http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49122
--- Comment #8 from David Krauss 2013-03-08 07:57:03
UTC ---
Oops, I didn't read the original code closely enough. To be OK by the above
interpretation, the local initializer_list variable would need to be eliminated
from main() and the lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
--- Comment #5 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-08 07:25:17 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Mar 8 07:25:09 2013
New Revision: 196534
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196534
Log:
013-03-08 Joey Ye
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49122
David Krauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||potswa at mac dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #8 from Joey Ye 2013-03-08 03:56:38 UTC ---
// A none loop case shows how minor changes impacts current jump thread
behavior
int foo(int state, int check)
{
switch (state) {
case 0:
state = 1;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56439
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56439
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56566
Bug #: 56566
Summary: bogus "is narrower than values of its type" warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #39 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
23:18:48 UTC ---
Memory usage is still pathetic. Some stats:
mem stats from /proc/self/statm on *entry* of pass:
pass (#) sizeresident
*warn_unused_re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56565
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #15 from Cesar Strauss 2013-03-07
23:03:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > I just tried out to bootstrap r196092 on mingw32. There is still one more
> > cast
> > patch missing to make it work for that target.
> >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56562
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56546
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #38 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
22:15:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 29612
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29612
Punt on loops with more memory references than LIM can handle
For the LIM problem, I'm t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #37 from Sergei Steshenko 2013-03-07
21:47:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> (In reply to comment #34)
> > Memory consumption appears to be the same as with -O2.
>
> Can you measure the peak memory with time?
>
> /u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56565
Bug #: 56565
Summary: lambda function in NSMI fails to capture non-static
data member.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-07 19:13:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It didn't seem to be too confusing and would require only a few extra lines of
> code (that have been written already).
> Anyway, I gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-07
19:02:14 UTC ---
It didn't seem to be too confusing and would require only a few extra lines of
code (that have been written already).
Anyway, I guess I don't care much, so if this works, go ahe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-07 18:40:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I don't like the patch too much. Why are you removing the cfun->optabs stuff?
Because Aldy says, it's getting confusing having all th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #4 from wbrana 2013-03-07 18:35:10 UTC ---
compiled 196260 again using same way and nbench is now slow, which is strange.
When I compile nbench using gcc compiled from snapshot
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130224/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56561
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-03-07
18:14:17 UTC ---
The wrong-code on 4.6 branch is stopped by backporting r183512 aka PR48308 fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #36 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
17:33:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Yeah, one of my minor TLC patches. Most of the excessive memory
> usage for regular testcases can be fixed by doing LIM on
> all siblings of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #35 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
17:30:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> Memory consumption appears to be the same as with -O2.
Can you measure the peak memory with time?
/usr/bin/time -f 'real=%e user=%U system=%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #34 from Sergei Steshenko 2013-03-07
17:13:42 UTC ---
Somehow, with -O3 LLVM clang works a little bit faster than with -O2 - 54
minutes instead of 58 minutes, though this might be a random variation:
"
sergei@amdam2:~/gcc_bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56564
--- Comment #1 from lukeocamden at gmail dot com 2013-03-07 16:26:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 29611
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29611
Preprocessed source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56564
Bug #: 56564
Summary: [4.7 Regression] movdqa on possibly-8-byte-aligned
struct with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #180 from Richard Biener 2013-03-07
16:08:29 UTC ---
Try
Index: gcc/tree-inline.c
===
--- gcc/tree-inline.c (revision 196520)
+++ gcc/tree-inline.c (workin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56563
Bug #: 56563
Summary: no debuginfo for "explicit" operator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey 2013-03-07 15:56:19
UTC ---
I included the patch in my nightly build and test and encountered no problems
with GCC or GLIBC. I was able to completely build GLIBC in mips16 mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56558
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-07
15:36:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> So, I'm leaving it to you to determine if these bugs are relevant to 4.6
> (and prior?) in view of the C++ conversion.
They're not relevant. We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #74 from Richard Biener 2013-03-07
14:55:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #73)
> On trunk with the reduced testcase I now see PTA taking 90% of compile-time
> ...
>
> Argh.
I can speed it up by
@@ -1631,7 +1619,20 @@ do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56558
--- Comment #5 from Thierry Moreau
2013-03-07 14:45:20 UTC ---
paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56558
>
> Paolo Carlini changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56559
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56559
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-07
14:34:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 7 14:34:15 2013
New Revision: 196520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196520
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56559
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56561
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56562
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56562
Bug #: 56562
Summary: [AVR GCC] segmentation fault when
'__attribute__((packed))' placed at front of enum
declaration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56561
Bug #: 56561
Summary: Miscompilation with -Os -arm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #6 from An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-07
10:17:56 UTC ---
> Confirmed, same code generated on the 4.6 branch. Works on the 4.5 branch
> where no vzeroupper is inserted. Likewise no vzeroupper on trunk.
Thanks for confirming. The v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-07 10:14:53 UTC ---
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
>
> Steven Bosscher changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #32 from Sergei Steshenko 2013-03-07
10:13:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> (In reply to comment #23)
> > FYI, the original file (
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17377 )
> > can be compiled with 'clan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56559
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
Bug #: 56560
Summary: [4.7 regression] vzeroupper clobbers argument with AVX
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56559
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-07
09:17:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 29608
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29608
gcc48-pr56559.patch
In my limited understanding, it is fine to assume the chain has just si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56511
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2013-03-07
08:52:53 UTC ---
Doesn't first argument of memcpy which is called from memcpy_vec have unknown
(1byte) alignment? If yes, how PPC managed to produce vector instructions?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-07 08:52:52 UTC ---
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
>
> --- Comment #27 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-07 08:47:35 UTC ---
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
>
> --- Comment #25 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48593
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thierry.moreau at connotech
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-07 08:44:28 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
>
> Steven Bosscher changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-07 08:36:43 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
>
> --- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-03-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-07 08:33:10 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-06
> 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #27 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-07
08:09:59 UTC ---
Compilation finished after ~3 hours and consuming at least 3GB (from top - I
forgot to use memmax2...).
Winners in the "geez, I'm slow for this test case" list:
PRE
66 matches
Mail list logo
