[Bug tree-optimization/25737] [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing

--- Comment #20 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 04:00 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:21 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Comment #17

[Bug tree-optimization/25737] [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing

--- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 04:04 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ACATS tests c974001 and c974013 do not terminate with struct aliasing On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 22:33 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Comment #19

[Bug middle-end/26835] ICE in f951 on valid code at -O2 -ftree-loop-linear

--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-24 12:27 --- Subject: Re: ICE in f951 on valid code at -O2 -ftree-loop-linear On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:30 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03

[Bug tree-optimization/26939] PRE confuses loop number of iterations analysis

--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-30 14:43 --- Subject: Re: PRE confuses loop number of iterations analysis On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:37 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-30

[Bug tree-optimization/26944] [4.1/4.2 Regression] -ftree-ch generates worse code

--- Comment #3 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 22:41 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] -ftree-ch generates worse code > Compare pretmp.28_49 with pretmp.32_11, why are the arguments in a different > order? Is there something unstable in the PRE algorithm? >

[Bug tree-optimization/27004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Insane amount of memory needed at -O1 and above because of salias

--- Comment #1 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 14:37 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Insane amount of memory needed at -O1 and above because of salias On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:43 +, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote: > spinning a separate bug from PR26

[Bug c/27007] Missed optimization of comparison with 'limited range'

--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:44 --- Subject: Re: Missed optimization of comparison with 'limited range' On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 19:22 +, trt at acm dot org wrote: > > --- Comment #3 from trt at acm dot org 2006-04-03 19:22 --- > S

[Bug tree-optimization/27056] ICE in loop_depth_of_name

--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-06 16:15 --- Subject: Re: New: ICE in loop_depth_of_name On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 11:49 +, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > On the attached testcase with today's gcc-4_1-branch > -m32 -g -O2 I get ICE during copy propaga

[Bug target/21119] avr-gcc does not output Dwarf 2 information to track optimized variables' locations

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-20 14:27 --- Subject: Re: New: avr-gcc does not output Dwarf 2 information to track optimized variables' locations On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 06:40 +, tsandnes at atmel dot com wrote: > The dwarf debug informa

[Bug tree-optimization/21173] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23 15:09 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 14:59 +, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From jakub

[Bug tree-optimization/21173] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23 15:13 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel > yes > > In fact, the error actually makes no sense (IE you guys are overlooking > an important fact). > > is

[Bug tree-optimization/13761] [tree-ssa] component refs to the same struct should not alias

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23 18:41 --- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] component refs to the same struct should not alias On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 16:52 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc d

[Bug tree-optimization/21173] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-24 15:27 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel > tree-ssa-pre uses force_gimple_operand with SIMPLE==false, so if > expr is already a valid rhs, force_gimple_

[Bug tree-optimization/14627] [4.0/4.1 regression] extra assignment inserted on the tree level

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-24 19:13 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra assignment inserted on the tree level On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 15:31 +, law at redhat dot com wrote: > --- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot co

[Bug tree-optimization/21173] [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-25 15:18 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] miscompiled pointer subtraction broke Linux kernel On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 14:49 +, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From jakub

[Bug tree-optimization/19910] ICE with -ftree-loop-linear

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-26 16:51 --- Subject: Re: ICE with -ftree-loop-linear On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:24 +, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-26 > 16:24 --

[Bug tree-optimization/21407] [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10 16:07 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++ On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 16:01 +, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote: > --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot i

[Bug testsuite/21539] [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ltrans-5.c fails

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 23:59 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ltrans-5.c fails On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 19:59 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ltrans-5.c scan-tree-dump-times Li

[Bug tree-optimization/21576] FRE does not eliminate a redundant builtin call.

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-14 21:39 --- Subject: Re: FRE does not eliminate a redundant builtin call. On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 21:30 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot

[Bug tree-optimization/21705] FRE does not eliminate a redundant pure call.

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 18:55 --- Subject: Re: FRE does not eliminate a redundant pure call. On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 13:42 +, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote: > A patch was sent to kazu privately that bootstrapped and regtest

[Bug tree-optimization/21712] missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 19:54 --- Subject: Re: missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 19:36 +, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From rakdver

[Bug tree-optimization/21712] missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 21:10 --- Subject: Re: missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops > . > > Nevertheless, even if we are very strict with the definition, moving > get_type2 out of the loop is not a

[Bug tree-optimization/21712] missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 21:20 --- Subject: Re: missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 21:13 +, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote: > --- Additional

[Bug tree-optimization/21712] missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 21:56 --- Subject: Re: missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 21:36 +, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From rakdver

[Bug tree-optimization/21712] missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 22:05 --- Subject: Re: missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 21:51 +, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote: > --- Additional

