--- Comment #45 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #44 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 17:20
---
As I understand it, this is an Alpha-specific problem. It may have an
Alpha-independent solution, but only users on Alpha will be affected. So, I've
downgraded this to P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #43 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 12:06
---
Well, we run DCE during early optimizations and the CCP that runs before
pass_return_slot and after final inlining removes dead basic-blocks and
trivially dead insns already.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org c
--- Comment #42 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 08:13 ---
Well, stdarg wants to be scheduled after some kind of DCE, to avoid making
decisions from dead code. So in that case we'd have to schedule a DCE pass
after retslot (perhaps just for cfun->stdarg functions), then stda
--- Comment #41 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 22:57
---
(In reply to comment #40)
> Running tree-stdarg earlier would introduce non-obvious pass ordering
> requirements IIUC. I don't think that's a good idea...
Well given that practically we moved stdarg towards the b
--- Comment #40 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 22:49 ---
Running tree-stdarg earlier would introduce non-obvious pass ordering
requirements IIUC. I don't think that's a good idea...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41089
--- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-01-22 21:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] stdarg pass
produces wrong code
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #38 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:17
> ---
> In 4.4 the
--- Comment #38 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:17 ---
In 4.4 the apY = apX; assignment isn't optimized out, because the code after it
reads from the apY's fields (apY is the struct from the inline, apX in the
caller). But in 4.5 FRE replaces them by whatever is written
--- Comment #37 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 19:05 ---
Well, as alpha is the only affected platform, it is a target problem.
The thing is, alpha unfortunately doesn't define va_list the same as x86_64 or
s390 or rs6000 - a single member array of structs. So, in a functio
--- Comment #36 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-01-22 17:26 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> That doesn't make me have an alpha machine or a proper reduced testcase.
> Note that it now only fails at -O3.
>
> Please paste a reduced testcase that still fails and track down what
> is th
--- Comment #35 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 14:17
---
(In reply to comment #34)
> (In reply to comment #33)
> > Well, w/o a way to reproduce the problem (read: execute code) I think you
> > have to do a better job analyzing the problem.
>
> This is:
>
> FAIL: gcc.c-
--- Comment #34 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-01-22 12:33 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Well, w/o a way to reproduce the problem (read: execute code) I think you
> have to do a better job analyzing the problem.
This is:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-1.c execution, -O3 -fom
--- Comment #33 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-22 11:25
---
Well, w/o a way to reproduce the problem (read: execute code) I think you
have to do a better job analyzing the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41089
--- Comment #32 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-01-21 20:25 ---
I would like RMs to reconsider the priority of this bug, since it shows
weakness in the generic part of the compiler. Please see comments #20, #25 (and
#26) for the analysis.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
14 matches
Mail list logo
