--- Comment #34 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-04-12 14:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Repeated SSA update
during loop header copying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/12/06 08:20, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --> (http://gcc.g
--- Comment #36 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-04-12 14:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Repeated SSA update
during loop header copying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/12/06 10:20, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
wrote:
> forgot
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-05-01 16:11 ---
Subject: Re: [gomp] firstprivate not working properly with
non-POD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-12 12:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size
with volatile and call to static
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote on 06/05/06 18:37:
> Diego, what say you?
>
Shouldn't COMPLETE_TYPE_P im
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-06-13 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: gimplifying "return CONSTANT" creates
unneeded temporaties
dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu wrote on 06/13/06 10:42:
> --- Comment #3 from dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot ed
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-01-16 18:18 ---
Subject: Re: [GOMP] ICE with SAVE attribute and (FIRST|LAST)PRIVATE
On Monday 16 January 2006 12:40, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ICEs the same. I can't reproduce this in the Fedora Core gcc though
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2007-03-10 00:07 ---
Subject: Re: Revision 121302 causes 30% performance
regression
hjl at lucon dot org wrote on 03/09/07 19:04:
> --param max-aliased-vops=100 works:
>
OK, thanks. I'll add this PR to the mix then.
--- Comment #16 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2007-04-05 13:15 ---
Subject: Re: Floating point computation far slower
for -mfpmath=sse
bonzini at gnu dot org wrote on 04/05/07 08:03:
> Is there a way to ensure ordering of PHI functions unlike what Uros's
> dumps sugge
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-16 15:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Is that what you want?
>
Yes, thanks. I can now reproduce this on my ppc box with your reduced
tes
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-21 19:33
---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/19786] fix alias grouping lossage
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> PR tree-optimization/19786
> * tree-ssa-alias.c (compute_flow_insensitive_aliasing): A
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-25 01:05
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] miscompilation
of asm-declared registers
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25 00:59
> ---
> I
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-25 01:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] miscompilation
of asm-declared registers
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I can certainly understand that a typo changed some assigmnent such that
> asm-declared reg
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-04 17:59
---
Subject: Re: RFE: add attribute to specify that a function never
returns NULL
giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-04
>
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 01:36
---
Subject: Re: alias analysis doesn't take into
account that variables that haven't their address taken can't alias arbitrary
MEMs
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> void g();
>
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:16
---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Why isn't the tree le
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:20
---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I think you commenting on the wrong
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 04:15
---
Subject: Re: New: copyprop dump files have wrong names
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:48:10AM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
> test.c.t21.copyprop1
> test.c.t26.copyprop2
> test.c.t40.
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-13 13:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch
statements with large # of cases
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:55:20PM -, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> That mental model does
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-14 20:18
---
Subject: Re: New: vrp miscompiles Ada front-end, drops loop exit test in
well-defined wrap-around circumstances
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:16:09PM -, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Unfortunat
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-23 12:30
---
Subject: Re: CCP is broken
On September 23, 2005 01:29, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2005-09-23 05:29 --- The reason why CCP
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-09-30 13:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
On September 30, 2005 09:24, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 2005-09-30 13:24 --- Jim's patch certainly worked for me. But
> the que
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-02 02:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] VRP ICE in compare_name_with_value, at
tree-vrp.c:2965
On October 1, 2005 13:00, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Diego, you only fixed the ICE, not the wrong-code. Ple
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-12 14:16 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global symbols
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:07, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Diego, will this allow you to reactivate your optimization? And, if
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-12 15:00 ---
Subject: Re: C++ FE emitting assignments to read-only global symbols
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 10:55, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> OK, so my patch is no longer directly useful then? (It still seems l
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-20 16:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: [gomp] Trouble with threadprivate and extern
On Thursday 20 October 2005 12:34, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I'd expect that i is threadprivate in file1.c and file2.c.
>
But
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-20 17:07 ---
Subject: Re: [gomp] Trouble with threadprivate and extern
On Thursday 20 October 2005 12:50, reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de
> Doesn't translation unit cover the include file?
>
> But anyway
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-22 17:32 ---
Subject: Re: gcc generates incorrect assignment because of reordering
On Saturday 22 October 2005 13:20, manus at eiffel dot com wrote:
> Would it make sense to have a new option in `gcc' to say that t
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-10-22 17:42 ---
Subject: Re: gcc generates incorrect assignment because of reordering
On Saturday 22 October 2005 13:32, Diego Novillo wrote:
> The bug in your code is exposed when GCC creates the intermediate
> representati
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 18:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Missing 'used unintialized' warning
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 13:50, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> I'd rather you not assign it to me just yet -- while I thin
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-28 12:16
---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression] ICE during GC
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:52:20AM -, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> Broken by patch from PR21959.
>
Are you sure? Kenner seemed to get good r
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-28 12:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE during GC
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:42:03PM -, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> $1 = {name = 0x0, gate = 0,
> execute = @0x41013990: 0x40
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-28 14:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE during GC
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:42:03PM -, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> > Are you sure?
>
> Yes.
