http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-19 21:48:12
UTC ---
> Clearing of address-taken does not work:
>
> two/1 (two) @0x7fafc0e29818
> Type: function
> Visibility: prevailing_def_ironly
> Address is taken.
> References:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #14 from Richa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #13 from Matt Hargett 2013-01-17 18:28:18 UTC
---
No.
4.6 doesn't devirt (at -O2 or -O3) and therefore the DCE isn't relevant.
At both -O2 and -O3, with and without -fwhole-program, both with and without
adjustin declarat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-17 10:27:10
UTC ---
> Still a problem in latest 4.7, google/4.7, and trunk (4.8).
So 4.6 was working but 4.7 isn't?
> Still a problem in latest 4.7, google/4.7, and trunk (4.8).
So 4.6 was working but 4.7 isn't?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #9 from Matt Hargett 2011-03-16 21:43:56 UTC
---
Now that 4.7 stage 1 is open, let me know if there's anything else I can
reasonably provide to provide examples, testing, etc. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett 2011-01-11 23:44:22 UTC
---
Is the last remaining issue with this test case fixed by the patch for PR46076?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-17 23:01:58 UTC
---
The problem with not recomputing address taken flag is solved. The testcase
still
failed to iling because of type mismatch (i.e. one() instead of one(void)).
You probably could fix your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett 2010-11-17 21:43:13 UTC
---
GCC 4.6.0.20101116 still shows this problem, but also introduces new problems
on top of it. Let me know if I should file a new bug for the regressions.
Either way, is there any update o
--- Comment #4 from matt at use dot net 2010-06-07 19:46 ---
Let me know when this is implemented on trunk (preferrably by marking this
report as resolved) and I'll test my proprietary test cases here.
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:11 ---
really an enhancement rather than bug.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:09 ---
Note that testcase mises "static" in front of one/two. This is something I
plan to implement for next release. Last release has some preparation work for
it, but at the moment we don't really build may edges nor oth
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-15 13:38 ---
This is because we never re-compute the address-taken flag of functions.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
18 matches
Mail list logo
