--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-11 05:41 ---
The problem is that may_propagate_copy and merge_alias_info are inconsistent.
ie, DOM properly calls may_propagate_copy to determine if a particular copy
propagation is valid. may_propagate_copy returns true indicating the
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-11 05:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE in
merge_alias_info
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 23:16 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-13 16:38 ---
Fixed a couple days ago.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #16 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-13 16:39 ---
Fixed a couple weeks ago.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-13 17:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE in
merge_alias_info
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 16:51 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13
--- Comment #20 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-13 18:14 ---
Subject: Re: VRP/DOM does not like
TRUTH_AND_EXPR
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 12:23 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-07
--- Comment #22 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-17 16:40 ---
Here's some code which can be clearly improved with the in-progress patch to
add additional ASSERT_EXPRs:
int f(void);
void test(int x) {
if (x & 1 ? x == 0 : x > 0) f();
}
Right now we generate so
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-18 17:24 ---
Patch installed on 4.1 branch too.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-19 06:43 ---
I'm peeking at DOM.
jeff
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-19 15:32 ---
OK, as expected, DOM was doing something totally stupid with immediate uses.
On my x86 box I've got a patch which takes us from ~250 seconds in DOM to
around 5.
I'm going to get this fix bootstrapped and regress
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-20 03:28 ---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on
large routines
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 03:18 +, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2006-04-20
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-20 16:17 ---
PRE/FRE for mainline need some TLC on their compile-time performance as
indicated by this PR as well. They're #3 & #4 respectively behind the operator
scanning code and store-ccp and way out of line when compared
--- Comment #24 from law at redhat dot com 2006-04-20 16:24 ---
Richard -- is there any chance you could pick up the ball on this PR? I really
need to focus on some non-GCC stuff for a while, but don't want this issue to
get lost in the process.
Jeff
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2006-05-01 16:36 ---
The overflow check for multiplication is totally bogus. The right way to check
for overflow of an integer multiplication is to use division.
ie, given
res = a * b;
Divide res by a, if the result is less than b, then the
--- Comment #14 from law at redhat dot com 2006-05-02 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Gcc 4.2
miscompiles binutils
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 18:21 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2006-06-04 22:32 ---
Someone who understands SCEV really needs to fix it. It's been a consistent
source of problems for VRP -- whether it's giving us bogus ranges (ranges
outside the given type) or claiming variables do not wrap wh
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2006-06-08 16:38 ---
Subject: Re: bootstrap failure building libdecnumber,
ICE in compare_values, tree-vrp.c:432
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:47 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #11 from rguenth at g
--- Comment #2 from law at redhat dot com 2008-11-25 20:04 ---
Subject: Re: New: tree_forwarder_block_p says no to
first basic block
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> tree_forwarder_block_p has
>
> if (find_edge (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR, bb))
> return false;
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-04 20:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] jump threading
causing excessive code duplication
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 18:56 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 03:43 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-04 20:11 ---
Band-aid applied for 4.1; Steven's prototype patch may be a better solution as
it only simulates those statements which affect the conditional and doesn't
count those statements (they're likely going
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:03 ---
The SSA optimizers clean this testcase enough to no longer emit a bogus
uninitialized warning. It is (of course) possible to create more complex tests
which would still generate bogus uninitialized warnings.
--
law at
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5035
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:18 ---
No plans exist to address these issues in the 3.x series. It works as expected
in GCC 4.1.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:23 ---
Bogus warning no longer issued with GCC 4.1 based compilers.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:47 ---
Just an interesting tidbit.
This testcase exposes a much more difficult/interesting long term problem.
