https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #14 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, dimhen at gmail dot com wrote:
> I guess
> previously the uninit pass didn't emit warnings for the load
> because it had no locat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, dimhen at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
>
> Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
>
>What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimhen at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 15 11:47:27 2019
New Revision: 276993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/91929
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #9 from Milian Wolff ---
> And I'm not sure that the original behavior which for
> this particular case would simply say sin() was called from foo()
This would indeed be the best, but that didn't happen originally when `foo`
itself g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Milian Wolff from comment #7)
> to me, that backtrace looks quite nice and usable - a huge improvement,
> thanks!
>
> what you are saying is that if the same file would be calling sin/cos
> som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #7 from Milian Wolff ---
to me, that backtrace looks quite nice and usable - a huge improvement, thanks!
what you are saying is that if the same file would be calling sin/cos somewhere
else, only one of those inline locations would s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
--- Comment #5 from Milian Wolff ---
> Note the line number program should have picked up a location from the
surrounding code, at least the surrounding function, so the ?? in the
backtraces look like a consumer (perf) issue to me.
All major DWA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing inline subroutine |missing inline subroutine
12 matches
Mail list logo
