--- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com 2008-12-08 15:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Tree memory
partitioning is spending 430 seconds of a 490 second compile.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 06:55, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at google dot com 2008-12-09 20:22 ---
Subject: Re: New: copy-propagation doesn't
handle cycles
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 14:53, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>{
> - ph
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-01-28 18:56 ---
Subject: Re: [LTO] Bootstrap failed on RHEL5/ia32 and
RHEL5/ia64
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 13:49, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> I bootstrapped it on RHEL5/ia32, RHEL5/ia64 and Fedora 10/x86
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-01-28 20:36 ---
Subject: Re: New: [LTO] ICE: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1288
Thanks for the bug reports.
At this stage, I'm not sure if it's useful to file a bug report for
every test in the GCC testsui
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-08-17 20:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Scalar evolutions
confusing VRP with pointer values that wrap around
On 8/17/07 4:20 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-08-17 20:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Scalar evolutions
confusing VRP with pointer values that wrap around
On 8/17/07 4:34 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-27 13:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
On 27 Sep 2007 13:42:11 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diego, it sucks that we need to jump through hoops to get V
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-27 14:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] aggregate DSE disabled
On 27 Sep 2007 14:01:18 -, rguenther at suse dot de
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I sort-of agree. Still DCE was able to handle tree-ssa/complex-4.c
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-29 19:08 ---
Subject: Re: tree-outof-ssa moves sources of non-call exceptions past sequence
points
On 29 Sep 2007 19:05:20 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 / 0;
>
> that does
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-09-30 13:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] wrong code with -O
On 30 Sep 2007 12:41:03 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at google dot com 2008-02-05 16:15 ---
Subject: Re: -Wtype-limits misses a warning when comparing enums
On 5 Feb 2008 11:21:26 -, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should use OPT_Wtype_limits instead of OPT_Wextra.
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-17 17:55 ---
Subject: Re: LTO and -fwhole-program do not play
along well
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:43, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-02-17 17:43 ---
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-17 18:04 ---
Subject: Re: LTO and -fwhole-program do not play
along well
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 13:02, rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
> Well, of course. Just the idea that -flto can be used easily without
> to
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-17 18:05 ---
Subject: Re: LTO and -fwhole-program do not play
along well
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 13:01, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
> This is intended behaviour.
Agreed.
> -fwhole-program essentially hides ever
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-17 18:51 ---
Subject: Re: LTO and -fwhole-program do not play
along well
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 13:34, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
> Essentially yes, but since we are restarting the pass queue from later
> time,
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-18 12:26 ---
Subject: Re: LTO and -fwhole-program do not play
along well
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 20:42, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #12 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-02
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-23 17:33 ---
Subject: Re: [lto] - Testsuite gcc.log shows many "getconf:
Invalid argument (_NPROCESSORS_ONLN)"
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:29, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment
--- Comment #19 from dnovillo at google dot com 2009-02-25 16:12 ---
Subject: Re: Loop IM and other optimizations harmful
for -fopenmp
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:06, davids at webmaster dot com
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #18 from davids at webmaster dot com  2009
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56348
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com
2013-02-15 19:19:22 UTC ---
Thanks for the quick fix, Vlad!
