http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-07-24 06:49:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> What are the callers of gt_pch_p_9line_maps?
It is only called from gt_pch_nx_line_maps of ./gcc/gtype-desc.c (generated):
gt_pch_nx_line_maps (void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2012-07-24 05:55:56
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Jul 24 05:55:50 2012
New Revision: 189801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189801
Log:
PR target/53914
PR target/54009
* config/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-07-24 05:55:56
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Jul 24 05:55:50 2012
New Revision: 189801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189801
Log:
PR target/53914
PR target/54009
* config/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #7 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-24 00:42:57 UTC
---
@Paolo Carlini: the problem is, with different max_load_factor in range
[0.2-5], the *best* result of 4.7.1 is still 2x slower than the *worst* of
4.6.2.
I printe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-07-24
00:29:38 UTC ---
In some cases 4.6.x was handling max_load_factor incorrectly. Thus, the idea
isn't comparing 4.6.x to 4.7.x with the same max_load_factor (I don't think
it's useful), instead, actually
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #5 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-24 00:17:10 UTC
---
@Paolo Carlini: can you talk more about how to experiment with max_load_factor?
As long as I use the same max_load_factor for 4.6 and 4.7, I can still see the
perfo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-07-23
23:35:42 UTC ---
Weird indeed, thanks Daniel. Tomorrow I will have a look and either will send a
patch or will post an analysis (if I will get stuck).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #43 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-23
23:29:02 UTC ---
I have noticed that on SH the CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON macro is not defined,
although it seems to be useful for the combine pass.
Another thing that I'd like to try out is using zero-disp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-07-23
23:23:27 UTC ---
I wonder, anyway, if the apparent slow down is just an artifact caused by a
different handling of the load factor in the reworked unordered containers
which we have been delivering sin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #2 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-23 23:09:43 UTC
---
Created attachment 27862
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27862
Profiling of gcc-4.6.2 using google-perftools
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #1 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-23 23:08:07 UTC
---
Created attachment 27861
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27861
Profiling using google-perftools
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Bug #: 54075
Summary: [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53511
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #42 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-23
22:57:42 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 23 22:57:36 2012
New Revision: 189797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189797
Log:
PR target/51244
* config/sh/predicates.md (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53511
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-23
22:54:13 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 23 22:54:06 2012
New Revision: 189796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189796
Log:
PR target/53511
* config/sh/sh.md (mulsf3_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-23
22:46:19 UTC ---
FWIW this shows up in GCC's own libstdc++ PCHs also.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54074
Bug #: 54074
Summary: [C++0x] initializer list accepts incorrect nested
input
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51195
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #21 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-07-23
18:52:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> You could try adding this to ctype.cc around line 54
--- libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/ctype.cc.orig2012-01-23 18:12:01.2 -0500
+++ libstdc++-v3/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961
--- Comment #18 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 16:04:30 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jul 23 16:04:23 2012
New Revision: 189787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189787
Log:
PR target/53961
* config/i386/i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
--- Comment #1 from Artem S. Tashkinov 2012-07-23
15:43:50 UTC ---
The results are obtained from here:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1207077-SU-GCCPERFOR59
Benchmarking of GCC 4.2 through GCC 4.8 when building the compiler the same and
set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
Bug #: 54073
Summary: SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously
decreased in recent GCC releases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52544
sebastian changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oeste.sebastian at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52544
--- Comment #1 from sebastian
2012-07-23 14:47:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 27859
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27859
preprocessed minimal reproduction of the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-23
13:44:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Misleading error message:
>Error: Extension: BOZ literal at (1) outside a DATA statement and outside
> INT/REAL/DBLE/CMPLX
> As comment 0 show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-23
13:17:33 UTC ---
Currently, gfortran prints the following error message if the BOZ exceeds (for
integers) the positive value:
Error: Arithmetic overflow converting INTEGER(8) to INTEGER(4) at (1). Thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Vladimir Yakovlev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vbyakovl23 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53572
Christopher Hite changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Christopher.Hite at partner
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-07-23
12:48:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 27858
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27858
Reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072
Bug #: 54072
Summary: BOZ with -std=f2008: wrongly accepted to
TRANSFER/ABS/...; two BOZ not rejected for
IOR/IEOR/IAND
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #11 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-23 11:00:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> You can submit an issue, see
> http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#submit_issue
I sent an e-mail to Alisdair Meredith per the instructions on th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54071
Bug #: 54071
Summary: out data in object file is correct only for -s0
optimize flag
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54067
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-07-23
10:26:06 UTC ---
Hmm, I got myself confused with the undocumented option. -mapcs has the same
behaviour as -mapcs-frame, which should work (generate code that will execute
correctly) even in this c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54068
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54067
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-07-23
10:00:41 UTC ---
The -mapcs option isn't expected to work on AAPCS based targets. We should fix
the compiler to reject this combination.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Bug #: 54070
Summary: Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array)
function results
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-23
09:26:46 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jul 23 09:26:41 2012
New Revision: 189779
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189779
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/53881
* tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-23
08:49:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Looking at the generated compiler (libgcc, gcc-executable, etc.) it seems that
> presumably all functions from tree.h, input.h, and many others seem to hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53258
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wein...@gns-mbh.com
--- Comment #3 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069
--- Comment #1 from wein...@gns-mbh.com 2012-07-23 08:39:51 UTC ---
oh... forgot to mention...
system is:
linux x86-64 (openSuSe 10.3)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069
Bug #: 54069
Summary: linkage type of plugin API wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54068
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54053
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716
--- Comment #40 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-23
08:12:55 UTC ---
tree if-conversion happily executes both arms of the conditional
unconditionally
with -ffast-math, so for example
if (x != 0)
tem = y / x;
else
tem = 0.;
... do sth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-23
08:11:48 UTC ---
The vtable should be defined in the same file as ctype::~ctype() i.e. in
libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/ctype.cc
You could try adding this to ctype.cc around line 54
inline template cla
58 matches
Mail list logo
