--
What|Removed |Added
CC||giovannibajo at gcc dot gnu
||dot org, pinskia at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
17:20 ---
: Search converges between 2004-10-17-014001-trunk (#594) and
2004-10-17-161001-trunk
(#595).
Almost definetly caused by:
2004-10-17 Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/17743
--- Additional Comments From andreev at comm dot mot dot com 2005-01-18
17:22 ---
Subject: Re: can not build crosscompiler for solaris2.8
(when building libstdc++ - error wcslen...:Link tests are not allowed
after
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES)
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 17:15, pinski
--- Additional Comments From andreev at comm dot mot dot com 2005-01-18
17:28 ---
Subject: Re: can not build crosscompiler for solaris2.8
(when building libstdc++ - error wcslen...:Link tests are not allowed
after
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES)
Andrew, i do have target's /usr/lib
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-18 17:32
---
A remark: this specific issue doesn't seem to affect the minimal usage of
__attribute__((aligned)) present in tr1/type_traits (no typedefs): if/when
fixing this problem, *please* make sure to regtest libstdc++-v3!
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
17:52 ---
Subject: Bug 19472
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-18 17:52:33
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-typeck.c
gcc/tes
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
17:53 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Building 3.4.3 on Solaris 9 seems to not generate gsyslimits.h properly. The
make and install then fail. I reverted to 3.3.5 which seems to build fine on
the same machine so I am guessing there is a build/make bug in 3.4. I was
building for C and C++ only.
--
Summary: Building 3.4.3
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 18:28
---
But did this change for all frontends or just C?
In the code in question common_type is used by code common to C and C++.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19342
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
18:44 ---
Works in 3.4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-11/msg00294.html
So something is wrong, but I don't know because there is not enough information
in this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
19:02 ---
Please provide details. GCC 3.4.3 builds and installs fine here.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A C testcase with the missing jump threading(?):
>
> void bar(void);
>
> void foo(const _Bool *flag)
> {
> if (*flag)
> bar();
> if (*flag)
>
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:07 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> For an example in C++ where we can change it:
Obviosly I mean cannot change it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19507
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2005-01-18 20:10 ---
Subject: Re: missed tree-optimization
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
> 20:06 ---
> (In reply to
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-18
20:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] ICE in common_type, at c-typeck.c:490
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> But did this change for all frontends or just C?
> In the code in question co
Compiling the following code snippet with "-Wall -O3" using mainline
===
#include
#include
std::vector::iterator> v(1);
===
I get the following warning:
/long_path/stl_construct.h: In function 'void
__static
=libstdc++
--enable-shared=libobjc --with-gc=zone
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050118 (experimental)
--
Summary: ICE in in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at
postreload.c:391
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz
2005-01-18 20:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=7982)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7982&action=view)
Preprocessed source.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19511
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:17 ---
Not a regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ssemmx
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:20 ---
Confirmed, the diagnostic problem I think is already filed in a different bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |target
GCC build triplet|i386-unknown-freebsd4.10|
GCC host triplet|i386-unknown-freebsd4.10|
--- Additional Comments From v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz
2005-01-18 20:26 ---
If -da dumps are of any interest anybody can d/l them from
http://logout.sh.cvut.cz/~wilx/cfgexpand.c.dumps.bz2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19511
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:32 ---
Here's a reduced testcase that uses all RAM:
=
template void foo()
{
throw A;
}
struct A
{
virtual ~A();
};
void bar()
{
foo<0>();
}
=
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 20:35
---
Can you attach the patch you used? I'm not replicating this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:37 ---
Fix checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOL
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 20:42
---
Nevermind, I got it. Yaye CCmode moves.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304
It would be helpful to have a special error-checking JNI
implementation.
One thing we could check is the constraint that it is invalid
to make a JNI call if there is an exception pending.
Another thing we could check (a la Sable) is that a call
doesn't use more than 16 local references (without a
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
20:50 ---
I have a reduced testcase down to around 160 lines, still reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19511
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-01-18 21:02 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.0 regression] Warning using list iterators
"reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Compiling the following code snippet with "-Wall -O3" using mainline
|
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-18 21:10
---
> I think your patch is OK and should be applied.
First blush, I agree. Is it 100% safe wrt the ABI? (I remember tricky details
only about copy constructor and assignment, actually)
In case, please fix also occur
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
21:18 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase (20 lines :) ):
typedef struct edge_def { long long probability, count; } *edge;
typedef struct VEC_edge { unsigned num; edge *vec; } VEC_edge;
edge make_edge (void);
static inlin
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
21:39 ---
Subject: Bug 16261
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-18 21:39:39
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 21:40 ---
Indeed the problem seems to be related to a problem during the reload pass. I
now think, that I have found a solution for the original problem that needs a
tiny change in the back-end.
DJ Delorie
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
21:41 ---
Patch applied.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RES
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-01-18 21:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] Warning using list iterators
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I think your patch is OK and should be applied.
|
| First blush, I agree. Is it 1
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-18 21:50
---
> So the patch is ABI-neutral.
