[Bug c++/33127] New: private isn't private

rivate Product: gcc Version: 3.4.6 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: wbrana at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33127

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.2 Regression] codegen regression due to PRE increasing register pressure (missing load PRE really)

--- Comment #27 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2008-09-28 18:00 --- gcc 4.3.2, -march=core2 instead of -march=nocona BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95) Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97) Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97) TEST: Iterations/sec

[Bug tree-optimization/37732] New: [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] 40% slower numeric sort

Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: wbrana at gmail dot com GCC build triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37732

[Bug tree-optimization/37732] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] 40% slower numeric sort

--- Comment #2 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2008-10-03 22:47 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Dup of PR21485? > PR21485 is ignored by reporter and doesn't have updated summary. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37732

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

--- Comment #33 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2008-10-04 09:22 --- results with -fno-tree-pre 1749 - 4.4.0 20080926 (experimental) 1701 - 4.3.2 2476 - 4.2.4 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485

[Bug bootstrap/56182] [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/56458] New: support for crash on invalid array access

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56458 Bug #: 56458 Summary: support for crash on invalid array access Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] New: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 Bug #: 56522 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2013-03-07 18:35:10 UTC --- compiled 196260 again using same way and nbench is now slow, which is strange. When I compile nbench using gcc compiled from snapshot ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130224/

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #5 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:17:52 UTC --- weird results in comment 4 were caused by unexpected Gentoo patches and/or broken GIT I made own build which doesn't contain any Gentoo patches and still can reproduce 9% slow down cau

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:22:03 UTC --- Created attachment 29622 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29622 assign.c with main function

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:23:35 UTC --- Created attachment 29623 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29623 assign.c.164t.optimized.diff

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2013-03-08 14:24:38 UTC --- Created attachment 29624 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29624 nbench1.c.164t.optimized.diff

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:27:49 UTC --- I found strange thing - result depends on linker there is slow down with "GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1" there is improvement with "GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.23.1) 1.11"

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #11 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:36:10 UTC --- GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1 192263 - slow 192260 - fast GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.23.1) 1.11 192263 - fast 192260 - slow It is possible that result also depends on CPU model (

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:41:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.1 > 192263 - slow > 192260 - fast I meant 196260 and 196263

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #13 from wbrana 2013-03-08 17:57:32 UTC --- There is almost no difference with reduced test case. Assignment in nbench can be tested with: ./nbench -cCOM.DAT where file COM.DAT has content: ALLSTATS=F DONUMSORT=F DOSTRI

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 --- Comment #15 from wbrana 2013-03-12 14:28:43 UTC --- I can see different results with different linkers - see above. Your CPU is Nehalem quad core, but my CPU is Sandy Bridge dual core, which have less L1/L2/L3 cache.

[Bug tree-optimization/56522] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #5 from wbrana 2013-04-13 16:43:10 UTC --- branch 4.9 without lto 101462 bytes with -flto -fwhole-program 157243 bytes - linker bfd 155488 bytes - linker gold other CFLAGS = -O3 -g0 -march=corei7 -fomit-frame-pointer

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2013-04-13 17:01:27 UTC --- executable is smaller with lto when I add -fno-inline-functions 95928 vs 93880

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2013-04-13 17:34:23 UTC --- -fno-inline-functions makes same tests 12% or 6% slower with lto/gold NUMERIC SORT: 1689.2 : 43.32 : 14.23 NUMERIC SORT: 1483.2 : 3

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2013-04-13 17:59:47 UTC --- lto/gold -finline-limit=43 99960 bytes NUMERIC SORT: 1471.2 : 37.73 : 12.39 -finline-limit=44 149136 bytes NUMERIC SORT: 1705.2 :

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-fPIE -pie shouldn't|-fvisibility=hidden |disable -

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-10 13:40:29 UTC --- int func() { return random(); } int main(){ return func(); } $ gcc-4.7.2 -O2 1.c -o 1 $ nm -CD ./1 w __gmon_start__ U __libc_start_main

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-08-10 13:49:19 UTC --- How can I tell linker to not export symbols?

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2012-08-10 17:27:02 UTC --- Created attachment 27986 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27986 bash compiled with -fPIE -pie -fvisibility=hidden

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #13 from wbrana 2012-08-10 17:29:15 UTC --- Created attachment 27987 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27987 bash compiled with -fPIE -pie

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #18 from wbrana 2012-08-11 07:01:18 UTC --- I can use it, but other people don't have to know about this bug.

