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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|Bytemark FP EMULATION

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] New: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 Bug #: 55286 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 --- Comment #17 from wbrana 2012-11-12 13:17:08 UTC --- there is another bug caused by revision 175752 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-11-15 16:12:57 UTC --- Created attachment 28699 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28699 function Assignment without 175752

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #3 from wbrana 2012-11-15 16:16:05 UTC --- Created attachment 28700 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28700 function Assignment with 175752 according to gprof Assignment is called 1574 times without 175752

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2012-11-15 17:01:22 UTC --- Bytemark source code http://www.tux.org/~mayer/linux/nbench-byte-2.2.3.tar.gz

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:24:44 UTC --- Created attachment 28715 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28715 Gentoo patches 1

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:25:23 UTC --- Created attachment 28716 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28716 Gentoo patches 2

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:26:18 UTC --- Created attachment 28717 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28717 Gentoo patches 3

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #9 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:29:20 UTC --- Created attachment 28718 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28718 build log from non-broken gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:30:22 UTC --- Created attachment 28719 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28719 build log from broken gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #11 from wbrana 2012-11-17 14:52:44 UTC --- It seems I was wrong. Reverting 175752 doesn't fix performance. I used also Gentoo patches with patch which reverts 175752. I thought that it isn't possible, but it seems some of Gen

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #12 from wbrana 2012-11-17 15:01:34 UTC --- more exact CFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -O3 -funroll-loops -g0 -march=corei7 -ffast-math -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector -static

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

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

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 4% - 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 --- Comment #13 from wbrana 2012-11-30 20:23:40 UTC --- It seems it is caused by 182844 182839 ASSIGNMENT : 64.374 : 244.96 : 63.54 182844 ASSIGNMENT : 57.697 : 219.55 : 56.95

[Bug tree-optimization/55286] [4.7 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 10% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7 Regression] Bytemark

[Bug tree-optimization/55968] New: Bytemark HUFFMAN 11% slower with -ftree-vectorize

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55968 Bug #: 55968 Summary: Bytemark HUFFMAN 11% slower with -ftree-vectorize Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182 Bug #: 56182 Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe commences before first target Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.4

[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 --- Comment #1 from wbrana 2013-02-02 12:31:45 UTC --- Created attachment 29335 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29335 build log

[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 --- Comment #2 from wbrana 2013-02-02 12:33:30 UTC --- Created attachment 29336 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29336 gcc/config/i386/t-linux64

[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 Keywords||build Host|

[Bug lto/54108] 35% bigger binary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54108 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/56244] -O3 should imply -funroll-loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56244 wbrana changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wbrana at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from

[Bug driver/61270] New: max-inline-insns-single is too high

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com -finline-limit sets max-inline-insns-single and max-inline-insns-auto to same value max-inline-insns-auto is 40 by default which is sane, but max-inline-insns-single is 400 which seems to be insane all

[Bug driver/61274] New: excessive code size with large-unit-insns

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com according to docs inline-unit-growth limit is effective only when unit size is above large-unit-insns, which means if application consists of many small units with many inlineable functions, application

[Bug tree-optimization/43692] New: small loop not vectorized

onent: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: wbrana at gmail dot com GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43692

[Bug tree-optimization/43692] small loop not vectorized

--- Comment #2 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2010-04-08 17:22 --- -fno-vect-cost-model has no effect -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43692

[Bug tree-optimization/43692] small loop not vectorized

--- Comment #4 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2010-04-08 17:50 --- I have got same code with -O2 and O3 on Gentoo Using built-in specs. Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: /mnt/md3/cache/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.4.3/work/gcc-4.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc

[Bug tree-optimization/43692] small loop not vectorized

--- Comment #6 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2010-04-08 18:31 --- Loop is vectorized with GCC 4.4 if these flags are used: -O1 -ftree-vectorize -march=core2 .LFB0: .cfi_startproc movaps b(%rip), %xmm0 addps c(%rip), %xmm0 movaps %xmm0, a(%rip

