On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old
> > > > same body
> > > > alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now
> > > > separate
> >
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old
> >> > > same body
> >> > > alias code and adding
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old
>> > > same body
>> > > alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now
>> > > separat
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same
> > > body
> > > alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now
> > > separate
> > > function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same
> > body
> > alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now
> > separate
> > function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to the node they a
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same body
> alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now separate
> function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to the node they are alias
> of.
>
> I
Hi,
this patch solves the bultin/strlen-3.c LTO linker plugin problem.
While removing alias code I was bit overactive and removed the check that makes
us to implicitly
do -fwhole-program when resolution info is around.
It is not quite clear to me why in LTO we need -fwhole-program to get the
tes
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this is the fix (or rather a workaround) i comitted. Thanks!
>
> Index: ChangeLog
> ===
> --- ChangeLog (revision 174968)
> +++ ChangeLog (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
>> >>
>> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
>> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
>> >
Hi,
this is the fix (or rather a workaround) i comitted. Thanks!
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 174968)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2011-06-11 Jan Hubicka
+
+ PR middle-end/49378
+ *
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>
> >> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
> >>
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
> >
> > Hi,
> > It seems somewhat amazing that we hit kernel sen
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:01 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>>> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
>>
>> Hi,
>> It seem
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
>
> Hi,
> It seems somewhat amazing that we hit kernel sensitive miscompilat
> I am testing it now. Will know the results in 2 hours.
Thanks.
Could you also send me the preprocessed source for future.o? The object file I
am getting don't have the bug you report, that is most probably due to glibc
difference.
Honza
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
>
> Hi,
> It seems somewhat amazing that we hit kernel sensitive miscompilat
>
> This also pretty much destroyed C++ for ia32:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49378
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-06/msg00159.html
Hi,
It seems somewhat amazing that we hit kernel sensitive miscompilation here.
The problem most probably is the fact that thunks a
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>> this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same
>> body
>> alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now separate
>> function nodes tha
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same body
> alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now separate
> function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to the node they are alias
18 matches
Mail list logo
