--- Comment #3 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 09:27 ---
This is fixed in SVN trunk
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 09:25 ---
Subject: Bug 21489
Author: sam
Date: Wed Dec 5 09:25:38 2007
New Revision: 130617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130617
Log:
gcc/ada/
PR ada/21489
* exp_ch9.adb (Build_Simple
package pak1 is
type T1 is interface;
function F1(X: T1) return Integer is abstract;
type T2 is tagged null record;
function F2(X: T2) return Integer;
end pak1;
limited with pak1;
package pak2 is
x1: access pak1.T1'Class;
x2: access pak1.T2'Class;
N1: Integer := x1.F1;
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 10:12
---
We could probably get away with a kludge for -ffloat-store and optimization,
but currently the flag comes into play only very late (in TER) and I think
it's better to keep this.
So I think the approach to solvin
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 09:40 ---
GNAT 4.3.0 20071204 (experimental)
Copyright 1992-2007, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Compiling: pak2.ads (source file time stamp: 2007-12-05 09:33:51)
6. N1: Integer := x1.F1; -- line 5
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 10:45 ---
Subject: Bug 34271
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 5 10:45:21 2007
New Revision: 130619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130619
Log:
PR c++/34271
* semantics.c (finish_decltype_type)
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 11:15 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Overview Description:
A very simple TEST.F code using D1MACH.F from SLATEC (to initialize machine
constants) compiles correctly using GFORTRAN, but the produced executable gives
nonsense results.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Save the following program TEST.F and the routine D1MACH.F
**
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21489
package test1 is
package pak2 is
x1: integer;
end pak2;
type T1 is interface;
type T2 is interface;
procedure p1(x2: T1; x3: integer := pak2.x1) is abstract;
type T3 is new T2 and T1 with null record;
procedure p1(x2: T3; x3: integer := pak2.x1); -- line 13
end test1;
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15804
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 12:13 ---
This has already been fixed in trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 12:22 ---
Already fixed in trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
package Pak1 is
pragma Elaborate_Body;
type T1 is abstract tagged null record;
function F1 (X1: T1) return access Integer is abstract;
end Pak1;
package body Pak1 is
procedure P2 (X2: T1) is
I : Integer;
begin
I := F1(T1'Class(X2)).all; -- line 6
end P2;
end Pak
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32792
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22559
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17318
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 10:44
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Andrew, IIRC you extended DECL_COMPLEX_GIMPLE_REG_P to DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P, can
> vectors be affected by the same issue?
No because vector types are not effected by -ffloat-store and ther
--- Comment #143 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-12-05 10:12 ---
CP2K fails again to compile
all.f90:51639.23:
TYPE(cp_error_type), INTENT(inout) :: error
1
Error: Derived type 'cp_error_type' at (1) is being used before it is defined
--
jv244 a
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 13:42 ---
Subject: Bug 34333
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Dec 5 13:42:32 2007
New Revision: 130623
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130623
Log:
2007-12-05 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fort
--- Comment #1 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 13:50 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33777 ***
--
rask at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-05 13:54 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Instead, -fPIC should unconditionally decrease the available regparm by 1.
> Yes, this seems to be the best solution in the short term.
I'm testing following patch:
Index: i386.c
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 12:35 ---
This is already fixed in SVN trunk.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2007-12-05 12:28
---
*** Bug 34348 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34347
package pak1 is
pragma elaborate_body;
type T1 is abstract tagged null record;
function f1 (x1: T1) return access integer is abstract;
end pak1;
package body pak1 is
procedure p2 (x2: T1) is
i: integer;
begin
i := f1(T1'class(x2)).all; -- line 6
end p2;
end pak1;
--- Comment #8 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 14:35 ---
Fixed in SVN trunk, thanks for the patch.
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 13:50 ---
*** Bug 34349 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rask at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-05 16:03 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 16:01 ---
Subject: Bug 34312
Author: uros
Date: Wed Dec 5 16:01:22 2007
New Revision: 130625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130625
Log:
PR target/34312
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_functio
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 15:18 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> *** Bug 34339 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
OK Thanks all - I'm onto it.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 14:35 ---
Subject: Bug 34284
Author: sam
Date: Wed Dec 5 14:34:48 2007
New Revision: 130624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130624
Log:
2007-12-05 Bechir Zalila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
gnattools/
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 17:42
---
> 2) pa_secondary_reload() requests a secondary scratch register reload for
> essentially everything when CLASS is FP_REGS. However, reload is treating
> this reload as optional, resulting in spill failures and
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:02 ---
I was going to do a regression hunt on this, but discovered that it doesn't
fail with current cross compilers for sparc-linux and i686-linux. With
powerpc-linux it fails for 20071120 and passes for 20071130.