[Bug libstdc++/65022] New: basic_string operator

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com operators don't return reference if out of range http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4296.pdf 21.4.5 basic_string element access [string.access] const_reference operator[](size_type pos)

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54078 --- Comment #10 from wbrana --- there is difference also with O2 and branch 4.9 size in bytes 57199 -O2 55222 -O2 -flto 60681 -O2 -finline-functions 75301 -O2 -flto -finline-functions 67083 -O2 -flto -finline-functions --param large-unit-insns=1

[Bug driver/61274] excessive code size with large-unit-insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61274 --- Comment #2 from wbrana --- gcc should probably support new level -O4 which will optimize for benchmarks, which will equal to current -O3 -O3 and bellow will optimize for applications with saner "--param" values

[Bug lto/63242] New: memory starvation caused by flatten attribute

: lto Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wbrana at gmail dot com forwarded from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77580 Hello, I've been testing GCC 4.9 for a virtual gentoo machine and I noticed that you us flatten attribute in source code. In ca

[Bug lto/63242] memory starvation caused by flatten attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63242 --- Comment #2 from wbrana --- How I can create such testcase? I can reproduce it on Gentoo by adding -flto to /etc/portage/make.conf and running: emerge xf86-video-intel but can't reproduce from command-line gcc -std=gnu99 -O3 -shared -fPIC -f

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48004 Summary: doesn't work with randomize_va_space Product: gcc Version: 4.5.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: pch AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.

[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 Host||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --- Comment #2 from wbrana

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48004 --- Comment #4 from wbrana 2011-03-07 10:54:43 UTC --- It is possible that this bug is related to PaX, which I'm using http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=301299#c31 I tried to disable PaX with "paxctl -pemrxs cc1plus", but warning disappear on

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48004 --- Comment #6 from wbrana 2011-03-07 11:20:55 UTC --- I can see warning also when PaX is disabled with kernel 2.6.37.2 randomize_va_space is 1 by default.

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48004 --- Comment #7 from wbrana 2011-03-07 12:35:23 UTC --- Parsing /proc doesn't have to work with PaX kernel. PaX removes some info from e.g. maps file.

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #46 from wbrana 2011-07-23 13:25:44 UTC --- -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -march=core2 -funroll-loops -fno-tree-pre 4.4.6 - 1730.9 4.5.2 - 2368 4.6.1 - 2205.6

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #47 from wbrana 2011-07-23 13:53:46 UTC --- -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -march=core2 -funroll-loops 4.4.6 - 1522.8 4.5.2 - 1502.6 4.6.1 - 1418.2

[Bug libstdc++/36456] New: can't build gcc 4.3.1

scope /home/x/workspace/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/char_traits.h: In static member function 'static int std::char_traits::eof()': /home/x/workspace/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/char_traits.h:295: error: 'EOF' was not declared in this scope make[4]: *** [codecvt.lo] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/x/workspace/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src' -- Summary: can't build gcc 4.3.1 Product: gcc Version: 4.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: wbrana at gmail dot com GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36456

[Bug libstdc++/36456] can't build gcc 4.3.1

--- Comment #2 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2008-06-07 13:33 --- I'm using Gentoo x86_64. It seems that bug 30915 isn't fixed. There is comment in 30915, that bug appears also on SUSE. I tried patch from 30915. It fails: patching file fixincludes/fixincl.x Hunk #1 FAILED at

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.1/4.2 Regression] codegen regression due to PRE increasing register pressure (missing load PRE really)

--- Comment #24 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2008-06-15 13:02 --- It seems to not be fixed in 4.3.1: 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. : Old Index

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.1/4.2 Regression] codegen regression due to PRE increasing register pressure (missing load PRE really)

--- Comment #25 from wbrana at gmail dot com 2008-06-29 10:55 --- I think "4.3" is missing in "Summary" and "4.3.1" in "Known to fail". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485

<    1   2