--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-10 08:10 ---
Subject: Re: loop header should also be pulled
out of the inner loop too
On Mon, 9 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > (In reply to comment #11)
> > > I
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 14:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in
find_lattice_value() for complex operands.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> richi: if bD.1520 does not have a default def because it is unused, y
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Linux matroxfb_probe
miscompiled
> --- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-18 14:12 ---
> running a 4.1 bootstrap.
It's been in our SUSE tree for some w
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-18 15:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Segfault in
find_lattice_value() for complex operands.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch wrote:
> > I'll bootstrap & test the obv
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-20 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: VRP/DOM does not like TRUTH_AND_EXPR
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Richard -- is there any chance you could pick up the ball on this PR? I
> really
> need to focus on som
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-27 16:09 ---
Subject: Re: -fivopts producing out of bounds
array refs
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
> > Stripping useless type conversions during biv discovery and folding
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 13:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #14 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-05-17 15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] VRP miscompilation
of simple loop
On Wed, 17 May 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-17 13
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-06-03 20:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 regression] segfault in
ipa-inline.c, if (e->callee->local.disregard_inline_limits
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
> I was using revision 114238. Do you know if there h
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-11-14 23:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] name-lookup for
non-dependent name in template function is wrong
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, jason at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-11-19 17:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] ICE in vectorizer with
restrict pointer
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 20
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-11-26 13:05 ---
Subject: Re: CCP does not propagate through
constant initializers
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, graham dot stott at btinternet dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-11-26 15:13 ---
Subject: Re: CCP does not propagate through
constant initializers
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, graham dot stott at btinternet dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2008-11-26
&
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-11-30 11:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] unaligned stack in main
due to tail call optimization
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-29
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-12-08 12:40 ---
Subject: Re: TreeSSA-PRE load after store
misoptimization
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, sergeid at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from sergeid at il dot ibm dot com 2008-12-08 11:53
> ---
>
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-12-10 12:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] libgcj_bc for 4.3 and 4.4
are binary incompatible but have the same SONAME
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, aph at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-12-10 13:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] libgcj_bc for 4.3 and 4.4
are binary incompatible but have the same SONAME
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, aph at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from aph at redhat dot com 2008-12
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-12-30 11:46 ---
Subject: Re: Weird name-lookup error
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu 2008-12-30 11:42
> ---
> Please see my b
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-12-30 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: SLES11: SEGV with try/throw/catch/terminate()
at -q64
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 16:31
> ---
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-04 14:35 ---
Subject: Re: _Relative_pointer_impl invokes undefined
behavior
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-01-04 14
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-12 15:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warnings from -isystem
headers strikes back.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-01-12 15:10 ---
&g
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-13 08:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Missed FRE because
of VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 01
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-13 14:29 ---
Subject: Re: TreeSSA-PRE load after store missed
optimization
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 14:11
> ---
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-14 20:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warnings from -isystem
headers strikes back.
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from pluto at agmk dot net 2009-01-14 18:29 ---
> (In re
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-14 20:51 ---
Subject: Re: huge performance regression on
EEMBC bitmnp01
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I think the disregard for conditional execution opportunities and the
> assumption th
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-16 09:36 ---
Subject: Re: missing FRE with
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 02:33
> ---
> Mine. Sim
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-16 18:27 ---
Subject: Re: field-insensitive PTA causes
libstdc++ miscompiles
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 18
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-16 18:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] field-insensitive
PTA causes libstdc++ miscompiles
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-16 18
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-16 21:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] trapping
expression wrongly hoisted out of loop
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] trapping
> expr
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-18 17:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] 464.h264ref in SPEC
CPU 2006 miscompiled
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-18 17
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-18 17:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] 464.h264ref in SPEC
CPU 2006 miscompiled
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-18 17
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-19 16:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] POINTER_PLUS folding
introduces undefined overflow
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 16
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-20 15:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] psim miscompiled #2
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-20 14:24
> ---
> (In
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-22 09:29 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in set_value_range, at
tree-vrp.c:398
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 09:00 ---
> In PRE ther
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-22 12:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-22 12:10 ---
> Fixing FRE
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-24 09:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-24 08:59 ---
> Regardi
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-24 09:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-24 09:54 ---
> ch
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-25 11:04 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran Complex reduction /
multiplication not vectorized
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-25 09:12
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-25 19:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] Compiler warns about
uninitialized variable that is an object with a constructor
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #14 from mmitchel at
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-25 20:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] Compiler warns about
uninitialized variable that is an object with a constructor
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from mark at codesourc
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 14:23 ---
Subject: Re: Complex matrix product is not
vectorized
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26
>
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 15:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-01-26 15:56 ---
> >
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 16:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 16
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-27 10:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in set_value_range,
at tree-vrp.c:398
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 10
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-27 12:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] NULL
pointers always considered distinct by PTA, even with
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from bonzini
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 10:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from jason at redhat dot com 2009-01-27 23:25 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.4 Regr
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 12:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missing
constraints for pointers accessed directly via their address
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-28 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
> Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/init/const7.C XFAILed
>
> rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-29 09:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] Unexplained "'' is
used uninitialized in this function" warning in cc1plus -m64
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 f
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-29 21:24 ---
Subject: Re: Gcc accepts invalid code
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-01-29 20:02
> ---
> Subject:
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-30 06:52 ---
