http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53082
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
Bug #: 53083
Summary: gcc bug in moving from the SSE registers back onto the
heap.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-23 07:55:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I additional information is required please let me know.
Please provide all necessary information, as outlined in [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53077
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53080
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
09:15:26 UTC ---
It might be a duplicate of PR53050.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |testsuite
--- Comment #4 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53078
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52451
--- Comment #3 from Rich Felker 2012-04-23 09:37:45
UTC ---
Compiling with the -mno-ieee-fp option fixes this bug. It seems like the
behavior of this option is reversed from the documentation; -mno-ieee-fp gives
IEEE conformant comparisons (raisi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at bubblescope dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
--- Comment #6 from Chris Jefferson 2012-04-23
09:44:11 UTC ---
Yes, will check.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53065
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-04-23
09:56:24 UTC ---
Also confirmed with 4.8.0 from 2012-04-16 under i686-pc-linux-gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
--- Comment #7 from Chris Jefferson 2012-04-23
09:57:12 UTC ---
While I haven't yet got a recent copy of gcc trunk compiled, it does indeed
look like an out-of-bounds error, but just a 'testsuite' problem.
At the top of both mem_check tests as a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
09:58:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27219
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27219
gcc48-pr52999.patch
This patch avoids the ICE when diagnosing the section conflict, but not sure
wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
Bug #: 53084
Summary: GCC cannot handle array initialization of string
constant with point arithmetic properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52891
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
10:13:46 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 23 10:13:39 2012
New Revision: 186694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186694
Log:
PR tree-optimizations/52891
* tree-vect-pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52891
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
10:17:08 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 23 10:16:57 2012
New Revision: 186695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186695
Log:
PR tree-optimizations/52891
* tree-vect-pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
10:20:13 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 23 10:20:05 2012
New Revision: 186696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186696
Log:
2012-04-23 Richard Guenther
PR c/53060
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
10:24:25 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 23 10:24:14 2012
New Revision: 186698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186698
Log:
2012-04-23 Richard Guenther
PR c/53060
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2012-04-23 10:25:05
UTC ---
I can confirm it with trunk version for -O0, too.
Issue is that there seems to be a wrong-code generation bug for O0 and
read-only section data.
...
movqaa.2567(%rip), %rax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53081
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53079
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53076
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53070
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53071
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53050
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
10:39:16 UTC ---
Will look at this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
--- Comment #9 from Chris Jefferson 2012-04-23
10:54:57 UTC ---
Looking at the output of -fdump-tree-all, it looks like the compiler optimises
the loop which accesses an array out of bounds to:
while(true);
Is this expected behaviour? That seem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53077
--- Comment #5 from Sylwester Arabas 2012-04-23
11:13:21 UTC ---
Thanks for quick replies.
> Why can't you just pass the -cpp option to gfortran
> if you want to enable the preprocessor?
Of course you can, but first you need to know that the
"I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-23 11:17:34 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 23 11:17:28 2012
New Revision: 186701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186701
Log:
2012-04-23 Chris Jefferson
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Richard Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
11:42:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Looking at the output of -fdump-tree-all, it looks like the compiler optimises
> the loop which accesses an array out of bounds to:
>
> while(true);
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
11:44:11 UTC ---
Fixed by doing
/*= sum up =*/
for (k=0; k < 16; k++)
{
dd = d[k];
satd += (dd < 0 ? -dd : dd);
}
instead.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
--- Comment #5 from brainschrat at gmx dot de 2012-04-23 11:48:20 UTC ---
Yes, -I and -J are totally unneccessary together. I made use of -I long before
I started putting the modules in other directories, and together they produce
this mess, but no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #2 from Da Fox 2012-04-23
12:26:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 27220
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27220
.i version of miarc.c
I think this is the information that was missing:
The file in question compiled with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53080
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-23 12:26:57 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 23 12:26:43 2012
New Revision: 186702
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186702
Log:
2012-04-23 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #3 from Da Fox 2012-04-23
12:28:06 UTC ---
gcc -v output:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.6.0/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53080
--- Comment #5 from Akira Takahashi 2012-04-23
12:32:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Done.