Great! (many thanks for the interesting explanation, Gaby)
Therefore, if Volker is willing to regtest the complete fix and post it...
P.S. Too bad that only -O3 triggers the warning
--- Additional Comments From mark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18 21:51
---
Some other things that could be checked:
- Using wrongly formatted JNI descriptor strings in
Get[Static](Field|Method)ID() (note '.' is not allowed, must be '/').
- Using a JNIEnv in another thread.
- LocalRef
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
21:52 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Confirmed, reduced testcase (20 lines :) ):
One more thing, the options to reproduce this with a normaly compiled compiler:
-march=pentium3 -O1 -m32
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
Passing 250 or so files from a larger software project (about 3MB of
sourcecode) to gcc at a time makes gcc use more than 400MB of memory. Possible
more as I had to stop the compilation.
I created a much simpler example. 100 equal .c files each containing:
static void mainX() {}
where X varies
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:00 ---
Subject: Bug 13470
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-18 22:00:13
Modified files:
gcc/ada: ChangeLog a-stunau.adb
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:00 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Re: missed tree-optimization
>
> this is done at RTL level, but not at tree level. I should file a
> separate bug for this one, really.
Yes because if we change flag t
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:02 ---
Do you have a program which generates those files?
Also is this at -O0 or -O2?
--
What|Removed |Added
NOTE: Defaulting component because reported component no longer exists
When compiling the following two lines:
typedef double R;
typedef R _Complex C;
with the flags -std=c99 -pedantic, gcc gives the bogus warning:
foo.c:2: warning: ISO C does not support complex integer types
(Code based on t
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:03 ---
Can you try it now that PR 13470 is fixed on the mainline?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19456
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:05 ---
Subject: Bug 13470
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-18 22:05:08
Modified files:
gcc/ada: Change
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
typedef unsigned long long upad64_t;
typedef struct _pthread_mutex {
struct {
uint16_t__pthread_mutex_flag1;
uint8_t __pthread_mutex_flag2;
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-18
22:20 ---
Subject: Re: New: bogus warning about complex "integer"
types from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> When compiling the following two lines:
>
> typedef double R;
Actually a side-bug of 19507. The testcase
void bar(void);
void foo(const _Bool *flag)
{
if (*flag)
bar();
if (*flag)
bar();
}
Should be transformed to (at the tree level):
if (!*flag)
return;
bar();
if (*flag)
bar();
this is only done at
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2005-01-18 22:29 ---
Done. PR19516.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19507
--- Additional Comments From ch at csh-consult dot dk 2005-01-18 22:32
---
Yes I have, but I was lazy and wrote it in C#. I've put them up for download
here: http://212.242.245.122/100files.tar.gz (2.5MB)
There is also the command to invoke gcc (run.bat)
No -O flag is used.
--
http
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
22:52 ---
Invalid based on JSM's comment.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-01-18 22:56
---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> typedef double R;
>> typedef R _Complex C;
>
> This is not valid code; you can'
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:06 ---
This is a midde-end problem (investing further)
but we end up with an empty CONSTRUTOR and the middle-end is not expanding it
correctly for the
union.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:12 ---
> This is a midde-end problem (investing further)
> but we end up with an empty CONSTRUTOR and the middle-end is not expanding it
> correctly for the union.
Right, the 3.4.x back-end used to zero the
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-01-18 23:15
---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
Okay, I guess I see what you mean. "double" in "double _Complex" is
arguably not a "type", but rather a type-specifier as defined in 6.7.2,
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:23 ---
Hmm, the gimplifier is messing up (again, there was another bug like this).
Here is the reduced testcase which shows the problem:
typedef union {
char a2[8];
}aun;
void abort (void);
int main(void)
{
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 23:27 ---
Hi,
I have just stepped over a patch suggested by Bernardo Innocenti in order to
treat the case of "shift_count == 0" correctly. My presently suggested
patch (above) only treats the case of negati
In a fresh directory, I did
../src/gcc/configure --prefix=/opt/GCC/4-01 \
--disable-nls \
--enable-languages=ada,c
This gives
...
checking for MPFR... yes
The following languages will be built: c,ada,ada
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories:
...
Note the du
gcc version 4.0.0 20050116 (experimental)
% gcc -O2 fbmmx.c -c -c
fbmmx.c: In function 'fbCompositeSolid_nxmmx':
fbmmx.c:56: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 332 125 128 3 (set (reg:V4HI 4 $4)
(const_vector:V4HI [
(const_int 255 [0xff])
(const_int 255 [
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-01-18 23:34
---
Created an attachment (id=7984)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7984&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19518
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:34 ---
Just to be sure: check that you don't have 2 ada subdirectories in srcdir/gcc.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 23:35 ---
I have the impression that Bug #19329 is the same as bug #19239 (as one might
think already when looking at the similarity of the numbers :-) ) 19239,
howeverr so far has addressed the issue of *neg
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:37 ---
I looked at the constructor gimplification stuff recently. Lemme see if
there's an easy fix I can figure out.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:42 ---
This works for me also.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19517
--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de
2005-01-18 23:43 ---
Sorry for this:
In my posting above, I have misspelled the bug number. I wanted to refer you
to bug #19293 (and not #19239, luckyly the number of possible permutations is
countable).