>
You need to check your script then. The
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-06 00:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong code with downcast in C++
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:16:20AM -, dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot g
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-26 22:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] wrong alias information causes an incorrect
redundant load elimination
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:00:51PM -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> You just closed the
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-07-27 20:38
---
Subject: Re: aliasing information in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-7.c should be
fixed properly
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:34:10PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Isn't this a simpl
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-08-04 19:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:191
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:18:13PM -, dank at kegel dot com wrote:
> In general, once a ten-line testcase is found, do these
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-03-09 19:10 ---
Subject: Re: ICE (segfault) on C++ OpenMP code
On 03/09/06 14:03, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Then there are two issues, one for the reduced testcase which is PR 26076 and
> another issue. But
--- Comment #12 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-03-09 19:28 ---
Subject: Re: ICE (segfault) on C++ OpenMP code
On 03/09/06 14:17, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> If you had written a status on this bug before I closed it as a dup,
> I would not have closed it as
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-18 22:21
---
Subject: Re: New: copy-prop leaks memory
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:12:12PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
> tree-ssa-copy.c:844
>
> cached_last_copy_of = xmalloc (...)
>
>
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 15:46
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 03:11:52PM -, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From kargl
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-24 18:07
---
Subject: Re: Generates unneeded test
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 05:56:50PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> i_15: [1, 2147483647]
> i_16: [0, 2147483647]
> i_20: VARYING
>
&
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-27 19:43
---
Subject: Re: New: Teach VRP to pick up a constant from case label.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:38:04PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
> I think Diego already knows about this, but I think i
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-29 14:59
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:55:58PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
> I have not sent my current patch to gcc-patc
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-29 21:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:57:43PM -, ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot
de wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments F
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-29 21:39
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:11:12PM -, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
> Huh. Odd. I just finished a bootstrap w
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-02 15:29
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:57:43PM -, ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot
de wrote:
> Unfortunately, even with the pa
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-10 23:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Not copy propagating single-argument PHIs
causes out-of-ssa coalescing failure
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:07:24PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-10 23:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] Not copy propagating single-argument PHIs
causes out-of-ssa coalescing failure
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:27:17PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-14 20:00
---
Subject: Re: A numeric range is spoiled by a symblic one in VRP
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 07:40:04PM -, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass d
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-05-24 23:06
---
Subject: Re: bogus uninitialized variable warning for powerpc64
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:02:09PM -, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Diego, can this PR be closed as fixed?
>
Yes. Apologi
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-01 19:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in compare_values, at tree-vrp.c:301
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:31:24PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at g
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 16:55
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:49:40PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 19:03
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 05:02:28PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> int i=0, j=2;
> printf("%d", i);
> j++;
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 19:38
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:29:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Although it may not be valid to manipulate the FILE * directly, it se
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-09 19:57
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:52:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Suppose an implementation defines e.g. clearerr as a macro, and
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 13:15
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:52:42PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> > > extern char *s;
> > > extern int i;
> >
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 13:56
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:49:54PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Not that I really see the benefit of printf merging in any case; with
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 14:25
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:22:05PM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I have the cpu time, but it seems premature. Your patch as it
>
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-10 14:35
---
Subject: Re: GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:28:36PM -, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Since putc and puts are typically faster than printf (not needing
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-13 13:44
---
Subject: Re: local address incorrectly thought to escape
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 01:41:06PM -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Ping Diego, should this be closed??
>
If the testcase now wo
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-06-17 13:44
---
Subject: Re: Divide_1 test case hangs
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:13:49PM -, rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> -2147483648
> -2147483648
> 0
> 0
> [...]
>
> Not
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-02-25 19:52 ---
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] miscompilation of
__exchange_and_add (atomicity.h)
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 13:20, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-17 22:54
---
Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized tricked by conditional
assignments
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17
> 22:41 ---
&
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-01-20 02:32
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointers
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>>$ gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -O2 -c pr19299.C --version
>>xgcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050117 (
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 19:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] incorrect vops
after exposing a new global variable
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> When SRA scalarizes this initializer,
> it is gimplified; the Ada-sp
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 19:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] incorrect vops
after exposing a new global variable
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I only have the Ada test case for this; I can try to simplify it
> a bit f
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-02-14 22:13
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ice / gnat bug detected.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14
> 22:10 ---
> From PR 1
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-10-08 13:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Infinite
recursion in tree-scalar-evolution with -Os
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 09:03, sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr
wrote:
> Then the following patch solves
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-11-21 15:22
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] bootstrap comprison
failed
On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 08:02 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> Since I've been unable to trigger the failure here, I can't say
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-11-26 22:53
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression]: ICE in
merge_alias_info
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:50 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-11-29 13:42
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE: vector
VEC(basic_block) push domain error, in insert_phi_nodes_for at
tree-into-ssa.c:1049
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 13:37 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-01 00:55
---
Subject: Re: New: segfault with cc1 compiled
with checking disabled
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:51 +, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote:
> I get "internal compiler error: Segmentati
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2004-12-08 20:28
---
Subject: Re: New: missed SRA of a block copy
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The following function:
> int f(int a)
> {
> int i = a & -129;
> return i == 144;
> }
> Should
--- Comment #22 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 15:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 10:05:
> One thing i'm going to try later is to try to partition all the
> stores/load statements and fig
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 17:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 12:22:
> Right, but the difference is, In the scheme i propose, you'd never
> have overlapping live ranges of
--- Comment #33 from dnovillo at redhat 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.
>
76 matches
Mail list logo
