--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-06 08:30 ---
patch committed, PRE is now down to 35-40% of compilation time. I defer to the
RMs whether this should be closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35639
--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:05 ---
See 39110 for another patch that would need to be backported (thinko fix).
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:06 ---
See 39110 for another patch that would need to be backported (thinko fix).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38921
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:06
---
Subject: Bug 38977
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 6 09:06:39 2009
New Revision: 143982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143982
Log:
2009-02-06 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/38977
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:08
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #12 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:16 ---
There's another peephole2, namely from
[(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
(match_operand 1 "register_operand"))
(set (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
(match_operator 3 "arith_or_logical_operator"
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:17
---
Subject: Bug 39074
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 6 09:17:19 2009
New Revision: 143983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143983
Log:
2009-02-06 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=17261)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17261&action=view)
pr39086.C
Slightly more reduced testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39086
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 10:09 ---
You get a warning issued by the frontend for the first case. The second case
is not warned because we didn't prune buf fron ps points-to set. This is
because while A has an alias set of 2, buf has alias set zero.
--- Comment #17 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-06 09:53 ---
without a testcase where this affects performance, it should not be P2 (though
it should be fixed).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36758
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 11:51 ---
> > r11 is saved by the caller so this is the generated code is valid.
> > Since nothing else uses r11 in the inline-asm, the code is correct.
> The problem is not that r11 not saved at stack, but that saved on the stack
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-06 12:51
---
On it.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 13:07 ---
It's at 280MB and still growing. Let's hope it compresses well ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39077
--- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-06 13:19 ---
Despite all the problems Ada passes _all_ of it's Testsuite:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg00620.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39111
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 13:44 ---
I guess that since Richard says that it's a problem, we had better confirm
it:-)
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 13:45 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This is a bug report for gcc 4_3 branch. I will attach a test case, slightly
> reduced from zlib code. When compiling this test case for the x86_64-linux
> target with -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer,
--- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-06 14:11 ---
I tossed in that patch and it cause gcc's build to fail here:
../../../gcc_trunk/libgcc/../gcc/config/soft-fp/floatditf.c:35: warning: no
previous prototype for '__floatditf'
/usr/share/src/gcc_build/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/shar
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 14:14 ---
Yes, -fno-omit-frame-pointer, sorry.
I don't see why this has anything to do with -fno-omit-frame-pointer per se.
As far as I can see so far the same problem can arise with any function which
happens to require a frame pointe
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 14:33 ---
The updated patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00259.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-06 14:40 ---
Do we support TImode arithmetic on many platforms?, See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17279
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19493
I am booted in 32-bit mode (and building multilib).
Rob
--
h
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 14:50 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yes, -fno-omit-frame-pointer, sorry.
>
> I don't see why this has anything to do with -fno-omit-frame-pointer per se.
> As far as I can see so far the same problem can arise with any function w
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 15:05 ---
This patch fixes wrong scheduling:
Index: i386.md
===
--- i386.md (revision 143890)
+++ i386.md (working copy)
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
(UNSPEC_DEF_CFA
We want to pass aggregates of 32 bytes with single __m256 field
in AVX registers, instead of memory. The proposed psABI change is
at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-02/msg00058.html
--
Summary: Update classification of aggregates with __m256
Product: gcc
Version:
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 15:13 ---
The gcc patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00209.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 15:35 ---
This is actually a regression relative to GCC versions not supporting flexible
array members (2.95 and before). Testing a patch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 15:46 ---
Still fails in GCC 4.4. My understanding is that this code in fold_builtin_n
if (ret)
{
ret = build1 (NOP_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (ret), ret);
=>TREE_NO_WARNING (ret) = 1;
return ret;
}
creates a NO
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 14:35 ---
Ok, still too large to attach. It should appear at
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SSMprotocol_def_en.cpp.140r.gcse1.lzma
after some time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39077
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-06 12:51
---
On it.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 12:08 ---
Or you can subq $128, %rsp; call my_syscall; addq $128, %rsp in your inline
assembly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39078
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 16:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=17262)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17262&action=view)
pr39086.C
Even more reduced testcase on which g++ -O2 -W -Wall is quiet (no missing
returns in functions returni
--- Comment #12 from rosenhauer at dkrz dot de 2009-02-06 13:34 ---
Maybe you are running out of native heap. Try with something like:
export LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA=0x4000
--
rosenhauer at dkrz dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 16:31 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I tossed in that patch and it cause gcc's build to fail here:
> ../../../gcc_trunk/libgcc/../gcc/config/soft-fp/fixtfti.c:34: error: expected
> '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before '__
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 11:59 ---
I am unable to reproduce this on Cygwin. Anyone got a .gcse dump for me?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39077
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 10:54 ---
Seems that 2008-08-29 patch effect on this testcase is that __builtin_expect is
removed later and it apparently isn't considered as zero cost. This is
strange, as gimple_reg = gimple_reg2 is considered to have 0 cost
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 16:35 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Do we support TImode arithmetic on many platforms?, See:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17279
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19493
>
> I am booted in 32-bit mode (a
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 16:37 ---
The problem is with f4 RESULT_DECL. First during save_inline_function_body
remap_decl creates a copy of that RESULT_DECL and sets copy's
DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN to the original f4's RESULT_DECL. Then during
optimizatio
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 16:44 ---
Gcc 4.1 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -O2 generates
---
adler32:
pushq %rbp
movq%rdi, %rax
andl$65535, %edi
shrq$16, %rax
movq%rsp, %rbp
pushq %r15
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 16:47
---
Subject: Bug 38844
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Feb 6 16:47:39 2009
New Revision: 143985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143985
Log:
PR tree-optimization/38844
* ipa-inline.c
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 16:49
---
Fixed on mainline
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summ
--- Comment #6 from fabrice at mocana dot com 2009-02-06 17:16 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Closing this as invalid. The problem is the interaction of the inline assembly
with the optimization option -funswitch-loops. Will submit a new bug if I can
find a simple way to reproduce it.