--
h
--- Comment #26 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 18:57 ---
Eric,
what is the status for this PR? Is there some work to do on your patch? Or is
the issue moot?
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from raksit at google dot com 2007-12-05 19:27 ---
For the rtl emitted on x86 processors, the combiner is almost able to optimize
the shift away. It combines and simplifies the 3 instructions down to:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:SI 64)
(mem/s:SI (plus:S
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-12-05
19:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at
postreload.c:392
> You should request a secondary reload when you need one, like on the SPARC.
> Currently the only return value o
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:11 ---
extern void free (void *__ptr);
struct shparam
{
char **p;
int foo;
};
static struct shparam shellparam;
inline void freeparam (volatile struct shparam *param, char **ap)
{
free ((void *) (*ap));
free ((void
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:10 ---
The bug is at least masked by
2007-11-21 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/34148
* tree-ssa-structalias.c (create_variable_info_for): Do not use
field-sensitive PTA
--- Comment #1 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-12-05 18:07 ---
Subject: Bug number PR34342
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-12/msg00202.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #2 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 17:00 ---
And the configure arguments:
--target bfin-unknown-elf --enable-checking=yes,rtl --with-newlib --enable-sim
--disable-gdb --disable-nls --disable-libffi --disable-target-libffi
--disable-boehm-gc --disable-target-boehm-
Revision 130561 fails to build libstdc++:
gcc/xgcc -Bgcc/ -S -o /dev/null -O2 -msep-data /tmp/complex_io.cc
/home/rask/build/gcc-bfin-unknown-elf/bfin-unknown-elf/msep-data/libstdc++-v3/include/complex:
In function 'std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>&
std::operator<<(std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Tr
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:21 ---
The SMT.39 (for char *) has aliases shellparam, SFT.31 and SFT.32 where
shellparam is the parent var of SFT.31 and SFT.32 -- this is the bug.
I will investigate why this happens.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:56 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
--- Comment #27 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:02
---
> what is the status for this PR? Is there some work to do on your patch?
Commit it after approval. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20548
--- Comment #14 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 17:19
---
The regression was introduced by the following change:
2005-11-21 Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/24653
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (ccp_fold): Strip down useless conversions.
I have
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 17:01 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unass
--- Comment #1 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 16:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=14701)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14701&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34350
--- Comment #16 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-12-05
16:42 ---
Subject: Re: Missed induction variable optimization
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that optimizing out the variable
> that holds number of iterations is not desirable on targets that have
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:51 ---
Subject: Bug 33739
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 5 19:50:56 2007
New Revision: 130629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130629
Log:
PR debug/33739
* gfortran.h (gfc_file): Remove i
--- Comment #15 from amonakov at gmail dot com 2007-12-05 16:26 ---
Zdenek,
please kindly share your thoughts on concerns expressed in previous comments.
The failures of number-of-iterations analysis prohibit applying modulo
scheduling to many simple loops that are otherwise eligible;
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 22:25 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 22:29 ---
What does the full cse1 dump look like at that point (don't forget to call
fflush(dump_file) from gdb ;-) Is this reproducible with a cross-compiler?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31944
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 20:16
---
Another fallout of the PR33604 fix.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 22:25 ---
Fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34337
--- Comment #7 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 22:48 ---
Sounds like this was introduced by the ipa pass reordering in r120527 ff.
Jakub, can you confirm this?
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Microcontroller programmers tend to fall into the trap of trying to
bind a variable to a CPU register, and declare it "volatile" so they
could e.g. use it to communicate between the main context and an ISR.
Previous GCC versions issued a warning:
volatile register variables don't work as you migh
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 19:49 ---
Because shellparam somehow becomes volatile after it got subvars assigned. Now
onto why TF that happens...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34138
procedure test1 is
type T1 is record
F : access function return T1;
end record;
begin
null;
end test1;
gnatmake -gnat05 test1
gcc-4.1 -c -gnat05 test1.adb
gcc-4.1: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program gnat1)
Same symptoms with 4.2.2.
