http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
15:36:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Yay, it's always nice to be right the first time when diagnosing a problem.
The tree loop optimizers spend 285s out of 1360s total compile time (with my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #22 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
19:36:35 UTC ---
IRA/reload spends a rather significant amount of time here:
FOR_EACH_BB_REVERSE (bb)
{
bitmap_iterator bi;
rtx insn;
CLEAR_REG_SET (live_relevant_regs);
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
20:22:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 27953
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27953
Be memory friendlier in build_insn_chain
My first ever reload patch! :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #24 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
20:55:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created attachment 27953 [details]
Needs this extra bit:
diff -u ira.c ira.c
--- ira.c (working copy)
+++ ira.c (working copy)
@@ -3539,7 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #25 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
22:42:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The tree loop optimizers spend 285s out of 1360s total compile time (with my
> flatten hack and ifcvt patch applied) in compute_global_livein. That's 21%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #26 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
22:58:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> 185939 is the number of basic blocks that end up in livein. That is a bitmap,
> so most time is spent in traversing bitmap linked lists.
Oh, and this do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #28 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-07
19:58:00 UTC ---
To illustrate the rewrite_into_closed_loop_ssa problem, consider this test
case:
extern void use1 (int);
extern void use2 (int);
extern int confuse_loop (void);
void
foo (void)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #29 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-07
22:28:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 27957
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27957
Do not traverse sibling loops
The idea here is to note that for a nested loop we know for sure th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #30 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-07
22:36:30 UTC ---
> Created attachment 27957 [details]
With the attachment, time spent in rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa is almost 0
(and that includes the time in the verifier). Compile time for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #31 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-08
06:28:16 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Wed Aug 8 06:28:10 2012
New Revision: 190222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190222
Log:
PR middle-end/54146
* ifcvt.c: Include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #31 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-08
06:28:16 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Wed Aug 8 06:28:10 2012
New Revision: 190222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190222
Log:
PR middle-end/54146
* ifcvt.c: Include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #31 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #32 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #34 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-08
10:10:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> I think you should simply move compute_global_livein to its single use
> and make it static.
Yes, and I need to add the same smarts there as in find_use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52172
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52203
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52207
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2012-02-13
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-13
21:10:08 UTC ---
Can you please post the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52203
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
--- Comment #36 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-15
18:37:40 UTC ---
The patch was on one of the gsyprf machines, which are gone (didn't I already
tell you this before??). So the "latest" patch is lost...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||gnu.org, steven at gcc dot
||gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-18
12:27:50 UTC ---
Richard, I suppose you mean the problem is in this define_insn:
(define_insn "*thumb1_ashlsi3&quo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-18
12:36:29 UTC ---
(If the pattern of comment #3 is to blame, then this goes back all the way to
the check-in of that pattern, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=33028)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-18
12:46:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (If the pattern of comment #3 is to blame, then this ...
...probably fix it.
Index: arm.md
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52294
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-18
12:47:20 UTC ---
Or better:
Index: arm.md
===
--- arm.md(revision 184318)
+++ arm.md(working copy)
@@ -3505,7 +3505,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-19
17:48:16 UTC ---
With slightly modified test case (manually inlined apply_aa_coverage()):
BEFORE RELOAD:
(insn 142 133 314 9 (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI 283) 0)
(unsigned_fix:SI (fix:SF (reg/v:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52367
Bug #: 52367
Summary: Many incorrect thumb insn lengths
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52375
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52375
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-25
12:29:08 UTC ---
The unreduced test case fails for me with options:
"-march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=neon -O -ftree-vectorize"
The compiler is trunk r184372, configured for arm-eabi.
Backtr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-27
23:07:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 26767
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26767
Diff between insn-attrtab.c for r178386 and r178387.
The diff is huge. Diffstat:
insn-attrtab.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher 2012-02-28
09:00:21 UTC ---
F, that backtrace was due to an error in the patch I had to look at what
simplify_and_tree was doing.
genattrtab is trying to simplify huge and-trees, mostly for m68k_sched_* symbo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
Bug #: 52438
Summary: Some files still GPLv2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-01
19:27:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 26804
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26804
Tighten predicates
||2012-03-07
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-07
11:41:58 UTC ---
I'll have a look...
Reduced test case much appreciated (you know abou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52520
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Steven Boss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52520
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-07
13:07:24 UTC ---
May be fixed by r185028. Please update and try again.
||2012-03-10
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-10
00:15:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The bark() function call is in the same basic block
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2012-03-16
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52606
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-16
23:18:26 UTC ---
Someting as trivial as the following would perhaps already help (not tested):
Index: match.c
===
--- match.c(revi
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-16
23:59:41 UTC ---
Ehm, why does tree tail-merge not run at -Os? It's a size optimization, after
all!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Some files still GPLv2 |[4.7 Regression] Some files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33828
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-17
00:05:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Jakub, please do not forget about this one for stage1 GCC 4.7.
