[Bug tree-optimization/19804] New: Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

Consider: int foo (int a, int b) { if (a == 0) if (b != 2) return 10; if (b == 1) return 10; return 20; } Here is t21.dom1: foo (a, b) { int D.1120; : if (a_2 == 0) goto ; else goto ; :; if (b_4 != 2) goto ; else goto ; :; D.1120_7 = 10; goto (); :; if (b_4

[Bug tree-optimization/19803] __builtin_expect doesnt modify branch prediction for power4 target

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 03:28 --- builtin_expect uses PROB_VERY_LIKELY. >From predict.c #define PROB_VERY_UNLIKELY (REG_BR_PROB_BASE / 10 - 1) #define PROB_EVEN (REG_BR_PROB_BASE / 2) #define PROB_VERY_LIKELY(RE

[Bug target/19803] __builtin_expect does not modify branch prediction for power4/5

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 03:39 --- (In reply to comment #1) > builtin_expect uses PROB_VERY_LIKELY. > > But powerpc64 only emits branch prediction hints when at 2% / 98%. See > rs6000.c:output_cbranch This is a target problem as mentioned a

[Bug target/19796] [4.0 Regression] Bootstrap fails: Unresolved data symbol "set_fpc_csr"

-- What|Removed |Added Component|bootstrap |target Keywords||build Summary|Bootstrap fails: Unresolved |[

[Bug other/14554] libffi: ASM error

-- What|Removed |Added CC||cjohns at cybertec dot com ||dot au http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/19803] __builtin_expect does not modify branch prediction for power4/5

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 04:47 --- patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00225.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 04:50 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug libstdc++/17627] M68060 fails with libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/m68k/atomicity.h

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 04:51 --- Any news on this? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17627

[Bug preprocessor/19801] [4.0 Regression] cppinternals.texi references old file names

-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-

[Bug libstdc++/17627] M68060 fails with libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/m68k/atomicity.h

--- Additional Comments From cjohns at cybertec dot com dot au 2005-02-07 05:06 --- No change. I have arranged to get the MVME172 card back for an afternoon later this week (11-Feb-2005). I will have a look then. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17627

[Bug rtl-optimization/15242] [3.3/3.4 regression] pessimization of "goto *"

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 05:28 --- Is this PR fixed? If so, please close it. -- What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/15242] [3.3/3.4 regression] pessimization of "goto *"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 05:32 --- (In reply to comment #28) > Is this PR fixed? If so, please close it. it is fixed on the mainline but still not fixed on the 3.4 branch as this is a regression we should keep it open until The RM says ot

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 05:39 --- Subject: Bug 19800 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-07 05:39:05 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog simplify-rtx.c Log messag

[Bug tree-optimization/15618] Missed bool optimization

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 05:40 --- Here is the last tree SSA form: ;; Function f (f) f (f1) { _Bool D.1138; int D.1120; int D.1119; : D.1138_5 = f1_2 != 0; D.1120_1 = (int) D.1138_5; return D.1120_1; } ;; Function f3 (f3) f3 (

[Bug tree-optimization/18031] OR of a bitfield and a constant is not optimized at tree level

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 05:55 --- For the RTL level (at least on PPC), we could combine the following instructions and simplify them: (insn 15 13 16 0 (set (reg:SI 124) (const_int 1 [0x1])) 293 {*movsi_internal1} (nil) (nil)) (i

[Bug middle-end/18041] OR of two single-bit bitfields is inefficient

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 06:02 --- This is a much harder problem than doing a simplification at combine time because we have five instructions to worry about. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041

[Bug rtl-optimization/19800] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware broken, building newlib/libm/common/s_fmax.c

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 06:03 --- Fixed see . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/12719] Variables declaration can be anywhere.

--- Additional Comments From cwant at ualberta dot ca 2005-02-07 06:26 --- It would be nice to have a warning/error option for when these kind of declarations occur. Our application (blender) runs on many platforms and is built with a number of different compilers, some of which do not a

[Bug c/12719] Variables declaration can be anywhere.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07 06:32 --- (In reply to comment #3) In 3.4.0 and above there is already a warning for this: -Wdeclaration-after-statement As mentioned this is standard C99 code also (yes most C compilers are not C99 compilers but ju

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 06:45 --- Here is a test case where a jump threading opportunity would be missed if the change suggested in the original post were made: void foo (int *p) { if (*p != 0) bar (); if (*p != 0) bar (); } Her

[Bug tree-optimization/19804] Missed jump threading opportunity on "else" arm of COND_EXPR

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 06:46 --- Note that PR 19516 is very closely related. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19804

[Bug tree-optimization/19516] missed optimization (bool)

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-02-07 06:46 --- Note that PR 19804 is very closely related. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19516

[Bug preprocessor/19411] Simple program causes gcc to run out of memory

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 06:58 --- I wouldn't blame the preprocessor. The macros in altivec.h for C support have multiple occurences of their arguments. __builtin_choose_expr only evaluates one occurence, but that doesn't stop the preproc

[Bug target/19746] printf() optimisation ignores longcall attribute

--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-02-07 07:19 --- Confirmed for current 3.4 branch and mainline. -- What|Removed |Added Status|U

<    1   2