http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914
--- Comment #4 from asmwarrior 2012-08-02
06:41:33 UTC ---
We are Code::Blocks' developers, we see the same annoying warnings, hope it
will be fixed. Thanks.
See:
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,16670.msg113169.html#msg113169
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #1 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-08-02
04:02:27 UTC ---
I've just tested with gcc-463.It accept/reject exactly the same as gcc-453.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54158
Bug #: 54158
Summary: Silently accepts sizeof to non-static member without
object in C++03 mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-08-02
00:34:45 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:41 2012
New Revision: 190063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190063
Log:
PR debug/52983
* valtrack.c (dead_debug_insert_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-08-02
00:34:30 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:26 2012
New Revision: 190062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190062
Log:
PR debug/52983
* valtrack.c (cleanup_auto_inc_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-08-02
00:34:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:11 2012
New Revision: 190061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190061
Log:
PR debug/52983
* valtrack.h, valtrack.c: New.
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-08-02
00:34:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:11 2012
New Revision: 190061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190061
Log:
PR debug/52983
* valtrack.h, valtrack.c: New.
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-08-02
00:34:15 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Aug 2 00:34:11 2012
New Revision: 190061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190061
Log:
PR debug/52983
* valtrack.h, valtrack.c: New.
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #14 from Janis Johnson 2012-08-01
23:35:12 UTC ---
Ramana, chunks of regular expressions within parentheses are matched and added
to the returned expression that is used in scan-assembler-times. To avoid
returning parenthesized bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 23:14:36 UTC ---
The test-case from comment 15 passes with r190033, and fails with r190034.
block 10 contains:
...
# .MEMD.2233_20 = PHI <.MEMD.2233_5(11), .MEMD.2233_10(12)>
...
and is re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #10 from wbrana 2012-08-01 22:35:29 UTC
---
Reversion of 175752 on latest 4.7 branch improved FP EMU by 41%, but made
ASSIGNMENT worse by 8%.
with 175752
NUMERIC SORT: 1562.9 : 40.08 : 13.16
STRING SORT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-01 22:12:00
UTC ---
This patch:
diff --git a/gcc/expmed.c b/gcc/expmed.c
index 1fe0034..2780164 100644
--- a/gcc/expmed.c
+++ b/gcc/expmed.c
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ mode_for_extraction (enum extraction_pattern pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-01 21:47:59
UTC ---
make_extraction in combine generates:
7474 inner = force_to_mode (inner, wanted_inner_mode,
7475 pos_rtx
7476 || len
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2012-08-01
21:45:49 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
Thanks for the bug report!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-08-01
21:43:54 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Aug 1 21:43:50 2012
New Revision: 190054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190054
Log:
2012-08-01 Thomas König
PR fortran/54033
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #16 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 21:19:36 UTC ---
With the example from comment 15 and r190039, I don't see a segmentation fault,
but this:
...
$ g++ test.C -O2
test.C: In member function ‘void B::makeLine(int*) const’:
test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson 2012-08-01
20:41:25 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Aug 1 20:41:16 2012
New Revision: 190051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190051
Log:
PR 34548
* function.h (struct rtl_data): Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-08-01 20:11:15 UTC ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat test.ii
struct A
{
bool isHint();
};
class B
{
void makeLine( int *) const;
void drawLine() const; A* to() const;
void _print() const;
};
A a;
void
|
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman 2012-08-01
19:35:27 UTC ---
This seems to have broken again with 4.8 trunk, dated 20120801.
It seemed ok about a week ago, so probably some recent breakage.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-01 19:15:04 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Aug 1 19:14:59 2012
New Revision: 190048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190048
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-03-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #21 from John David Anglin 2012-08-01
18:44:04 UTC ---
The issue is with the handling of negative constants.
In this bit of code,
max_cost = (set_src_cost (gen_rtx_MULT (mode, fake_reg, op1), speed)
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt
2012-08-01 18:42:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Fixed.
>
> Is it still your plan to also do something with the patch to expose target
> addressing modes earlier?
No,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #81 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
18:37:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
> If that's valid then you can make the middle-end happy by wrapping
> the RHS inside a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR with the LHS type.
OK. will try.
I don't know yet th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
--- Comment #11 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-01
17:51:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Fixed.
Is it still your plan to also do something with the patch to expose target
addressing modes earlier?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-01 16:49:53
UTC ---
Created attachment 27925
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27925
A patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-01
16:30:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> The isnan function declaration is for compatibility with some old
> standards such as Unix98 that had such a function instead of the
> type-generic mac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-01 16:25:15
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-32 gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.i
struct s2{
int n[24 -1][24 -1][24 -1];
};
struct test2{
struct s2 e;
};
struct test2 tmp2[4];
void main1 ()
{
int i,j;
for (i = 0; i < 24 -4; i++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #80 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-01
16:22:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
> > this%y = this%find_y() ! FAILS
> >
> > the lhs is a target, and the rhs is NOT a target, so that the middle-end
> > types
> > are different. :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54157
Bug #: 54157
Summary: [x32] -maddress-mode=long failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-01
16:06:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Use __atomic_add_fetch and __atomic_fetch_sub in the testcase, and you will
>
> Eh, __atomic_fetch_add.
Yes, but the compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-01
15:59:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I'm beginning to think this is one of those cases of "Doctor it hurts if I
> ..."
