http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43603
--- Comment #12 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:59:21 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:59:19 2011
New Revision: 172084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172084
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
--- Comment #12 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:58:31 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:58:29 2011
New Revision: 172083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172083
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46585
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:56:50 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:56:47 2011
New Revision: 172082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172082
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46602
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:54:25 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:54:23 2011
New Revision: 172081
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172081
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-11-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45652
--- Comment #12 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:53:48 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:53:44 2011
New Revision: 172080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172080
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46518
--- Comment #15 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:52:33 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:52:29 2011
New Revision: 172079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172079
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46204
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:51:52 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:51:49 2011
New Revision: 172078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172078
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-11-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45570
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev 2011-04-07
06:50:12 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Apr 7 06:50:08 2011
New Revision: 172077
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172077
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-10-
> But i wanted to try them indivisually. Is there any method to do so?
The compiler doesn't optimize anything if you don't pass at least -O.
--
Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-04-07 06:20:24 UTC ---
There is a call to a non-static member function of the object before
initialization by a constructor. That's undefined behavior. Not a compiler bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #7 from Lisp2D 2011-04-07 04:33:52 UTC
---
The example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483#c2
shows a compiler bug.
TYPE VARIABLE [ARGUMENT-TO-CONSTRUCT]
The compiler must doing like this:
1. Compile ARGUMENT-TO-CONS
Thanks Eric.
But i wanted to try them indivisually. Is there any method to do so?
Regards - vikramsp
Eric Botcazou-3 wrote:
>
>> hello there... i am trying my hands on gcc optimisations options.
>> i tried e.g. -finline-functions, -funroll-loops and the likes but none
>> worked for me
>> for ex.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48481
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-07
02:03:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 23906
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23906
Patch
This patch should avoid much of the baselink and tree vector garbage. Jakub,
can you give it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-04-07 01:38:53 UTC ---
> there's a limit to how much silliness the compiler can catch,
> at some point you have to just not write silly code ;)
Yes, these reduced fragments look embarrassing.
Of course
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-06
23:50:38 UTC ---
and PR 18016 but I don't think my patch will catch this
there's a limit to how much silliness the compiler can catch, at some point you
have to just not write silly code ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prafullat at kpitcummins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37493
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergio.pokrovskij at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||changpeng.fang at amd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2011-04-06
23:00:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 23905
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23905
First shot at a fix (also for PR48486)
Well, one can always hope for a quick fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48487
Summary: Multiple Definition of Labels in Inlining Assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-06
22:51:30 UTC ---
Please confirm that it now works - and if so, please close the PR.
Thanks for the report!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-04-06 22:51:26
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/06/11 15:52, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
>
> --- Comment #3 from Steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48447
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Oppenlander
2011-04-06 22:47:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> For now, option -Wl,-plugin-opt=-pass-through=$(LIBGCC) can be manually added
> to the command line (as discussed in PR42690).
That does seem to work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2011-04-06
22:38:51 UTC ---
find_many_sub_basic_blocks breaks its own STATE:
Breakpoint 6, find_many_sub_basic_blocks (blocks=0x19b6ea0) at
../../trunk/gcc/cfgbuild.c:577
577 SET_STATE (bb,
(gdb) p bb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-06
22:25:44 UTC ---
Johannes, I lost a bit track of this enhancement PR: what do you think, now
that we are again in Stage 1 in mainline, are there chances we can resolve it
somehow? Is there something I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett 2011-04-06 22:22:41 UTC
---
I do see the alignment problem you point out (though I'm disappointed that
neither PC-Lint nor GCC's warnings alerted me). I made the changes you
proposed, but still get the same crash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
Summary: cfgexpand leaves BARRIERs at the end of basic blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48453
Jens Maurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2011-04-06
21:52:54 UTC ---
OK, not quite. We somehow have a barrier _inside_ a basic block, and that's
somehow a problem after the patch but not before?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32691
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #2 from Lisp2D 2011-04-06 21:15:42 UTC
---
Try the next example, more close to my code:
#include
classA{
public:
inta;
A(intx):a(x){}
intTheInt(){returna;}
};
voidFunc(A&a){
std::clog<<"a.a="<
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48455
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48466
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48466
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-06
20:40:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 6 20:40:24 2011
New Revision: 172064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172064
Log:
PR debug/48466
* dwarf2out.c (based_loc_des
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48335
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-06
20:39:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 6 20:39:20 2011
New Revision: 172063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172063
Log:
Backported from mainline
2011-04-01 Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Brooks Moses changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48470
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-04-06
19:48:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 23903
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23903
reduced test case
The test case reduces to the following:
void __attribute__((naked)) f(void)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48435
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
> hello there... i am trying my hands on gcc optimisations options.
> i tried e.g. -finline-functions, -funroll-loops and the likes but none
> worked for me
> for ex. i tried -funroll-loops for code
> for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
> a[i] = i;
Try -O -funroll-loops.