[Bug tree-optimization/21712] missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 22:24 --- Subject: Re: missed optimization due with const function and pulling out of loops > on the other hand, we should not let the definition make the concept > useless. Being able to make The definiti

[Bug tree-optimization/21839] [4.1 Regression] ICE for missing V_DEFS caused by salias with empty structures

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31 17:32 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE for missing V_DEFS caused by salias with empty structures On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:25 +, nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments Fro

[Bug c++/22005] [4.1 Regression] ICE: SSA_NAME verification failure

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-10 22:13 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE: SSA_NAME verification failure On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 22:10 +, kreckel at ginac dot de wrote: > --- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-0

[Bug tree-optimization/22033] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cd1c04e create_variable_info_for, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2789

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-14 03:15 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cd1c04e create_variable_info_for, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2789 On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 03:10 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additiona

[Bug tree-optimization/22116] [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:43 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 01:16 +, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005

[Bug tree-optimization/18792] ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-12-17 21:12 --- Subject: Re: ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case Because the submitted patch has not yet been approved and applied. On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, fjahanian at apple dot com wrote

[Bug debug/19124] [4.0 regression] gcc generates incorrect dwarf2 debug info

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-12-28 18:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] gcc generates incorrect dwarf2 debug info On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 18:37 +, hjl at lucon dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004

[Bug web/12360] test

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-28 19:37 --- Subject: Bug 12360 Testing incoming email address matching. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12360

[Bug debug/19124] [4.0 regression] gcc generates incorrect dwarf2 debug info

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-30 05:10 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] gcc generates incorrect dwarf2 debug info After talking with gdb folks and dwarf2 folks (who say this isn't the actual bug, there is some other gdb bug causing the crashe

[Bug debug/19191] [4.0 Regression] No DWARF2 DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine entry generated

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-30 16:42 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] No DWARF2 DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine entry generated On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 16:14 +, fnf at specifixinc dot com wrote: > --- Additional Comments From fnf at spec

[Bug debug/19267] [4.0 regression] execute/921215-1.c fails with -fpic at -O3 -g

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05 15:59 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.0 regression] execute/921215-1.c fails with -fpic at -O3 -g On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > When running the testsuite with -fpic/-fPIC, I get an addition

[Bug debug/19124] [4.0 regression] gcc generates incorrect dwarf2 debug info

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10 16:45 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] gcc generates incorrect dwarf2 debug info On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 16:39 +, hjl at lucon dot org wrote: > There are still: > > 29df 2cbe 2ccc (DW_O

[Bug debug/19367] [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree_check in lookup_local_die with local `using'

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-10 22:55 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE: tree_check in lookup_local_die with local `using' On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot g

[Bug tree-optimization/19431] missed optimization with ifs and deferencing

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 00:22 --- Subject: Re: New: missed optimization with ifs and deferencing On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 21:38 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I found this while looking into PR 8361 for missed optimiza

[Bug rtl-optimization/19464] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 21:44 --- Subject: Re: New: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation > This is a regression and was introduced by this change: I have a very hard time believing this, since the patch b

[Bug rtl-optimization/19464] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 21:48 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 21:44 +, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From dberlin at

[Bug debug/19327] [4.0 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/921215-1.c compilation -O3 -g

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 02:00 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/921215-1.c compilation -O3 -g On Mon, 18 Jan 2005, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly

[Bug tree-optimization/18754] unrolling happens too late/SRA does not happen late enough

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20 15:06 --- Subject: Re: unrolling happens too late/SRA does not happen late enough On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From rguenth at ta

[Bug inline-asm/11203] source doesn't compile with -O0 but they compile with -O3

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22 17:21 --- Subject: Re: source doesn't compile with -O0 but they compile with -O3 > > >> >> The reason is dead simple: register allocation is NP-complete, so it >> is even *theoretically* not possible to write reg

[Bug rtl-optimization/19580] [3.4/4.0 Regression] missed load/store monition

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 02:08 --- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] poor register allocation On Sat, 23 Jan 2005, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 > 01

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 15:01 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) I believe seb/zdenek already submitted patches for speeding up scev quite recently, with the goal of alleviating this problem. I'm pretty sure they have not

[Bug rtl-optimization/19580] [3.4/4.0 Regression] missed load/store motion

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:07 --- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] missed load/store motion On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) On Sun, 24 Jan 2005, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 > 01:46 --

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 01:57 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) >> On a side note, PRE also seems to have problems with the testcase. With the >> patch mentioned above, the largest consumers of compile time are ivopts (4

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 22:25 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) > > Other part is that scev tries to be too clever. Without need to > represent nonaffine induction variables (that we do not use anywhere) > we could use m

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 23:12 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff d

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 00:39 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) Uh, symbolic references are or will be used to do data dependence when MEM_REF and ARRAY_REF couldn't be generated from the pointers. >>> >>>

