http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33259
--- Comment #4 from Ken Raeburn 2011-09-05
22:45:28 UTC ---
I did a little experimentation with git revision c3f18f1 and it looks like it
does the right thing (optimizes away the calculations and returns a constant)
with Andrew Pinski's simplifie
--- Comment #6 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2009-07-03 20:06 ---
Subject: Re: not following "right-then-left" rule when compiling function
pointers
On Jul 3, 2009, at 10:42, dj2con at gmail dot com wrote:
> I don't know where you've been hiding for these pas
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2009-07-03 06:45 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> , but it does not seem to recognize that the following is also a valid
> prototype:
>
> int count * ( demo_counter * self, int count_amt );
It isn't.
> Following the tra
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2008-08-16 18:18 ---
Just noting for future reference: I looked at the VRP results and that does
seem to be where the optimization opportunity is missed; x%y with constant y is
VARYING if x is, though it seems to me the result should be
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-11-04 10:24 ---
Subject: Re: New: error while compiling pthread application
On Nov 3, 2007, at 18:32, bhvijaykumar at gmail dot com wrote:
> srtp_impl.c:8: error: expected expression before ?{? token
> srtp_impl.c:9: error: ex
--- Comment #4 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-09-19 17:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm not convinced by the explanation in the comment. A pointer to array *is*
> compatible with the corresponding const pointer type; -Wcast-qual may apply
> too, but that'
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-09-02 01:43 ---
After a little more experimentation, it appears that the signed-math cases that
do get optimized are those with positive divisors that are not powers of two.
If the divisors are powers of two (so that the operations
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-31 19:04 ---
Subject: Re: New: Wrong evaluation
On Aug 31, 2007, at 11:05, tim dot bruylants at vub dot ac dot be wrote:
> The following code generates a "1" with gcc-4.1 and generates a "2"
> with
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-31 08:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=14145)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14145&action=view)
C test case, description and assembly in comments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33259
at most once
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GC
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-31 07:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=14144)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14144&action=view)
C test case, description and assembly in comments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33258
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-31 07:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=14143)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14143&action=view)
C test case, with description & assembly in comments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33257
known
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC t
--- Comment #14 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-31 04:42 ---
Subject: Re: Error in compiling when there is a function with a char parameter
called before its declaration with inline parameters.
On Aug 30, 2007, at 3:55, andreagrassi at sogeasoft dot com wrote:
> A last th
--- Comment #12 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-29 21:51 ---
Subject: Re: Error in compiling when there is a function with a char parameter
called before its declaration with inline parameters.
On Aug 29, 2007, at 13:39, andreagrassi at sogeasoft dot com wrote:
> I accept
--- Comment #6 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-29 11:12 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I don't understand the error !! It's all so simple and I don't understand
> why the compile works if I write in the second form (not inline parameter
> declaration)
--- Comment #3 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-24 19:45 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yep, looks like you are right from the standard. That sucks then. I wish it
> were the other way because I don't see a way to enter a literal single
> character in hex follow
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-18 19:25 ---
In snapshot gcc-4.3-20070817 this test case seems to generate just the "je"
instruction I was looking for.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31888
--- Comment #11 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-18 17:55 ---
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070817 seems to do just fine with the sample code I
supplied.
Though perhaps I should've given a bigger test case... :-)
One of the places where I'd want to check for overflow is in
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-15 06:15 ---
Subject: Re: New: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array to a
function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Aug 14, 2007, at 23:45, martin dot ferrari at gmail dot com wrote:
> Sorry if
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-15 06:13 ---
Subject: Re: New: Warning when passing a pointer to a const array to a
function that expects a pointer to a non-cast one
On Aug 14, 2007, at 23:45, martin dot ferrari at gmail dot com wrote:
> Sorry if
--- Comment #3 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-08-15 06:03 ---
Section 6.7.3 says: "If the specification of an array type includes any type
qualifiers, the element type is so-qualified, not the array type." The more I
think about it, the more I think the compiler is t
--- Comment #6 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-06-06 14:51 ---
Subject: Re: optimize unsigned-add overflow test on x86 to use cpu flags from
addl
On Jun 6, 2007, at 04:15, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> in config/i386/i386-modes.def, documentation says:
>
>Add
--- Comment #2 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-05-11 08:05 ---
Subject: Re: bad warning converting qualified void* to qualified array pointer
On May 10, 2007, at 19:00, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I think only "void*" can be done with an implicat
--- Comment #3 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-05-10 22:25 ---
Subject: Re: compiler misses opportunity to combine multiple identical
function return paths
On May 10, 2007, at 2:13, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-05-10 06:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=13539)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13539&action=view)
sample source code, with assembly & comments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31889
n
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31889
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2007-05-10 05:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=13538)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13538&action=view)
source file, with comments on problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31888
nt: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31888
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31887
ned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin
GCC host triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin
GCC target triplet: i386-unknown-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30315
on
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
GCC build triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin
GCC host triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin
GCC target triplet: i386-unknown-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30314
--- Comment #1 from raeburn at raeburn dot org 2006-06-22 03:30 ---
s/I'm less would be allowed/I'm less confident would be allowed/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28134
)
--
Summary: optimize redundant memset + assignment
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy
Summary: redundant register assignments not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn
poor x86 register
allocation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: raeburn at raeburn dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23811
38 matches
Mail list logo