Namely, how should we handle uninitialized warnings for variables which are
exposed by optimization.
ie, in this case
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-09 00:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=10181)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10181&action=view)
Proposed patch and new testcases
I'm not comfortable self-approving this patch; the option processing cod
--- Comment #16 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-10 18:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:32 +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> Hmm, perhaps restricting the reassociation + simplificat
--- Comment #17 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-10 18:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:32 +, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> Hmm, perhaps restricting the reassociation + simplificat
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-22 19:18 ---
Subject: Re: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr14814.C
scan-tree-dump-times &this 0 fails
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:39 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-29 00:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in
coalesce_abnormal_edges, at tree-outof-ssa.c:646
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 23:26 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot g
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-30 08:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in
coalesce_abnormal_edges, at tree-outof-ssa.c:646
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 23:26 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot g
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-30 08:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in
coalesce_abnormal_edges, at tree-outof-ssa.c:646
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 23:26 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot g
--- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-30 08:57 ---
Fixed via today's patch to tree-ssa-uncprop.c.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-30 16:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in
coalesce_abnormal_edges, at tree-outof-ssa.c:646
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:52 +, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
>
> --- Comment #10 from giovannib
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-30 17:07 ---
SVN problems addressed, patch checked into both the mainline and the 4.1
branch.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-03 18:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Jump
threading opportunity missed in tree-ssa but caught in jump1
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 17:46 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from steven
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-05 18:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Jump
threading opportunity missed in tree-ssa but caught in jump1
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 18:05 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #7 from steven
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-15 02:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] infinite
loop in dse
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 00:23 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-16 07:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] infinite
loop in dse
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 00:23 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-16 07:06 ---
Fixed by included patch.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-20 06:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Segfault
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 05:44 +, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:44 ---
> Created an attac
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-20 06:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Segfault
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 05:44 +, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:44 ---
> Created an attac
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-20 21:33 ---
I've been unable to reproduce this with the gcc-4.1 branch sources. IT's going
to be awful difficult to fix if I can't reproduce the problem.
At the very least I'll need the before-dom dumps and some
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-21 04:33 ---
Was able to reproduce with gcc-4.0 branch sources. Investigating, looks like
we might have a type botch somewhere...
Jeff
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25328
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-21 04:44 ---
Definitely a type problem. The Obj-C front-end is playing it too lose with
types.
main (argc, argv)
{
char msg[100];
int status;
const unsigned char D.1189;
char * msg.0;
# BLOCK 0
# PRED: ENTRY (fallthru
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2006-01-04 16:36 ---
Fixed by attached patch. Would appreciate it if folks could verify ada is
bootstrapping again on PPC, HPUX and any other platform reported as failing.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2006-01-12 20:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE in
coalesce_abnormal_edges
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 16:30 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Before PRE a$a_1 is live from the beginning of BB6 through the outgoing
edge
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2006-01-12 20:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE in
coalesce_abnormal_edges
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 20:30 +, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> You should assign this bug to Daniel since he's the PRE expert.
I'
--- Comment #2 from law at redhat dot com 2006-08-14 07:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=12073)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12073&action=view)
Backport of patch to GCC 4.0 branch (not thoroughly tested)
This bug was fixed long ago (prior to branching for
--- Comment #3 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-12 20:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with
computed goto and constants
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:45 +, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-13 00:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with
computed goto and constants
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 23:46 +, spark at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-13 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with
computed goto and constants
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 23:46 +, spark at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-19 19:52 ---
Fixed with today's patch to tree-cfg.c.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-19 20:04 ---
Fix committed to mainline, gcc-4.1 and gcc-4.2 branches
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30984
--- Comment #7 from law at redhat dot com 2007-03-29 23:18 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading/bypassing
optimization with loop and % (or ands)
IMHO, this PR should simply be closed.
This is a case where aggressive threading is going to explode codesize
with marginal
--- Comment #46 from law at redhat dot com 2007-09-15 06:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ACATS cxh1001 fails
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:55 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #45 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-12 15:55
> ---
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-21 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 00:34 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20
> 00:34 ---
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: law at redhat dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triple
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-22 16:58 ---
Subject: Re: paradoxical subreg problem
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 17:34 +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21
>
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-02 18:23 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 11:50 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-06 05:59 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 10:39 +, stevenb at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-05 10
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-06 19:56 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still
catches
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 09:30 +, stevenb at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-03-06 09
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:44 ---
I just checked in a patch which should fix this problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:49 ---
Fixed with today's checkin. I'll add a test to the testsuite too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18134
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-11 00:51 ---
Subject: Re: [PR middle-end/18628] do not fold to label load from tablejump
to reg
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 17:37 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2005, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-16 19:24 ---
An update on the new jump threading selection code.