> that should be closed as WONTFIX.
Indeed, might even call it INVALID. Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-08-01
15:57:42 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 31 12:25:04 2012 +
gcc:
2012-07-31 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/53773
* tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_inf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-08-01 15:41:01 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> may also break stuff if the C library uses isnan. I could also ask glibc to
> not
> declare the isnan function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|New fail on A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54156
Bug #: 54156
Summary: New fail on AVX target: gcc.dg/vect/pr53773.c. 190010
vs revision 189996
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-01 15:05:22 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #78 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
> 15:01:59 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #78 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
15:01:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #76)
> You mean
>
> [...]
>
> ? Yes, that also should be build_distinct_type_copy.
>
Even without that, the patch regtests cleanly (including the pr45586 tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #4 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-08-01
15:01:29 UTC ---
Due to my last comment I marked this as a request for enhancement.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
Paulo J. Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Paulo J.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #2 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-08-01
14:37:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 27924
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27924
Add debug info when redundant insn is going to be generated
Looking at the gcc log header after run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
Bug #: 54155
Summary: Newly compiled GCC 4.4.4 on Solaris sparc gives
problem with -m32/-m64 flags
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos 2012-08-01
14:34:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 27923
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27923
After cprop_hardreg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54154
Bug #: 54154
Summary: cprop_hardreg generates redundant instructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-01
14:32:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> clang compiles the test case with attribute((flatten)) because it doesn't
> support that attribute (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7559).
>
> I'm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #20 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-08-01 14:27:30 UTC ---
On 1-Aug-12, at 10:20 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The difference in extracts and deposits may not be the problem. The -
> O2 code appears to have the same e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
-build=hppa-linux-gnu --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-java-
gc=boehm --enable-languages=c --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120801 (experimental) [trunk revision 190037] (GCC)
You probably would need to add --with-arch=1.1 to duplicate the
default native settings w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-01
14:14:11 UTC ---
With the attribute((flatten)) removed, the full test case compiles in less than
a minute.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-01
14:08:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The inline heuristics stuff is probably also due to stack-vars handling,
> I will look into that.
Turns out this is due to the use of attribute((flatten))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54153
Bug #: 54153
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark IDEA 6% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #5 from amker.cheng 2012-08-01
13:48:50 UTC ---
Thanks for your patch, IMHO, I don't think the problem could be fixed in this
way, because:
1.
78 r177:DF=r0:DF
80 [sp:SI]=r166:DF
81 [sp:SI+0x8]=r168:DF
82 [sp:SI+0x10]=r17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54152
Bug #: 54152
Summary: add Bytemark
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54151
--- Comment #1 from cyberwizzard 2012-08-01
13:18:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 27921
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27921
Compiler result when using '-save-temps'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54151
Bug #: 54151
Summary: Comparing if float is equal to decimal constant on
Microblaze with mhard-float results in internal
compiler error.
Classification: Unclassified
Pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54148
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-08-01 13:10:36 UTC ---
On 1-Aug-12, at 3:47 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I don't see any "error" in that?
Test just fails with no message.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Bug #: 54150
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gimple dumps no longer honor -blocks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46556
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2012-08-01
13:02:46 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 1 13:02:38 2012
New Revision: 190037
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190037
Log:
gcc:
PR tree-optimization/46556
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #77 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
12:37:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #75)
> Created attachment 27919 [details]
> rough patch
>
About the patch:
The failures are mostly(all?) due to structure constructors.
Structure constructors us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #76 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-01 12:28:10 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #75 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
> 12:22:03 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #75 from Mikael Morin 2012-08-01
12:22:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27919
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27919
rough patch
(In reply to comment #74)
> > For variable to be type compatible for assignment, they sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-01
11:58:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 27918
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27918
Hack regmove to do limited propagation of hard regs
I have a patch to make the propagation happen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077
--- Comment #8 from wbrana 2012-08-01 10:59:46 UTC ---
If I didn't make mistake it seems big slow down is caused by revision 175752
Date: Fri Jul 1 10:00:25 2011 +
2011-07-01 Kai Tietz
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-01
10:35:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> TODO:
> 1. Remaining issues of assumed-rank, e.g. shape/ubound/lbound,
>class-to-type handling, contiguous attribute.
And INTENT(OUT) handling, cf.
ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-01
10:13:32 UTC ---
With "GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20120731 (experimental) [trunk revision 190015]" the
dumps look slightly different. I'm using the -fdump-rtl-all-slim dumps (with a
local patch to dump SEQUENC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-01
09:52:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
> > functions returning bool and int are binary compat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-01
09:49:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
> > functions returning bool and int are binary compat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54147
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54074
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-01
09:28:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
> > functions returning bool and int are binary c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-01
09:26:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
> functions returning bool and int are binary compatible, which is likely true
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-01 09:22:37
UTC ---
I realize that several (not all) of the things discussed here assume that
functions returning bool and int are binary compatible, which is likely true on
most platforms but there might b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
Bug #: 54149
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
--- Comment #2 from amker.cheng 2012-08-01
07:49:51 UTC ---
I measured this kind of regression in benchmark CSiBE on
arm-none-eabi/cortex-m0 with Os optimization. Turns out most of the them are
relate to paramter/return register moving, like the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54148
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-01
07:47:05 UTC ---
I don't see any "error" in that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54145
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54143
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
85 matches
Mail list logo
