--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-01 17:55 ---
Somehow after SRA we end up creating a PHI node with an empty definition:
# BLOCK 5 freq:2931, starting at line 7057
# PRED: 276 [98.0%] (true,exec) 3 [98.0%] (true,exec)
# inf$sideD.88720_393 = PHI
This no
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-23 22:57 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > :-( I cannot compile this testcase
>
> please try the latest testcase.
>
Thanks. It compiles fine now. The weirdest thing is that I cannot see the
uninitialized warning but I can see th
--- Comment #14 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-01-23 21:01 ---
> :-( I cannot compile this testcase
please try the latest testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32395
--- Comment #13 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-01-08 19:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=14903)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14903&action=view)
testacase for /opt/gcc43/bin/g++ 32395.ii -Wall -c -O1 -m32
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|R
--- Comment #12 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-09-27 04:06 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> /usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/cpp_type_traits.h:346: error: expected identifier
> before ‘__is_pod’
__is_pod is only implemented on mainline, not 4.2.1.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-27 00:58 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Manuel, ping, do you working on it?
> i've posted preprocessed 32-bit testaces for you over month ago ;)
> btw. PR32368 exposes this bug.
>
Sorry, I am probably doing something wrong but I
--- Comment #10 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-09-25 14:24 ---
Manuel, ping, do you working on it?
i've posted preprocessed 32-bit testaces for you over month ago ;)
btw. PR32368 exposes this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32395
--- Comment #9 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-08-22 18:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=14095)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14095&action=view)
preprocessed testcase for 32-bits targets.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32395
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-22 16:47 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > Created an attachment (id=13789)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13789&action=view) [edit]
> > > preprocessed te
--- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-08-22 15:54 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Created an attachment (id=13789)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13789&action=view) [edit]
> > preprocessed testcase
> >
>
> :-( I cannot compile t
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-22 15:44 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=13789)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13789&action=view) [edit]
> preprocessed testcase
>
:-( I cannot compile this testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-25 22:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=13789)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13789&action=view)
preprocessed testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32395
--- Comment #4 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-25 22:56 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is caused by two things, jump threading and inlining. If we jump thread
> more, we no longer get the warning which is what you are seeing in 4.2.1.
>
the latest gcc 4.2 also produces this wa
--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-24 15:54 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is caused by two things, jump threading and inlining. If we jump thread
> more, we no longer get the warning which is what you are seeing in 4.2.1.
is there any possibility to increase the de
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-19 08:10 ---
This is caused by two things, jump threading and inlining. If we jump thread
more, we no longer get the warning which is what you are seeing in 4.2.1.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
15 matches
Mail list logo