By the way
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:47 ---
Confirmed, the issue is that DOM does not recognizes that b = *a; if(b) ... c =
*a; if (c) ... can be
changed (note the lacking of the != 0 which would be required for int/char,
etc.).
--
Wha
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
23:49 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-18
23:52 ---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, stevenj at fftw dot org wrote:
> Okay, I guess I see what you mean. "double" in "double _Complex" is
> arguabl
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #7984|text/x-csrc |text/plain
mime type||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19518
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:03
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> By the way at #19293, you will also find a patch suggestion that should be
> eaysily adapted to all of the present shifting problems.
I agree PR19293 is a superset of this bug, so
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:04
---
*** Bug 19329 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:06
---
Oops, I forgot this bug should stay open until someone
figures out why GCC 3.4 leaks through insns with a 0
shift count.
I've reclassified the bug as affecting the middle-end.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:07 ---
This is basically PR 18191 but for unions this time, the struct/array part has
been fixed.
Note I think the following patch caused it:
2004-01-28 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bernie at develer dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:11
---
I'm no longer in charge for this bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|bernie at develer
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:12 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> The shift with zero comes from regmove.
Well I did figure out where the shift with zero came from see above but why it
comes about I don't
know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
The following program triggers the bug box when
encoded as UTF-8.
It runs fine when used with Latin-1
characters. The compiler can test the robustness of your system
if you use iconv to encode the source text in EUC-JP
and then try to compile with -gnatiw -gnatWe. (I guess
that the characters belo
--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-19 00:18
---
(In reply to comment #3)
A quick informal review.
> if (GET_CODE (operands[2]) == CONST_INT)
> {
> int k;
>
> if (!len)
> len = &k;
> !
This line contains spu
Protected function pointer doesn't work right. For pointer to protected
function, gcc should treat it as if it is normal.
--
Summary: protected function pointer doesn't work right
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 00:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=7985)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7985&action=view)
A testcase
With the new linker, I got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64-3]$ make
gcc -fPIC -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -shared -o l
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:34 ---
Isn't this just binutils ld/584?
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=584
Alan M. claims this is a ld bug rather than a gcc bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 00:35 ---
The same bug also happen on i686-pc-linux-gnu:
gcc -fPIC -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -shared -o libx.so x.o
gcc -o foo m.c libx.so -Wl,-rpath,.
./foo
called from main foo_p: 0x80483e4
called from shared foo: 0x111524
shared f
gcov support entails an initialization function named "__GLOBAL__I_0_noop".
GCC omits function-begin stab for this function.
Here is the commandline:
[morris:/Volumes/sandbox/stuart] hasting2%
\/Volumes/sandbox/stuart/gcc.fsf.obj/gcc/xgcc -B
\/Volumes/sandbox/stuart/gcc.fsf.obj/gcc -g gcov.c -fp
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2005-01-19 00:40
---
Created an attachment (id=7986)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7986&action=view)
gcov-1.c testcase
Attaching the testcase for convenience.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-19 00:41 ---
They aren't the same. It is function pointer vs. function. The other looks
like a linker bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:47 ---
This is really a dup of bug 10908.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2005-01-19 00:49
---
This is a regression from 3.3; I think the cause is this line in cgraphunit.c
(cgraph_build_static_cdtor): (approximately line 1847)
DECL_IGNORED_P (decl) = 1;
Deleting this line "fixes" the symptom, but I beli
--- Additional Comments From bauhaus at futureapps dot de 2005-01-19 00:50
---
Argh, yes. There was another ada subdirectory, my fault, sorry.
After removing it, options.h now looks good, no more duplicates.
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19517
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:56 ---
protected always binds local as you cannot override it so the bug is in the
linker/asm.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10908 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:56 ---
*** Bug 19520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
00:57 ---
Not a gcc bug so closing.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:06 ---
Does -gfull make this work?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19521
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:16 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is a regression from 3.3; I think the cause is this line in cgraphunit.c
> (cgraph_build_static_cdtor): (approximately line 1847)
>
> DECL_IGNORED_P (decl) = 1;
DECL_IGNOR
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:34 ---
DSE2 also does almost nothing, so I just went ahead and posted a proposal
to just disable DSE: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01183.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1888
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-01-19 01:43 ---
Subject: Re: DSE is not doing its job for
global variables
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 01:34 +, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
01:43 ---
This was fixed on somewhere between the 10th and 11th.
By one of the patches listed in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2005-01/txt00012.txt
The current time for Hello World is:
Hello!
0.760u 0.110s 0:
101 - 200 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