--
Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48485
Summary: mudflap don't discover mistake - negative one index on
static array i.e. a[-1]=b;
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48484
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48484
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: vector VEC(use_pred_info_t,base)
index domain error, in pred_chain_length_cmp at
tree-ssa-uninit.c:1626 with -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-04-06 19:20:02 UTC ---
> No warnings and deep stillness.
$ g++ -O -Wuninitialized pr48483.cc
pr48483.cc: In function 'int main()':
pr48483.cc:13:30: warning: 'a.A::b' is used uninitialized in this functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #33 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-06
18:32:31 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:32:27 2011
New Revision: 172061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172061
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-06
18:32:31 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:32:27 2011
New Revision: 172061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172061
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #32 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-06
18:31:03 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:30:58 2011
New Revision: 172060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172060
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #31 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-06
18:29:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:29:55 2011
New Revision: 172059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172059
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #29 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-04-06 17:55:30 UTC ---
FWIW, I can reproduce this now on Solaris without any magic compiler switches:
The program is just this here:
---
void
foo(char *buf, int bufsz);
void
foo(ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #10 from Joel Sherrill 2011-04-06
17:52:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Any chance you can run the testsuite before/after the patch? m68k is
> problematic due to lack of a simulator.
I can test with RTEMS on Qemu targeting an m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Summary: Construct from yourself w/o warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48482
Summary: ICE: in omega_alloc_problem, at omega.c:5498 with
-fcheck-data-deps --param omega-max-vars=1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-04-06
17:28:43 UTC ---
Any chance you can run the testsuite before/after the patch? m68k is
problematic due to lack of a simulator.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48158
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-06
17:22:39 UTC ---
Ping, just hit this during Ada LTO bootstrap, so it isn't limited to Go...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Riviere
2011-04-06 17:07:26 UTC ---
Excellent! Your patch fixes both testcases here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-06
17:02:30 UTC ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48455
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law 2011-04-06 16:54:41
UTC ---
Elimination of a PHI caused a loop to be inserted on an edge. The edge
insertions were committed after calling rebuild_jump_labels resulting in a null
JUMP_LABEL for the loop branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48380
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #4 from Simon Hill 2011-04-06 16:17:35
UTC ---
I was trying out this patch to see whether it might be usable to me, just as a
preview.
Firstly: Is this patch at a stage where it could be possible to complete a
make/install, or am I j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48302
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-04-06
15:58:42 UTC ---
> seems to do the trick on i686-darwin9 ...
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 too (incremental update with the patch in comment #2
on top of r172043 and regtesting of g++ and obj-c++ wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48481
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-06
15:48:35 UTC ---
During perform_overload_resolution add_candidates allocates lots of ggc memory
which splice_viable immediately throws away and we don't ggc_collect during
parsing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #7 from Takaya Saito 2011-04-06
15:32:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Ok, thanks. Still, I believe we have other std::move which should be turned
> into forward, in std::tuple. Those in std::tuple_cat itself also seem suspect,
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48481
Summary: C++ overloading memory hog
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth 2011-04-06 15:23:36 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Apr 6 15:23:33 2011
New Revision: 172050
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172050
Log:
PR testsuite/48480
* testsuite/lib/boehm-gc.exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-06
14:59:03 UTC ---
ok, will do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-04-06
14:58:45 UTC ---
> ... Could you please try the following command instead? ...
This fixes the failure: i.e., running
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"
in x86_64-ap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov 2011-04-06
14:40:28 UTC ---
There's little value in allowing bookkeeping for calls, and the (untested yet)
patch below forces calls to be unique. The test case also shows that our
remove_insns_that_need_book
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6709
cheburnae changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||osa252 at mail dot ru
--- Comment #18 from che
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-06
14:07:19 UTC ---
Ok, thanks. Still, I believe we have other std::move which should be turned
into forward, in std::tuple. Those in std::tuple_cat itself also seem suspect,
I see you are touching only t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2011-04-06 13:42:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the test staticrootslib.lo in the boehm-gc suite
> > fails
> > due to the following warnings
> >
> > Excess errors:
> > /usr/bin/ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227
--- Comment #3 from Zuxy 2011-04-06 13:42:21 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A good question is does it make a difference in actual performance numbers, it
> might still make a positive difference. Until someone tries it out and sees
> the di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48442
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48442
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov 2011-04-06
13:41:33 UTC ---
Confirmed. The 4.4/4.5 failure is most likely a dup of PR 46204. The 4.6/4.7
failure is due to selective scheduler removing a conditional jump during
purge_empty_blocks in sel_sc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Froyd 2011-04-06
13:41:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 23900
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23900
untested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48442
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov 2011-04-06
13:39:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 23899
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23899
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48468
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48478
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-06 13:20:24 UTC ---
> On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the test staticrootslib.lo in the boehm-gc suite
> fails
> due to the following warnings
>
> Excess errors:
> /usr/bin/ranlib: file: .li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |libstdc++
--- Comment #8 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
Summary: FAIL: staticrootslib.lo -O2 (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Many ICEs in the obj-c++.dg test
suite on *-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