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #20 from wbrana 2012-08-11 07:39:37 UTC --- Why -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default without -fPIE, but disabled with -fPIE?

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 --- Comment #23 from wbrana 2012-08-11 15:17:04 UTC --- Why lot of program's makefiles have to be changed? If this change breaks some program, developers of that program will fix it. You don't have to. New versions of GCC always break many progra

[Bug other/54182] -fvisibility=hidden shouldn't be disabled with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #52 from wbrana 2012-08-12 12:30:21 UTC --- This bug celebrated 7th anniversary this year. Congratulations!

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #53 from wbrana 2012-08-13 08:26:13 UTC --- It seems it was improved. 4.8 20120806 NUMERIC SORT: 1543.7 : 39.59 : 13.00 4.8 20120813 NUMERIC SORT: 2007.8 : 51.49 : 16.91

[Bug target/54246] New: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246 Bug #: 54246 Summary: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug tree-optimization/54271] New: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271 Bug #: 54271 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54246] Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower with glibc 2.16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower |Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower |i

[Bug bootstrap/54329] New: gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 Bug #: 54329 Summary: gcc/reginfo.o differs Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2012-08-20 11:20:33 UTC --- Created attachment 28055 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28055 build log

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 --- Comment #3 from wbrana 2012-08-20 12:04:05 UTC --- configure --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.8.0-pre --includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.8.0-pre/include --datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linu

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 201

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/reginfo.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #28055|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug bootstrap/54329] gcc/cfgcleanup.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug bootstrap/54329] [4.8 Regression] gcc/cfgcleanup.o differs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54329 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-09-24 11:48:51 UTC --- still broken

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #15 from wbrana 2012-10-04 14:25:29 UTC --- I can reliably reproduce bug on Core 2. Reverting 175752 reliably fixes bug.

[Bug tree-optimization/54977] New: example3 not vectorized

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54977 Bug #: 54977 Summary: example3 not vectorized Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug java/53817] New: The import antlr cannot be resolved

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53817 Bug #: 53817 Summary: The import antlr cannot be resolved Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug java/53819] New: org/antlr/runtime/ANTLRFileStream.java:0:0: internal compiler error: in java_mark_decl_local, at java/decl.c:1912

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53819 Bug #: 53819 Summary: org/antlr/runtime/ANTLRFileStream.java:0:0: internal compiler error: in java_mark_decl_local, at java/decl.c:1912 Classification: Unclassified Prod

[Bug java/53817] The import antlr cannot be resolved

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53817 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-06-30 21:11:24 UTC --- It seems jar files have to be in CLASSPATH instead of so files.

[Bug java/53817] The import antlr cannot be resolved

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53817 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug java/53819] org/antlr/runtime/ANTLRFileStream.java:0:0: internal compiler error: in java_mark_decl_local, at java/decl.c:1912

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53819 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/53910] New: use -std=c++11 by default

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53910 Bug #: 53910 Summary: use -std=c++11 by default Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug other/53928] New: use tar.xz

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53928 Bug #: 53928 Summary: use tar.xz Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: o

[Bug other/53961] New: internal compiler error: in memory_address_length, at config/i386/i386.c:23341

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961 Bug #: 53961 Summary: internal compiler error: in memory_address_length, at config/i386/i386.c:23341 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status:

[Bug other/53961] internal compiler error: in memory_address_length, at config/i386/i386.c:23341

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-07-14 15:14:18 UTC --- Created attachment 27788 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27788 source code /usr/bin/gcc: file format elf32-x86-64 gcc -m64 -O2 -c ./host_ppc_isel.i -o test.o In file

[Bug target/53961] internal compiler error: in memory_address_length, at config/i386/i386.c:23341

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2012-07-14 19:22:16 UTC --- Are you using X32 GCC binary?

