https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-02 12:11:12
UTC ---
See the discussion at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00692.html
which continues at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00049.html
for why we won
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28931|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2013-03-11 15:14:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I also tried the reverse order (just swap x and y in the GET_CODE comparison).
> It got a crazy process during stage3 compiling tree-ssa-address.c (I ki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2013-03-11 14:44:09
UTC ---
The fortran test that fails is equivalent to the following (use -Ofast -g,
surprisingly it only fails in var tracking)
float f(double*a,double*b){
double x=a[0]*b[0];
x+=a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-12-11 22:12:01
UTC ---
Created attachment 28931
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28931
Use tree code to determine the canonical order
In this patch, I remove the external calls to
