On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Simon Boulet wrote:
Hi,
After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if()
somewhere had a trailing ; like this:
if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0);
continue; /* failed */
The code above will alwa
On Sep 27, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I've been having a heck of a time figuring out how to translate the
offsets for struct fields from the DWARF encoding back to GCC's
internal encoding for the LTO project. I've got a handle on the
DWARF encoding and how to do the necessa
This bug (which I just filed) is an ICE in the -ftree-loop-linear code.
It's expecting the
ssa-trees for different index variables in nested loops to refer to
different user variables.
In this case the different user variables have gotten coalesced by
copyrename2; this
happens only because they
Simple Objective C programs such as
#include
void foo(void) {
Object *o;
[o++ free];
}
result in calling objc_msgSend indirectly through a pointer, instead
of directly as they did in 3.3. This seems to happen only at low
optimization
levels; still, it's a performance regression. The reason
On Feb 21, 2005, at 5:21 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Dale Johannesen wrote:
+ /* Postincrements in OBJ_TYPE_REF_OBJECT don't affect the
+ value of the OBJ_TYPE_REF, so force them to be emitted
+ during subexpression evaluation rather than afte
On Feb 21, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Johannesen) wrote on 21.02.05 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Simple Objective C programs such as
#include
void foo(void) {
Object *o;
[o++ free];
}
result in calling objc_msgSend indirectly through a pointer, inst
On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
consider:
for (;;i++ )
{
if (i == 1000)
i = 0;
/* do stuff... */
}
The "i = 0;" statement is in its own cold block.
On a number of targets, a conditional jump can't reach the cold
section, so you'd have to replace a condjump around a s
Our tree is a couple of months behind mainline and I can't duplicate
this one in 4.0,
but I could use some help in understanding why. On pass 3 of dom I
have a cfg
that looks like this:
bb1 (succ =2,3)
bb2 (succ=5) p2 = ...
bb3 (succ=4, 5) p3= ...
bb4 (succ=5)
bb5 (succ=6, 7) p5 = PHI (p2, p
On Feb 25, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Feb 25, 2005, at 8:25 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
Our tree is a couple of months behind mainline and I can't duplicate
this one in 4.0,
but I could use some help in understanding why. On pass 3 of dom I
have a cfg
that looks like this:
I
On Feb 26, 2005, at 11:40 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Then
somebody notices the breakage and complains about it, and sometimes
even
writes a patch to undo the breakage (typically an Apple employee,
because
Apple is legitimately concerned about backwards compatibility).
Yes. Often what happens is
101 - 110 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