[Bug target/53961] internal compiler error: in memory_address_length, at config/i386/i386.c:23341

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2012-07-14 20:17:23 UTC --- if gcc is compiled as X32 /usr/bin/gcc: file format elf32-x86-64 and command gcc -m64 -O2 -c ./host_ppc_isel.i -o test.o

[Bug pch/48004] doesn't work with randomize_va_space

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48004 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug pch/54042] New: always create and use

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54042 Bug #: 54042 Summary: always create and use Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 C

[Bug pch/54050] New: chaining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54050 Bug #: 54050 Summary: chaining Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: pch

[Bug c++/54054] New: merged compilation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54054 Bug #: 54054 Summary: merged compilation Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug middle-end/54066] New: wrong-code at -O0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54066 Bug #: 54066 Summary: wrong-code at -O0 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 Bug #: 54077 Summary: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2012-07-24 09:39:37 UTC --- Created attachment 27863 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27863 AddSubInternalFPF.clang.txt

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-07-24 09:41:21 UTC --- Created attachment 27864 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27864 AddSubInternalFPF.gcc.txt

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #3 from wbrana 2012-07-24 09:42:27 UTC --- Created attachment 27865 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27865 DivideInternalFPF.clang.txt

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2012-07-24 09:43:38 UTC --- Created attachment 27866 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27866 DivideInternalFPF.gcc.txt

[Bug lto/54078] New: Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 Bug #: 54078 Summary: Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/54081] New: Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 10% slower with g++

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54081 Bug #: 54081 Summary: Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 10% slower with g++ Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-07-24 13:38:03 UTC --- 156312 bytes with -s -Wall -O3 -g0 -march=core2 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -ffast-math -mssse3 -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector -flto -fwhole-program?

[Bug lto/54108] New: 35% bigger binary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54108 Bug #: 54108 Summary: 35% bigger binary Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug lto/54078] Bytemark 46% bigger binary with -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2012-07-28 06:54:06 UTC --- one of tests is faster

[Bug lto/54118] New: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54118 Bug #: 54118 Summary: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2012-07-31 10:11:48 UTC --- clang FP EMULATION: 405.92 : 194.78 : 44.95 4.4.7 FP EMULATION: 337.44 : 161.92 : 37.36 4.5.4 FP EMULATION: 320.08 :

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] New: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 Bug #: 54143 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2012-07-31 17:48:57 UTC --- Created attachment 27908 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27908 20120422

[Bug tree-optimization/54143] [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 8% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-07-31 17:50:20 UTC --- Created attachment 27909 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27909 20120429

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-07-31 22:45:25 UTC --- 4.7 20110626 FP EMULATION: 318.44 : 152.80 : 35.26 4.7 20110703 FP EMULATION: 228.08 : 109.44 : 25.25

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-01 10:59:46 UTC --- If I didn't make mistake it seems big slow down is caused by revision 175752 Date: Fri Jul 1 10:00:25 2011 + 2011-07-01 Kai Tietz * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bi

[Bug testsuite/54152] New: add Bytemark

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152 Bug #: 54152 Summary: add Bytemark Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/54153] New: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153 Bug #: 54153 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-08-01 22:35:29 UTC --- Reversion of 175752 on latest 4.7 branch improved FP EMU by 41%, but made ASSIGNMENT worse by 8%. with 175752 NUMERIC SORT: 1562.9 : 40.08 : 13.16 STRING SORT

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #11 from wbrana 2012-08-05 10:56:58 UTC --- I found something strange. There is much smaller slow down in ASSIGNMENT without 175752 with Gentoo Hardened patches gcc version 4.7.2 20120804 (prerelease) (Gentoo Hardened 4.7.2 p1.2, pie

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wbrana at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #5 from wbrana 2012-08-05 12:00:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > And what type of super-computer is that ? outdated, almost 5 years old: Core 2 Quad 3.2 GHz, 4 GB RAM

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-05 12:27:52 UTC --- 2 GB RAM isn't enough. It isn't good idea to use x86_64 with 2 GB RAM.

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2012-08-05 13:31:28 UTC --- embedded systems compiler doesn't mean you can run gcc on embedded system, but you can cross compile for embedded system. Average user doesn't build or use compiler. It is only done by devel

[Bug c/54179] please split insn-emit.c !

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179 --- Comment #18 from wbrana 2012-08-05 14:11:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > Sorry, but this is just rubbish. You didn't confute my statements.

[Bug other/54182] New: enable -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 Bug #: 54182 Summary: enable -fvisibility=hidden Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 C

[Bug lto/54187] New: liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187 Bug #: 54187 Summary: liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug other/54182] enable -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WORKSFORME

[Bug lto/54187] liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-08-06 08:57:43 UTC --- Executables are smaller and loads faster with -fvisibility=hidden. Since which version -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default? 4.7.2 pre doesn't use -fvisibility=hidden by default.

[Bug lto/54187] liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug other/54182] enable -fvisibility=hidden with -fPIE -pie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug other/54182] -fPIE -pie shouldn't disable -fvisibility=hidden

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|build | Summary|enable -fvisibility=hidden

  1   2   >