Jakub, please do not forget about this one for stage1 GCC 4.8.
||2012-03-18
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-18
15:53:27 UTC ---
Compiled with checking enabled, obviously. With release checking the test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52611
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52611
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-18
16:21:54 UTC ---
The problem happens very early on, during gimplification:
#1 0x009e7546 in verify_gimple_assign_unary (stmt=0x77fb5f00) at
../../gcc-4.6.3/gcc/tree-cfg.c:3241
3241
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52611
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-18
16:32:15 UTC ---
I don't think we should drop a cast that changes a machine mode:
--- tree-ssa.c.orig 2012-03-18 17:32:32.0 +0100
+++ tree-ssa.c 2012-03-18 17:30:40.0 +0100
@@ -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43940
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-18
22:48:49 UTC ---
With trunk today (r185508), on x86_64-linux at -O2 -fno-tree-vrp:
The .072t.ifcombine dump:
main ()
{
void * p;
:
p_2 = __builtin_malloc (4);
if (p_2 != 0B)
goto ;
else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42972
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-elf |arm-eabi
Last reconfirmed|2010-02-05
||2012-03-21
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-21
00:37:18 UTC ---
I'll have a stab at this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52646
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-21
13:01:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 26941
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26941
Needs an ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL platform for testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Steven Boss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-21
13:03:57 UTC ---
Ah, and obviously there should be a pointer_set_insert before VEC_safe_push...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26941|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|WAI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
--- Comment #11 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-24
13:46:42 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Mar 24 13:46:33 2012
New Revision: 185757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185757
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/52640
* varasm.c: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-24
13:47:51 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Mar 24 13:47:46 2012
New Revision: 185758
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185758
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/52640
* varasm.c: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-24
13:48:51 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Mar 24 13:48:35 2012
New Revision: 185759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185759
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/52640
* varasm.c: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.5, 4.6.4, 4.7.1
Target Milestone|
||2012-03-25
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
||2012-03-26
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-26
19:20:45 UTC ---
How disgusting. Java still emits RTL from the front end:
Breakpoint 1, internal_error (gmsgid=0x1551007 "in %s, at %s:%d") at
../../trunk/gcc/diagnostic.c:843
843 va_start (ap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |java
Version|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-27
20:11:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 27018
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27018
Stop using output_constant in class.c
I believe something like this should work, but I don't want
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-29
21:00:32 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Mar 29 21:00:23 2012
New Revision: 185977
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185977
Log:
PR java/52730
* class.c (emit_register_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52730
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52783
Bug #: 52783
Summary: Go front end emits assembly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
||2012-03-29
CC||ian at airs dot com
AssignedTo|ian at airs dot com |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-03-29
21:11:53 UTC ---
I intend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Bug #: 53034
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] tree-switch-conversion is
too aggressive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-18
20:25:45 UTC ---
The gimple switch conversion pass is much too aggressive, worse code is
generated for the examples that were used to introduce the implementation of
switch statements with bit tests.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45830
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2012-04-19
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-19
15:09:29 UTC ---
Mine. The message was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Bug #: 53087
Summary: Poor code for conversion from _Bool to int
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-23
17:13:28 UTC ---
Expected code:
foo:
.quad .L.foo,.TOC.@tocbase,0
.previous
.type foo, @function
.L.foo:
lwz 9,0(3)
cmplwi 7,9,27
bgt 7,.L4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Poor code for conversion|[powerpc] Poor code from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-23
20:13:29 UTC ---
Smaller test case:
_Bool
foo (long unsigned int a)
{
return (((1L << a) & 217579583UL) != 0);
}
==>
.file "t.c"
.section".toc","aw"
.section
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher ---
So if I understand correctly, this is what happens (sorry, reading
LIPSy RTL is still just too unnatural to me! ;-))
before ifcvt-after-combine:
r147:=(r424>r178)
r190:=r423-r189
if (r147==0) goto L433
{r19
||2013-11-02
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher ---
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58968
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher ---
Created attachment 31143
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31143&action=edit
Somewhat reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59279
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher ---
Author: steven
Date: Sun Nov 24 21:59:49 2013
New Revision: 205338
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/59279
Revert previous commit.
Modified:
trunk/
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher ---
will have to figure this one out, it's very unexpected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59279
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> When profiledbootstrap configured with
>
> --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --disable-werror
>
> I got
>
> ../../src-trunk/libiberty/cp-demangle.c: In function âd_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59279
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher ---
OK, thinko on my part: Can't remove the label before a JUMP_TABLE_DATA
if we're in cfglayout mode, because:
1. PREV_INSN (label) may be NULL
2. remove_insn doesn't update BB_FOOTER/BB_HEADER
I'll re-test t
601 - 700 of 1051 matches
Mail list logo
