 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-07 14:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Printing to dump file broken
On 7 May 2007 06:23:40 -, simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 200
--- Comment #14 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-11 22:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] infinite loop in tree-ssa-pre or ICE
> > Actually shouldn't has_volatile_ops be set? I am thinking something is not
> > setting that.
>
> Just to say that we have seen this prob
--- Comment #50 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-12 01:36
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 11 May 2007 23:22:14 -, ian at airs dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #49 from i
--- Comment #53 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-12 14:29
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 12 May 2007 11:11:03 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment
--- Comment #59 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-14 05:00
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 14 May 2007 03:45:25 -, ian at airs dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #58 from i
--- Comment #61 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-14 12:44
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 14 May 2007 08:25:27 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment
--- Comment #63 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-14 16:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 14 May 2007 15:20:14 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment
--- Comment #68 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-14 22:39
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 14 May 2007 21:35:58 -, ian at airs dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #67 from i
--- Comment #22 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 17:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 19 May 2007 14:30:43 -, pluto at agmk dot net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #21 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-05-19 15:30 -
--- Comment #24 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 18:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 19 May 2007 17:16:35 -, pluto at agmk dot net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #23 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-05-19 18:16 -
--- Comment #28 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-20 23:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 20 May 2007 04:57:45 -, pluto at agmk dot net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #25 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-05-20 05:57 -
--- Comment #30 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-21 17:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 21 May 2007 16:01:29 -, pluto at agmk dot net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #29 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-05-21 17:01 -
--- Comment #115 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 18:10
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 22 May 2007 16:54:24 -, mark at codesourcery dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment
--- Comment #116 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 18:13
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 22 May 2007 17:01:40 -, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #1
--- Comment #124 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 09:35 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
> new does not change the dynamic type as it should
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
> > --- Comment #116 from dberli
--- Comment #145 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-23 22:02
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 23 May 2007 18:57:03 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Commen
--- Comment #162 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-28 11:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
dynamic type as it should
On 28 May 2007 11:14:20 -, rguenther at suse dot de
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #161
--- Comment #23 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-04 23:01
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] reassoc2 can more extra calculations into a loop
On 4 Jun 2007 22:15:46 -, rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #20 from rakdve
--- Comment #27 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 00:12
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] reassoc2 can more extra calculations into a loop
On 4 Jun 2007 23:35:19 -, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #26 from rakdver at gcc
--- Comment #34 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 16:20
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sigc++-2.0 based code with
-fstrict-aliasing
On 5 Jun 2007 09:27:34 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #30 from
omment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-05 16:30 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sigc++-2.0
> based code with -fstrict-aliasing
>
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sig
--- Comment #38 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 19:07
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sigc++-2.0 based code with
-fstrict-aliasing
On 5 Jun 2007 18:24:54 -, matz at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #37 from mat
omment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-05 19:59 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sigc++-2.0
> based code with -fstrict-aliasing
>
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
> > --- Comment #38 from dberlin at g
omment #41 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-06 08:49 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sigc++-2.0
> based code with -fstrict-aliasing
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2007, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
>
> > q_2 = q_1 + 1
> > q_3 = q_2 + 1
> &
--- Comment #41 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 15:40
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 11 Jun 2007 14:17:46 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot o
--- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 20:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing causes skipped code
On 20 Jun 2007 15:12:53 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu do
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-26 15:29 ---
Subject: Re: Missed optimizations with -fwhole-program -combine
On 26 Jun 2007 03:10:26 -, acahalan at gmail dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2007-06-2
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-03 15:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] miscompilation at -O2
> D.1445_69 = pretmp.53_53;
> storetmp.41_92 = D.1445_69;
> *order_p_25(D) = D.1445_69;
> i_71 = i_2 + 1;
> if (i_2 == D.1401_27)
> goto ;
> else
--- Comment #14 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 14:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing causes skipped code
On 4 Jul 2007 03:29:25 -, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --
Just as an update:
I have been working wi
--- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-07 20:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: revision 126369 went into an infinite loop
On 7 Jul 2007 19:35:01 -, hjl at lucon dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-07
--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-08 20:40
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: revision 126369 went into an infinite loop
On 8 Jul 2007 15:12:51 -, hjl at lucon dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07
--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-09 18:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
Uh, this assert was removed, so i don't know how it could still trigger ;)
On 9 Jul 2007 17:36:22 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-09 18:12 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.3 Regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
Oh, this assert, sorry, i removed the other assert int his function.
This means we have discovered some very very very strange val
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-10 16:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong code generation. Alias and C++ virtual
bases problem.
On 10 Jul 2007 15:32:51 -, rguenther at suse dot de
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #5 from rguenth
--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-11 22:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
The only way i can see this happening is if you have a truly
uninitialized variable, or there is something we have missed.
Does this fu
--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 16:47
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
On 13 Jul 2007 15:49:03 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at
--- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 17:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
On 13 Jul 2007 17:16:27 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at
--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-14 02:04
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
On 13 Jul 2007 20:43:37 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-14 02:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] tree-ssa-operands int.comp error
valid_gimple_expression_p claims
&((struct RegisterLayout *) (char *) &SimulatedRegisters)->intmask;
is valid GIMPLE, when it is not.
On 13 Jul 200
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-07
13:36 ---
Subject: Re: CCP not fully propagating
constants
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 04:19 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-17
02:44 ---
Subject: Re: Fold does not fold (a^b)^a to b
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 02:12 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-17
> 02:12
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-22
18:40 ---
Subject: Re: Simple redundancy not eliminated
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 08:31 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-22
> 08:31
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28
02:31 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] C++ generates incorrect
overlapping fields
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 02:06 +, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From mark at codesource
101 - 200 of 410 matches
Mail list logo
