On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> This one-liner causes following runtime test failure [1] for
> alphaev68-linux-gnu:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -O2
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> They are r188868 and r189325.
This'd be the diff:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/alias.c?r1=188448&r2=189325&pathrev=189325
Ciao!
Steven
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 29/11/2012 23:47, Uros Bizjak ha scritto:
This one-liner causes following runtime test failure [1] for
alphaev68-
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
This one-liner causes following runtime test failure [1] for
alphaev68-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -O2
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -O2
-
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 29/11/2012 23:47, Uros Bizjak ha scritto:
>>> This one-liner causes following runtime test failure [1] for
>>> alphaev68-linux-gnu:
>>>
>>> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execut
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 29/11/2012 23:47, Uros Bizjak ha scritto:
>> This one-liner causes following runtime test failure [1] for
>> alphaev68-linux-gnu:
>>
>> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -O2
>> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/ex
Il 29/11/2012 23:47, Uros Bizjak ha scritto:
> This one-liner causes following runtime test failure [1] for
> alphaev68-linux-gnu:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -O2
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution, -O2
> -fomit-frame-pointer -finli
Hello!
> When changing reg_known_value to a VEC, Steven sneaked in a small
> semantic change. That change has the advantage of improving compilation
> time substantially on some testcases (including PR55489), but it is a
> bit heavy-handed: it also makes set_known_reg_value a no-op, while
> get_k
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> When changing reg_known_value to a VEC, Steven sneaked in a small
> semantic change.
I don't sneak, I just tend to do stupid things from time to time ;-)
Thanks for catching this, and sorry for the breakage!
Ciao!
Steven
When changing reg_known_value to a VEC, Steven sneaked in a small
semantic change. That change has the advantage of improving compilation
time substantially on some testcases (including PR55489), but it is a
bit heavy-handed: it also makes set_known_reg_value a no-op, while
get_known_reg_value wil
10 matches
Mail list logo