All the base infrastructure is in place (namely the code to avoid creating
irreducible regions). Benchmarking the new selection code has turned up one
issue with
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-21 17:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra
assignment inserted on the tree level
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:53 +, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-21 17:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] extra
assignment inserted on the tree level
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 16:51 +, stevenb at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-22 17:12 ---
The EON issue mentioned in my notes from last week is an instability in how IV
opts selects which induction variables to use. Zdenek has a patch which helps
increase the stability of the IV selection code and
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-30 18:57 ---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/20460] add phi args to dests of
dce-redirected edges
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 02:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> When remove_dead_stmt() redirects a control stmt, the e
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-31 17:59 ---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/20640] add phi args to dests of
dce-redirected edges
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 05:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-31 18:00 ---
Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/20640] add phi args to dests of
dce-redirected edges
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 05:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-02 01:31 ---
Some notes on recent poking and prodding.
The big perl speedup is consistent on my P4 -- but perl shows no significant
change on my AMD box. Perl spends ~50% of its time in one routine (regexec)
and, surprise
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 00:25 ---
Just more notes on the huge perl speedup with the threading changes...
For reasons yet unknown, we're seeing a lot less L2 cache traffic when perl
is compiled with the threading changes. The decreased L2 tr
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 03:21 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] Jump threading
related bugs
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 02:05 +, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-06
&
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 17:41 ---
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] Jump threading
related bugs
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 06:38 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-06 19:21 ---
More info.
It appears that threading one specific jump is responsible for triggering
the big speedup. And it could cause the kind of effects we're seeing.
Basically we're threading a conditional branch
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-08 18:19 ---
OK. I'm pretty sure the perl improvements are really just an artifact of
changes in what objects get spilled onto the stack on the offsets of each
particular object.
I can with a small amount of work tw
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 16:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading
on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 21:49 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> --- Additio
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-13 04:55 ---
Should be fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14627
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-13 17:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading
on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:04 +, dnovillo at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Additional Comme
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-15 18:25 ---
Subject: Re: [PR middle-end/20739] lvalue cond-expr gimplification may
crash on cv-qual diffs
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 14:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PRO
--- Comment #13 from law at redhat dot com 2008-09-23 21:55 ---
Subject: Re: Missed jump threading optimization
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-21 13:58
> ---
> tree PRE now *does* handle the
--- Comment #20 from law at redhat dot com 2008-10-15 17:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] calculix gets
wrong answer for -O1 -ffast-math
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 09:08
> ---
> The proble
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2008-03-25 21:54 ---
Subject: Re: Problem while compiling gcc for mn10300-elf
mstein dot lists at googlemail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from mstein dot lists at googlemail dot com 2008-03-20
> 13:55 ---
> patc
--- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com 2008-03-27 00:35 ---
Subject: Re: Problem while compiling gcc for mn10300-elf
nickc at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-03-26 14:16 ---
> Subject: Re: Problem while compiling gcc for m
--- Comment #8 from law at redhat dot com 2008-03-27 18:57 ---
Subject: Re: Problem while compiling gcc for mn10300-elf
nickc at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> Nope, when you pointed it out to me I puzzled over it too. The answer
> is quite simple though, at the po
--- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com 2009-02-26 16:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] GCSE-optimization
causes enormous binary size increase (~20 times !)
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-21 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Absolutely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93962
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression] bootstrap |bootstrap fails with
||law at redhat dot com
||law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Should be fixed on the trunk now. I'm going to be opening a distinct bug for
cleanup/removal of the code which extracts a (likely incorrect) location from
the expression -- I wasn't comfortable moving on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
gimple_or_expr_nonartificial_location will extract a location from the passed
in expr node. That's generally the wrong thing to do.
For gcc-11 that code should eith
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94060
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94060
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|law at redhat dot com |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8
1 - 100 of 3055 matches
Mail list logo