Diego.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #21 from dnovillo at google dot com
2013-04-29 16:46:27 UTC ---
On 2013-04-29 11:25 , jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Any progress with this? We'd like to do 4.8.1-rc1 in mid-May, would be nice
> to
> have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #26 from dnovillo at google dot com
2013-05-07 17:10:07 UTC ---
On 2013-05-07 13:06 , roland at gnu dot org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
>
> --- Comment #25 from roland at gnu dot org 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #28 from dnovillo at google dot com
2013-05-08 13:23:22 UTC ---
On 2013-05-08 06:05 , Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-07 13:06 , roland at gnu dot org wrot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 13:38:24 UTC ---
On 2012-08-20 22:59 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
>
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 02:59:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 14:06:34 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 09:58 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
>
> --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 13:58:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 16:44:10 UTC ---
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
>
> --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 18:19:10 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 14:08 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
>
> --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:08:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #18 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 18:31:51 UTC ---
OK, I think this is the hunk that's causing grief:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 39f444f..35100d1 100644
--- a/gcc/df-scan.c
+++ b/gcc/df-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #20 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 19:07:33 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 14:54 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> With --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats, I got
>
> Alloc-pool Kind Elt size Pools Alloca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 19:50:12 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 15:27 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
>
> --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:27:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-21 20:49:16 UTC ---
On 2012-08-21 15:53 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
>
> --- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:53:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-22 12:43:02 UTC ---
On 2012-08-22 05:32 , rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
>
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54484
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-09-05 11:48:38 UTC ---
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> did you also take a look at the warning about lessthan_ in the clang messages?
No. Clang'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54484
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-09-05 16:38:21 UTC ---
On 2012-09-05 12:11 , glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I meant the one in this PR's description. The second overload of lower_bound
> takes an argument le
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-10-26 12:34:53 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:05 AM, rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
> Fact is that all this stuff happens because gmp.h is not included
> from system.h ..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50165
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at google dot com
2011-08-26 12:21:33 UTC ---
I will be with limited e-mail access until 7-Sep-2011. I will read
your message when I get back.
Diego.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at google dot com
2011-12-01 18:20:37 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 13:12, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51346
>
> Jack Howarth changed:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at google dot com
2011-12-01 22:39:02 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 17:19, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51382
>
> --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51554
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at google dot com
2011-12-14 22:32:33 UTC ---
Wow, that was quick, thanks!
Diego.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 17:26, jason at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51554
>
> --
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-06-18 14:00 ---
Subject: Re: tree-ssa-math-opts.c performs too
many IL scans
On 6/18/07 9:56 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-18 13:56
> ---
>
--- Comment #27 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-06-19 17:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Incorrect stack sharing
causing removal of live code
On 6/19/07 1:26 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #26 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-19 17
--- Comment #30 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-07-04 11:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Incorrect stack sharing
causing removal of live code
On 7/3/07 11:28 PM, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #29 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-19 01:05:32 UTC ---
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:21 PM, dje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
>
> --- Comment #4 from Da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-30 15:14:10 UTC ---
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:25 AM, kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-30 15:53:02 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM, kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
>
> --- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-12-20 18:23:55 UTC ---
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, tmsriram at google dot com
wrote:
> However, with function multiversioning, this will become a problem as
> multivers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40975
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com
2011-04-28 17:37:29 UTC ---
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 13:01, jason at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40975
>
> Jason Merrill changed:
>
>
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-11-07 12:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 119502 causes significantly slower
results with 4.3 compared to 4.2
On 7 Nov 2007 06:03:09 -, paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-11-07 13:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in ssa_operand_alloc, at
tree-ssa-operands.c:487 with -O3
On 7 Nov 2007 13:52:29 -, amacleod at redhat dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is also an i
--- Comment #15 from dnovillo at google dot com 2007-11-07 15:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in ssa_operand_alloc, at
tree-ssa-operands.c:487 with -O3
On 7 Nov 2007 15:05:57 -, rguenther at suse dot de
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It actually contains all p
--- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com 2008-01-08 16:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
DECL_UIDs
On 8 Jan 2008 16:20:39 -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diego,
> Is this something you pla
--- Comment #19 from dnovillo at google dot com 2008-01-08 17:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
DECL_UIDs
> I don't think anything is wrong with 'alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
> DECL_UIDs'. If two SFTs s
--- Comment #50 from dnovillo at google dot com 2008-05-02 12:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Revision
126326 causes 12% slowdown
On 05/02/08 08:16, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> and dropping the final dom pass in favor of another FRE one (DOM has
> weaker
52 matches
Mail list logo
