On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> I already sent in a bug with gccbug, hope it shows up
> How long do one have to wait until it is visible?
The server side got lost during the last Bugzilla upgrade, so
the gccbug script is not working any more (and has been removed
for GCC 4.6).
Andi,
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> I already sent in a bug with gccbug, hope it shows up
> How long do one have to wait until it is visible?
The gccbug script no longer works and has been removed from current
versions of gcc. You should get a bounce message. Please use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ ins
David Edelsohn wrote on 2010/12/08 17:38:11:
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed gcc 4.4.5 often produces less optimzed code
> > than the old 3.4.6. Below is the latest example. I am
> > starting to wonder if I need rebuild gcc 4.4.5 and/or
> > add
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
>
> I have noticed gcc 4.4.5 often produces less optimzed code
> than the old 3.4.6. Below is the latest example. I am
> starting to wonder if I need rebuild gcc 4.4.5 and/or
> add new options to gcc when I compile. Any insight?
Jocke,
As I
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> I have noticed gcc 4.4.5 often produces less optimzed code
> than the old 3.4.6. Below is the latest example. I am
> starting to wonder if I need rebuild gcc 4.4.5 and/or
> add new options to gcc when I compile. Any insight?
This question as stated is not really approp
I have noticed gcc 4.4.5 often produces less optimzed code
than the old 3.4.6. Below is the latest example. I am
starting to wonder if I need rebuild gcc 4.4.5 and/or
add new options to gcc when I compile. Any insight?
Jocke
const char *test(int i)
{
const char *p = "abc\0def\0gef";