Great thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #10 from Michal Malecki 2012-04-23
12:38:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > 2. The code is rejected the following way: the template specialization
> > definition is itself rejected because due to not co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48246
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner 2012-04-23
12:44:51 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Apr 23 12:44:46 2012
New Revision: 186703
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186703
Log:
Backport from mainline
2011-06-11 Jan H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-23
12:46:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> My testscript for delta returns 0 if I call it, but it returns
> 1 if called by delta
Delta generates a new directory, copies the file there and runs then t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53070
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
12:47:09 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 23 12:47:02 2012
New Revision: 186704
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186704
Log:
2012-04-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
Bug #: 53085
Summary: write to volatile struct member is missing on
Cortex-M3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
--- Comment #1 from brag 2012-04-23 12:58:17 UTC
---
struct aa{
volatile unsigned short a;
unsigned short b;
volatile unsigned short c;
unsigned short d;
};
#define AAmem ((struct aa *) 256)
static inline unsigned int tx(unsigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41587
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-23
12:59:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> As of yesterday, the testcase in comment #1 compiles and runs
> successfully. We now just need the error message for the original problem.
Untested patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
--- Comment #2 from brag 2012-04-23 13:19:03 UTC
---
The simpler example:
struct aa{
volatile unsigned short a;
};
struct aa AAmem;
void f(){
AAmem.a=0xff;
AAmem.a=0xff;
}
<_Z1fv>:
0:f240 0300 movwr3, #0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
brag changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-04-23 13:47:31 UTC ---
On 4/23/2012 5:58 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
> 09:58:38 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
Bug #: 53086
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006
miscompiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53076
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-23
14:06:17 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 23 14:06:11 2012
New Revision: 186709
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186709
Log:
gcc-testsuite:
2012-04-23 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53076
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-04-23 14:50:18 UTC ---
On 4/23/2012 9:56 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Or for PA define __attribute_relro__ to nothing, or assume that users putting
> decls into .data.rel.ro or .data.rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-23 14:50:54
UTC ---
Unfortunately, this is a runtime failure, so we will also need a runtime
testcase (probably minimized) that fails when compiled with options that expose
the bug.
In comment #8 of the li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53070
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-23
15:08:45 UTC ---
In most units we have
COMMON /FMCOM / X(1)
but in unport.F
PARAMETER (MEMSIZ= 80 000 000)
COMMON /FMCOM / X(MEMSIZ)
that can't work (?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #3 from Richard Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #13 from Matt Hargett 2012-04-23 15:19:47 UTC
---
*** Bug 52704 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52704
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52610
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-23 15:24:49 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 23 15:24:44 2012
New Revision: 186713
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186713
Log:
2012-04-23 Chris Jefferson
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-04-23 15:29:03
UTC ---
BTW: Can you test if this problem is still present in a newer version of the
compiler (i.e. 4.6.3 or 4.7.0)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52851
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53057
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
16:16:54 UTC ---
The PA specific thing there is that PA puts rtx constant pool into .data.rel.ro
section, something that doesn't happen on i?86/x86_64/ppc/ppc64 etc. to my
knowledge. Which is why ther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |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=48246
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner 2012-04-23
16:40:10 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Mon Apr 23 16:39:59 2012
New Revision: 186714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186714
Log:
Merge up to 186704 (pick up PR lto/48246).
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=53084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
Bug #: 53088
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr39082-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
Bug #: 53089
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr39082-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-04-23 17:04:13 UTC ---
On 4/23/2012 12:16 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The PA specific thing there is that PA puts rtx constant pool into
> .data.rel.ro
> section, something that doesn'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
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=53084
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*-*-mingw* |x86_64-*-* i686-*-*
--- Comment #4 from Kai T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53090
Bug #: 53090
Summary: suboptimal ivopt
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53090
--- Comment #1 from davidxl 2012-04-23 17:37:40
UTC ---
Created attachment 27223
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27223
benchmark source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53084
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-23
17:45:55 UTC ---
I don't see that on the trunk:
.section.rodata
.LC1:
.string"foo"
.align 8
.typeaa.1706, @object
.sizeaa.1706, 8
aa.1706:
.quad.LC1+1
Ah, bu
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo