--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 00:56 ---
patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00260.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 01:27 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00262.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 01:42 ---
patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00264.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 01:55 ---
I have a patch to fix PR39351, but for PR36240 it only changes the SEGV for
foo.i
into an unrecognized insn ICE.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 02:04 ---
I specifically kept the code propagating TREE_READONLY arguments so const
arguments will get constant propagated at -O0. But I see the propagation is
disabled for SSA registers.
I am testing patch for this...
I gues
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 02:09 ---
This is curious, since we should see the initializer when adding variable at
first time. I am looking into this.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39360
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 02:15 ---
patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00266.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 02:30 ---
patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00267.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
For a non-static local variable with __attribute__ ((aligned (0x40))) gcc 4.3.3
makes no attempt in the generated code to align the variable and emitts no
warning about that. Same if the type has the attribute specified instead of
the variable (the types I tried were an array of 6 uint64_t's or a
reload is too eager to re-use reload registers, which means that
reloads that should be available for inheritance by later insn do not
even live past the end of the current insn.
There should be a target hook to identify input reloads that
should be kept.
--
Summary: reload is too ear
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 02:49 ---
Subject: Bug 13549
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 5 02:49:13 2009
New Revision: 144636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144636
Log:
PR c++/13549
* semantics.c (perform_koenig_looku
--- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 02:51 ---
Fixed for 4.4. I'm not comfortable applying this to older release branches.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
The info pages give something like
__asm__ ("xxx" : "=X" (sum));
as an example of adding a hint for gcc that the instruction clobbers "sum".
However if the variable is an array element, gcc will clobber the variable for
you (in case you forgot) by generating a move from a random register to the
va
--- Comment #1 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 02:55 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Similarly for "=X" but not "=m" or "=r".
Rather, similarly for "=g".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39375
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
--with-bugurl=http://bugs.gentoo.org/ --with-pkgversion='Gentoo SVN' --with-ppl
--with-cloog
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.0-pre built 20090304 (experimental) rev. 144634 (Gentoo
SVN)
--
Summary: ICE building qt-script-4.5.0 w/ -O{1,2,3
--- Comment #1 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2009-03-05 04:04 ---
attachment is too large to attach. you can find it @
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dirtyepic/gcc/PR39377-qscriptecmaboolean.ii
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39377
This simple test case crashed in sim when compiler by arm-eabi-gcc for thumb.
---
class B1
{
public:
virtual void foo1(void) {}
int b1;
};
class B2
{
public:
virtual void foo2 (void) {}
};
class D : public B1, public B2
{
void foo1(void) {}
void foo2(void) {}
};
void __attribute__
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 06:04 ---
*** Bug 39377 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 06:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39367 ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 06:07 ---
Can you try if it works with gcc 4.4.0?
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 07:32 ---
Yes! I haven't executed it but correct assembly seems to be emitted for x86.
Marking INVALID.
--
balrogg at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
101 - 122 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