Subject: Re: Gcc accepts invalid code
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-30 01:17
> ---
> (In reply to c
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-04 09:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5.0 Regression] Revision 147083 failed
gfortran.dg/array_memcpy_4.f90
On Mon, 4 May 2009, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-04 08
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-06 11:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE during
gimplify_init_constructor
On Wed, 6 May 2009, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE during gimplify_init_constructor
>
> On T
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-06 11:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused
unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c
On Wed, 6 May 2009, matz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-06 21:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused
unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c
On Wed, 6 May 2009, matz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-06 21:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused
unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c
On Wed, 6 May 2009, matz at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Comment #21 from matz at suse dot de 2009-05-06 21
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-10 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] tree-ssa-sink
breaks stack layout
On Sun, 10 May 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 13
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-10 14:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] tree-ssa-sink
breaks stack layout
On Sun, 10 May 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 14
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-11 12:44 ---
Subject: Re: bad optimization(?) pure virtual function
call with -O2
On Mon, 11 May 2009, jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-05-11 12
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-11 13:10 ---
Subject: Re: bad optimization(?) pure virtual function
call with -O2
On Mon, 11 May 2009, jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-05-11 13
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-12 14:47 ---
Subject: Re: Time increase with inlining for the
Polyhedron test air.f90
On Tue, 12 May 2009, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-12 13
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-15 08:39 ---
Subject: Re: ICE assert aliasing in
vectorizable_store, at tree-vect-stmts.c:3108 on mipsel abi=n32 and 64,
works at 32
On Thu, 14 May 2009, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from ebotca
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-15 08:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number
of iterations analysis wrong
On Fri, 15 May 2009, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-15 00
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-15 13:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc 4.4.0 compiles
in infinite loop
On Fri, 15 May 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-05-15
&
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-16 11:39 ---
Subject: Re: missing
unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
On Sat, 16 May 2009, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 11:31 ---
> (In reply to comm
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-26 14:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] SPEC2006 403.gcc
miscompares
On Tue, 26 May 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 14:34
> ---
>
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-29 20:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Big degradation on
swim/mgrid on powerpc 32/64 after alias improvement merge (gcc r145494)
On Fri, 29 May 2009, luisgpm at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #5 f
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-04 11:49 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL
properly
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 11:47
> ---
>
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-04 13:39 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran does not set TYPE_CANONICAL
properly
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-04 12:51
> ---
> (In
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-14 12:31 ---
Subject: Re: missing
unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-06 07:08 ---
> (In reply to c
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-14 15:41 ---
Subject: Re: optimizer bug (possibly)
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from jason at redhat dot com 2009-06-14 15:39 ---
> Subject: Re: optimizer bug (possibly)
&
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-17 11:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/va-arg-trap-1.c
ICEs on powerpc-apple-darwin9
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-20 17:12 ---
Subject: Re: long time needed in tree canonical iv
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 17:08
> ---
> (In reply t
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-24 09:07 ---
Subject: Re: Scheduling of post-modified function
arguments is not good
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 07
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-25 12:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] offsetof buglet
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, mikpe at it dot uu dot se wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-06-25 12:12 ---
> (In reply to comment #9)
>
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-26 18:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148947
failed gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_1.f90
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> Revision 148947:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cv
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-28 11:07 ---
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault caused by
alignment error in sse code
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-06-28 11:04 ---
> Pa
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-29 12:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] tracer
duplicates blocks w/o adjusting EH tree
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 12
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-30 11:49 ---
Subject: Re: pair& operator=(pair&& __p) doesn't work
without inlining
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot c
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-01 10:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] tracer
duplicates blocks w/o adjusting EH tree
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-07-01 10:47 ---
> S
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-02 15:46 ---
Subject: Re: Pointer does not really escape
with write
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 15:40
> ---
> Dan, you
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-03 09:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 10% performance
regression since Nov 1 on Polyhedron's "NF" on AMD64
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from ubizjak at g
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-11 18:09 ---
Subject: Re: [LTO] complains about two tentative
definitions
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 18:05
> ---
>
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-14 21:28 ---
Subject: Re: SRA scalarizes dead objects,
single-use objects
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-14 16:32
> ---
&
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-15 11:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] internal
compiler error: in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2501
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, ich at az2000 dot de wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from ich at az2000 dot de 2009-07-15 11
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-15 13:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] internal
compiler error: in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2501
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-15 15:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] internal
compiler error: in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2501
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] inter
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-16 13:05 ---
Subject: Re: Vectorization of complex types,
vectorization of sincos missing
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-07-16 12
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-16 13:57 ---
Subject: Re: Vectorization of complex types,
vectorization of sincos missing
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-16 13
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-20 12:55 ---
Subject: Re: Vectorization of complex types,
vectorization of sincos missing
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #7 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-07
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-23 15:21 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 149750 failed
483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-23 14
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-24 09:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 149750 failed
483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-23
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-26 20:44 ---
Subject: Re: --program-suffix is ignored (for ada)
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, davek at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-26 20:39
> ---
> (In reply t
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-29 08:05 ---
Subject: Re: Function object abstraction penalty
with inline functions.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-28 19
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-29 08:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE with recursion
at -O3
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-28 20:59
> ---
> H
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-29 08:12 ---
Subject: Re: Function object abstraction penalty
with inline functions.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-28 21
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-29 10:57 ---
Subject: Re: Function object abstraction penalty
with inline functions.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-29 10
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-29 18:01 ---
Subject: Re: LTO doesn't merge common sections properly
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-29 17:55 ---
> I believe a &
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-29 18:18 ---
Subject: Re: LTO doesn't merge common sections properly
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-29 18:10 ---
> So LTO still
1 - 100 of 3357 matches
Mail list logo