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 00:50 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) On Mon, 25 Jan 2005, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff d

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 00:52 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) > See autovec branch. You could also look at recent patches posted by sebastian and i for the autovect branch that have been adding this support. --

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 01:15 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) > Which one? I cannot find anything relevant in changelog. > * tree-data-ref.c (analyze_subscript_affine_affine): Implement a solution f

[Bug tree-optimization/18595] [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3)

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 01:42 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] IV-OPTS is O(N^3) >> >> * tree-data-ref.c (analyze_overlapping_iterations): chrecs that >> are equal overlap on every iteration. >> >> This stuff is just sim

[Bug tree-optimization/19624] PRE pessimizes ivopts

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 15:35 --- Subject: Re: PRE pessimizes ivopts On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 15:27 +, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de wrote: > --- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebinge

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-28 17:22 --- Subject: Re: missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-01-28 16:

[Bug tree-optimization/19831] Missing DSE/malloc/free optimization

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-09 03:42 --- Subject: Re: New: Missing DSE/malloc/free optimization > void *malloc(__SIZE_TYPE__); > void free(void*); > int f(void) > { > char *i = malloc(1); > *i = 1; > free (i); > } > > This is somet

[Bug other/10270] gccbug's echo displays '-n' instead of no-line-break

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-18 04:08 --- Subject: Re: gccbug's echo displays '-n' instead of no-line-break On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 04:03 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From pinskia

[Bug middle-end/17549] [4.0 Regression] 15% increase in codesize with C code

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-18 14:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 15% increase in codesize with C code On Oct 18, 2004, at 9:55 AM, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero

[Bug tree-optimization/18168] SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-28 16:31 --- Subject: Re: SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE This is the minimal testcase for the problem that i came up with subroutine buts ( ldmx, ldmy, ldmz, $ v

[Bug tree-optimization/18168] SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-28 16:36 --- Subject: Re: SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE No, not at all actually. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18168

[Bug tree-optimization/18168] SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-28 16:55 --- Subject: Re: SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE > --- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-28 16:51 > --- > Reduced

[Bug tree-optimization/13765] [tree-ssa] stores to different members of the same array should not alias

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-28 21:57 --- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] stores to different members of the same array should not alias > > Dan, ISTR you saying that the field based stuff would also help with arrays. Yes, i can make it happen on arr

[Bug tree-optimization/13761] [tree-ssa] component refs to the same struct should not alias

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-28 21:58 --- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] component refs to the same struct should not alias > dberlin's field-based SSA work should help here. Dan, want to take this one? Sure. Just reassign it to me :) --

[Bug tree-optimization/18168] SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-10-30 13:15 --- Subject: Re: SPEC CPU2000 173.applu tree-loop-linear ICE It only pops up with -ftree-loop-linear, which is a new option for 4.0. So no, it's probably not a regression. On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, giovanniba

[Bug tree-optimization/15524] [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-01 03:51 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > More work to speed up 15524. I was rather p

[Bug tree-optimization/18237] [4.0 regression] tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-01 16:01 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at g

[Bug c++/18368] C++ error message regression

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-08 04:47 --- Subject: Re: New: C++ error message regression Yes, it happens ta global scope too. struct foo {} void method () {} will give the same error On Sun, 8 Nov 2004, sabre at nondot dot org wrote: > On thi

[Bug tree-optimization/18519] [4.0 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with optimization

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-16 17:28 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with optimization cleanup_tree_cfg can't happen before we've fixed up the def-def chains, so i'm making it into a todo. --- Addi

[Bug tree-optimization/18557] Inefficient code generated by -ftree-vectorize on Alpha

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-19 03:42 --- Subject: Re: Inefficient code generated by -ftree-vectorize on Alpha On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 00:04 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot

[Bug bootstrap/18613] tail -N not supported anymore by newer coreutils

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-22 21:28 --- Subject: Re: New: tail -N not supported anymore by newer coreutils On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, bjdouma at xs4all dot nl wrote: > Newer versions of tail(1) from coreutils do not accept the > -N option a

[Bug rtl-optimization/18611] [4.0 Regression] ICE: in bitmap_ior, at bitmap.c:704 with -O1 -fmove-loop-invariants

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-11-23 03:08 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE: in bitmap_ior, at bitmap.c:704 with -O1 -fmove-loop-invariants On Mon, 23 Nov 2004, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote: > > --- Additional Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/18792] ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-12-07 22:56 --- Subject: Re: ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case > >> There are basically two ways how to fix this: either make the code >> that changes the order of loops in the nests to al

[Bug tree-optimization/18792] ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at dberlin dot org 2004-12-07 23:09 --- Subject: Re: ICE with -O1 -ftree-loop-linear on small test case It's actually a bug in compute_data_dependence then, not linear xforms. the dist and dir vector computation functions need to map betwee