--
--- Comment #7 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 17:25 ---
Yes, it's a regression for 4.3 relative to 4.2 for this test case. I don't
know if it is a general regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39118
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 17:50 ---
Re. comment #2:
This looks more like normal PRE over exception edges, which AFAIK tree-ssa-pre
does not do (it keeps ANTIC_IN empty for any block that has abnormal
predecessors).
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org c
struct X { int *p; } x;
struct X __attribute__((noinline))
foo(int *p) { struct X x; x.p = p; return x; }
void __attribute((noinline))
bar() { *x.p = 1; }
extern void abort (void);
int main()
{
int i = 0;
x = foo(&i);
bar();
if (i != 1)
abort ();
return 0;
}
--
Summar
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 17:59 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #48 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2009-02-06 18:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with installed gcc
rob1weld at aol dot com wrote:
> One example is inherently derived from where we see it being set (wrongly),
> during "make -i check" _PRIO
--- Comment #9 from grxnprzn at gmx dot net 2009-02-06 19:04 ---
If someone is working on this, you might want to look at #37798, too. I have no
idea wether these two are connected, but GCC definitively has problems with
alignment on SPARC.
--
grxnprzn at gmx dot net changed:
--- Comment #49 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 19:15
---
For most people, GCC_EXEC_PREFIX points to either a directory which
doesn't exist or a different version of gcc. Since GCC_EXEC_PREFIX
may point a directory which doesn't exist, it isn't really needed
by "make chec
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 19:21 ---
This was fixed in mainline by r141432, a fix for PR middle-end/36578. That bug
was a regression from 3.3 to 3.4. I'm testing a backport of that fix to the
4.3 branch.
--
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #50 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2009-02-06 19:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work
with installed gcc
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> For most people, GCC_EXEC_PREFIX points to either a directory which
> doesn't exist or a different
--- Comment #51 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 19:30 ---
Mark pointed out way back in comment #9 that GCC used to effectively do the
same thing by searching the install directory even without GCC_EXEC_PREFIX. I
understand that setting it makes people nervous, but I haven't
#include
/*
Why the first swap operation works as expected but
it does not happen the same with the second one ?
I guess that it can be due operations within temp values,
but IMHO swap operation should work in both cases.
Thanks !
*/
void swap(int *a, int *b) {
*a ^= *b ^= *a ^=
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 20:09 ---
This is undefined code as you are modifying *a twice without a sequence point
inbetween the modifies.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15145 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 20:09 ---
*** Bug 39121 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 20:12 ---
Subject: Bug 36432
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Feb 6 20:12:10 2009
New Revision: 143989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143989
Log:
PR c/36432
* c-decl.c (grokdeclarator): Don't tre
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 20:37 ---
Testing a patch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|una
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 20:42 ---
Fixed for 4.4 so far.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fai
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 20:58 ---
The "near obvious cse" cases are not obvious (requires reassociation). To make
them redundant, you need code hoisting.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:01 ---
Subject: Bug 39035
Author: janis
Date: Fri Feb 6 21:01:46 2009
New Revision: 143992
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143992
Log:
PR c/39035
* real.c (do_compare): Special-case co
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:02 ---
Can't reproduce this with any compiler I've tried.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:06 ---
What happened to this one since, ehm, 2.5 years ago?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:06 ---
What happened to this one since, ehm, 2.5 years ago?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from nospam at pamies dot cat 2009-02-06 21:07 ---
Is not the same bug as #15145. I agree with you that there is just one sequence
point, but the operation is not undefined.
void swap(int *a, int *b) {
*a ^= *b ^= *a ^= *b;
}
This code should be compiled to:
*a = *a
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:10 ---
"There is no flow..."