--
Summary: Internal e
--- Comment #6 from anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com 2007-12-05 16:16 ---
It is confirmed that this problem has been fixed under gcc-20071130.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22559
gcc is configured and compiled as:
./configure --host=i686-pc-cygwin
--enable-shared-enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran --with-gettext
--cache-file=$BLD_CACHE_FILE
--- error message displayed when using gcc to compile follows:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-cygwin
Configured with: ../conf
(the test case is very similar but not identical to the one in PR ada/34353;
the symptoms are different).
procedure test1 is
type T1 is record
X : Integer;
F : access function return T1;
end record;
begin
null;
end test1;
gnatmake -gnat05 test1
gcc-4.1 -c -gnat05 test1
--- Comment #1 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2007-12-05 23:16
---
See also PR ada/34354.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34353
--- Comment #10 from h dot mth at web dot de 2007-12-05 13:01 ---
Replacing -O2 with -O1 in BOOT_CFLAGS hides the error here. At least one can
install gcc 4.3 again. :)
Gentoo users would edit toolchain.eclass:
--- /usr/portage/eclass/toolchain.eclass.orig 2007-12-05 13:58:52.000
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33988
d_binary) : Don't minimize
number of bits set in C1 if a mode mask for some mode can be used
instead.
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20071205-1.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20071205-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc
It appears that multi-line descriptions in *.opt files are not picked up
correctly. As an example, in config/bfin/bfin.opt there are these lines:
mleaf-id-shared-library
Target Report Mask(LEAF_ID_SHARED_LIBRARY)
Generate code that won't be linked against any other ID shared libraries,
but may be
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 21:45
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #1 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2007-12-05 12:28
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34347 ***
--
ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 14:15 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unass
--- Comment #8 from laurent at guerby dot net 2007-12-05 20:03 ---
Yep, blows up at more than 5.6GB of RAM on drivers/ata/sata_promise.c (on the
compile farm).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34337
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 15:19 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.3.0).
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 21:45
---
Subject: Bug 34138
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 5 21:45:15 2007
New Revision: 130632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130632
Log:
2007-12-05 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #24 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-12-06
00:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] 25_algorithms/search_n/iterator.cc: pch-related
verify_ssa failure
> Ping.
I moved the gch headers. Doesn't seem to be a pch problem:
(gdb) r
Starting program:
/test/gnu/g
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 12:55 ---
I think the problem is the interpretation of:
DATA DMACH(1) / Z'0010' /
as DMACH is REAL. The Fortran standard only allows BOZ in DATA for integers.
Fortran 2003 also allows, e.g.,
real :: r =
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34346
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34347
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 00:03
---
Right, I completely forgot about this PR...
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 12:44 ---
gcc version 4.3.0 20071205 (experimental):
test1.adb:62:06: no selector "p1" for type "T1" defined at line 3
test1.adb:64:06: no selector "p3" for type "T1" defined at line 3
--- Comment #10 from gcc at dixie dot net dot nz 2007-12-05 23:54 ---
FYI, just found this fixed in binutils 2.18:
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/binutils/2006-11/msg00290.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15267
--- Comment #1 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 01:36 ---
Confirmed on trunk
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.3.0 20071205 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in save_gnu_tree, at ada/utils.c:196
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 01:40 ---
Confirmed on trunk.
gcc: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program gnat1)
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.3.0 20071205 (experimental) (GCC)
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 21:51 ---
Let's ask the Steven-o-racle ;)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
procedure test1 is
type T1 is tagged null record;
procedure p1 (x: T1) is
begin
null;
end p1;
procedure p2 (x: T1'class) is
begin
null;
end p2;
procedure p3 (x: access T1) is
begin
null;
end p3;
procedure p4 (x: access T1'class) is
begin
--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-05 12:23 ---
Closing since fixed on trunk
--
sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 03:42
---
Reading through PR 18026 I am convinced this is a duplicate. We need to decide
how we want to handle this situation. It looks like at least one other
compiler treats the boz as an integer and converts to real fo
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 03:52
---
The error is in gfc_match_if.
There is code that is doing gfc_match_assignment in the IF statement twice to
catch the reported condition. So the invalid code falls through to this and
catches it. The easy way o
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 04:39 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Reading through PR 18026 I am convinced this is a duplicate. We need to
> decide
> how we want to handle this situation. It looks like at least one other
> compiler treats the boz as an in
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 06:14 ---
Subject: Bug 34335
Author: pault
Date: Thu Dec 6 06:13:59 2007
New Revision: 130643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130643
Log:
2007-12-06 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 06:14 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 07:06 ---
The actual commit is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=130642
Thanks for the fix!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34335
--- Comment #5 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2007-12-06 07:49 ---
It also fails with -O2 and -O1 (and not only with -O3).
The offending loop is reload.c:2352 (in function find_reloads):
for (i = 0; i < noperands; i++)
{
constraints[i] = constraints1[i]
92 matches
Mail list logo