[Bug tree-optimization/29551] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr26421.c scan-tree-dump-times V_MAY_DEF 1

--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-22 17:37 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr26421.c scan-tree-dump-times V_MAY_DEF 1 On 22 Oct 2006 17:16:00 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc do

[Bug tree-optimization/29585] [4.2/4.3 Regression] tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in is_old_name, at tree-into-ssa.c:558

--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-25 12:12 --- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in is_old_name, at tree-into-ssa.c:558 On 25 Oct 2006 05:23:00 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -

[Bug tree-optimization/14784] [Tree-ssa] alias analysis deficiency

--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 15:05 --- Subject: Re: [Tree-ssa] alias analysis deficiency Details, source, etc needed. On 31 Oct 2006 15:02:02 -, hjl at lucon dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 01:29 --- Subject: Re: Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc > > --- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 00:49 > --- > access_can_touch_variable determines that fde_13->dw_fde_cfi cannot touch > cie

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #6 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 17:53 --- Subject: Re: Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc > > > > > > and for_clobber is only true on call operands, we do not insert SMT. The > > > lists > > > of virtual operands thus become disjoint. > > We should not inse

[Bug java/29587] jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes

--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-04 17:45 --- Subject: Re: jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes > > The change on the 19th caused a significant increase in memory > consumption

[Bug tree-optimization/29716] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong code with arrays

--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-05 00:46 --- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] Wrong code with arrays > > so do we miss it because it's a PHI argument or because in the first case > we point one after the last element of the array and in the second case to >

[Bug java/29587] jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes

--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-05 21:48 --- Subject: Re: jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes On 5 Nov 2006 21:22:24 -, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #7 from d

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 16:28 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this? It might be a month or two before i get back to it. (Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this,

[Bug java/29587] jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes

--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 17:40 --- Subject: Re: jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes On 6 Nov 2006 00:43:29 -, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #9 from

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 15:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc On 9 Nov 2006 11:16:12 -, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #20 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #24 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 17:22 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc On 11/9/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 10:05: > > > One thing i'm going to try later is to try to part

[Bug java/29587] jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes

--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 17:24 --- Subject: Re: jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 708630224 bytes Can you try the attached and let me know if it fixes it? --- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-0

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #27 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 18:21 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc A detailed proposal: So here is what i was thinking of. When i say symbols below, I mean "some VAR_DECL or structure that has a name" (like our memo

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #31 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 21:28 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc > > Memory SSA brings down the number of virtual operators to exactly one per > statement. However, it does so in a way that makes the traditional th

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #32 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 21:29 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc > In mem-ssa, you have VDEF's of the > same symbol all over the place. > version of a symbol -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

t dot com 2006-11-09 21:48 --- > Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation > of spec2006 gcc > > dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote on 11/09/06 16:28: > > > Uh, LIM and store sinking are too. Roughly all of our memory > > optimizations are. > > > They

[Bug tree-optimization/29680] [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc

--- Comment #35 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 00:12 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc > Take the above case. > If we simply use virtual variable versions to value number memory, we > will believe that *a and *b are possible stores to th

[Bug debug/29792] DWARF: Not all inline concrete instances are being generated

--- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 16:00 --- Subject: Re: DWARF: Not all inline concrete instances are being generated On 12 Nov 2006 20:39:43 -, acme at mandriva dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #5 from acme at mandriva dot com 2

[Bug debug/29792] DWARF: Not all inline concrete instances are being generated

--- Comment #9 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 04:53 --- Subject: Re: DWARF: Not all inline concrete instances are being generated On 13 Nov 2006 16:16:50 -, acme at mandriva dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #8 from acme at mandriva dot com 2

[Bug debug/29792] DWARF: Not all inline concrete instances are being generated

--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 03:55 --- Subject: Re: DWARF: Not all inline concrete instances are being generated > OK, so I'll have to find another way of using the DWARF info to see if a > inline > routine, such as __task_rq_lock was used at all in

[Bug tree-optimization/28544] [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE in add_virtual_operand, at tree-ssa-operands.c:1309

--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-27 13:54 --- Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] ICE in add_virtual_operand, at tree-ssa-operands.c:1309 I assume the attached fixes this? On 15 Oct 2006 09:01:42 -, tbm at cyrius dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >

[Bug tree-optimization/26854] Inordinate compile times on large routines

--- Comment #17 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 04:54 --- Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines On 30 Nov 2006 04:36:05 -, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu

[Bug middle-end/30075] Missed optimizations with -fwhole-program -combine

--- Comment #3 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 02:55 --- Subject: Re: Missed optimizations with -fwhole-program -combine I would not expect this to be fixed anytime soon. I have yet to find any real people who use either combine or -fwhole-program. They use *way* too m

<    1   2   3   4   5   >