Fixed with df merge.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:15 ---
Not reproducible, and gcc 3.4 is not supported anymore.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:21 ---
GCC has the bt-load optimization for this. But this code is not enabled for
ia64. It could be so simple as just setting flag_branch_target_optimize{,2} to
true in the ia64 backend, but maybe more work is needed (I h
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:21 ---
Evaluation order is undefined if there is no sequence point.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:22 ---
They are no longer XFAILed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM 2009-02-06 21:25 ---
Subject: RE: gcc3.4.6 generates incorrect ppc32 code for combination of
bitfields and shifts
Whilst I am not complaining about 3.4 not being supported, I think it is
a pretty poor show that you are not able to reproduc
--- Comment #10 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 21:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=17263)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17263&action=view)
reduced program which reproduces the ICE
Attaching a reduced test case which reproduces the same error.
> gcc -c i
--- Comment #11 from kamaraju at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 21:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=17264)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17264&action=view)
preprocessed source code of ice3.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38981
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:31 ---
Works with:
gcc version 4.4.0 20090116 (experimental) [trunk revision 143448] (GCC)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30595
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:34 ---
Confirmed with gcc 4.3. Where do we stand today?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:35 ---
GCC 3.3 is not supported anymore.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:39 ---
Confirmed with GCC 4.3 (ubuntu).
I recently fixed one of the worst bottlenecks in the 'expand' phase, so this
may be fixed in GCC 4.4.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:41 ---
We have a new candidate: bswap optimization.
Diego's idea to do "a single scan that calls back to all these transformations
on every statement" really still sounds like The Right Thing to do.
--
steven at gcc dot
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:43 ---
c4x is no longer supported.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:45 ---
This would be fixed if someone would fix the Sign Extension Elimination pass
(yes, it also handles zero extensions). But that pass is probably broken
beyond repair at this point, and likely needs a rewrite instead of
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:45
---
Indeed, this testcase is fully scalarized by the new SRA even as it is
today. (If you don't know what new SRA I mean, I hope I'll post it to
the list as an RFC next week).
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org cha
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:46 ---
ping?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33524
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:52 ---
Confirmed. Looks like something for postreload-gcse to handle. Before that,
there are no partial redundancies in the RTL (at least, not in the quick look I
gave it).
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:53 ---
Could be added to PPRE.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 22:01 ---
Confirmed with r143992. The tail call is correctly identified in the
.final_cleanup dump, but not expanded to a tail call.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 22:16 ---
Looks like it really was a dup. Can't reproduce it anymore now, anyway.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 22:17 ---
Unable to reproduce. Seems to work, even!
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-06 22:29 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Do we support TImode arithmetic on many platforms?, ...
> > I am booted in 32-bit mode (and building multilib).
>
> 32bit i386 doesn't support TImode.
>
> TImode sof
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 22:29 ---
Only they all run at different times during the pass pipeline ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32390
--- Comment #13 from dwarak dot rajagopal at amd dot com 2009-02-06 22:35
---
> The patch makes GCC to generate movaps load followed by addps. On Core 2 it
> speeds up the testcase from 7s to 6.2s so I guess it works as expected.
>
> The same however does not reproduce on AMD box and
--- Comment #5 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 22:40
---
Subject: Re: gcc3.4.6 generates incorrect ppc32 code
for combination of bitfields and shifts
> Whilst I am not complaining about 3.4 not being supported, I think it is
> a pretty poor show that you are
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 22:43 ---
Then they should be grouped. And kept grouped.
Here's one case where there has to be a trade-off between micro-optimizations
for specific cases, and compile time for everyone. Please, for once, let us
seriously cons
--- Comment #2 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-02-06 22:46 ---
I don't get an ICE on this test case at any optimization level on IA64, PA, or
x86. This is with r143978. Perhaps it has been fixed with the patch to
another bug?
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
Wh
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-02-06 22:48 ---
Nevermind, now I got it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39084
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 22:51 ---
Sure. There's this other problem of testsuite regressions you'll get. I've
been
there, it takes a _lot_ of time to do even minimal pass re-ordering / removing
:(
The best strathegy was always to fix deficiencies i
Consider this C++ code:
template
class c {
public:
T* operator->() const;
T* p;
};
struct s { int v; };
template<> s* c::operator->() const { return p; }
int fn(c p) { return p->v; }
Compiling this with g++ 4.3 gives me the symbol
_ZNK1cI1sEptEv
That is the symbol which is called by the fu
--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 23:08 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39095 ***
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-06 23:08 ---
*** Bug 39122 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 00:33 ---
Subject: Bug 35434
Author: jsm28
Date: Sat Feb 7 00:32:37 2009
New Revision: 143998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143998
Log:
PR c/35434
* c-common.c (handle_alias_attribute):
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 02:05 ---
Subject: Bug 37737
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Feb 7 02:05:04 2009
New Revision: 144001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144001
Log:
/cp
2009-02-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/35147
PR
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 02:05 ---
Subject: Bug 35147
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Feb 7 02:05:04 2009
New Revision: 144001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144001
Log:
/cp
2009-02-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/35147
PR
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-07 02:08
---
Fixed for 4.4.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-07 02:08
---
Fixed for 4.4.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
