http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-01-05
08:21:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > (insn 3163 3161 3164 107 rectmm.c:1041 (set (reg:SI 1 r1)
> > (plus:SI (reg:SI 1 r1)
> >(const_int 280 [0x11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47174
Summary: libquadmath: Build now depends on makeinfo
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46520
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47024
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05 09:05:48 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 5 09:05:44 2011
New Revision: 168505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168505
Log:
2011-01-05 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47024
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46262
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression] [OOP] tree |[OOP] tree check: expected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46017
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2011-01-05
10:03:18 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Jan 5 10:03:15 2011
New Revision: 168506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168506
Log:
2011-01-05 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/46017
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-05
10:07:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> This xml catalog testing passed on Debian and RHEL:
>
> echo '' | xsltproc --noout --nonet \
> http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/xhtml/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
Summary: no predefined macros __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64
__x86_64__ in prepocessor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2011-01-05
11:23:43 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jan 5 11:23:40 2011
New Revision: 168508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168508
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47005
* tree-sra.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini 2011-01-05
11:50:08 UTC ---
Note: somebody should now change the subject to something more meaningful,
about hard coded paths and such, because the original P1 issue is resolved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47176
Summary: libgo doesn't compile if libunicode is installed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41580
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05 12:16:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> For SAME_TYPE_AS and EXTENDS_TYPE_OF one should add a
> compile-time simplification to simplify.c.
> Currently, only the run-time version is impleme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47177
Summary: bad example of using -dM in manual
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression]|configure test for
|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47178
Summary: QtWebKit miscompiled for x86_64-*-mingw*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47179
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] SPU: errno misoptimization around
malloc call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47150
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #11 from John Marino 2011-01-05 13:49:47
UTC ---
I rebuilt OpenBSD i386 using then Jan 5 daily bump (SVN 168495) and patched it
with tree-src.c file.
ACATS 62002a now passes, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-01-05
13:54:30 UTC ---
> ACATS 62002a now passes, thanks.
Thanks for confirming. ACATS is clean on both i386 and i586 Linux SJLJ now,
are there any remaining failures on BSD platforms?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
--- Comment #2 from Jan 2011-01-05 14:00:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Checking __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64 __x86_64__ for
> pointer size is wrong since pointer size may be
> 32bit on x86-64.
No, it can't be. The macros are set in depende
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
14:02:15 UTC ---
Did somebody test the patch in comment #3?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47176
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05
14:12:41 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Jan 5 14:12:37 2011
New Revision: 168512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168512
Log:
PR go/47176
byte/libbytes.a depends on u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47176
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
Summary: [OOP] EXTENDS_TYPE_OF returns the wrong result if the
polymorphic variable is unallocated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-05 14:28:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Checking __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64 __x86_64__ for
> > pointer size is wrong since pointer size may be
> > 32bit on x86-64.
> No, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46402
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05 14:37:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Found when looking at PR 41580.
>
> The following program should print 6 times "T" but it prints trice "F"
> followed
> by trice "T".
Actually it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
--- Comment #6 from Ian Bolton 2011-01-05 14:38:42
UTC ---
> I mean, the insn 3163 should have matched without your patch. I'm missing analysis on why
> that didn't happen> part.
OK, I will do more analysis to try to determine what's going on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #1 from Martin Reinecke 2011-01-05
14:42:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 22904
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22904
shorter test case
More compact test case; the hot spot is marked with "CRITICAL LOOP".
Compile wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05
14:55:32 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jan 5 14:55:27 2011
New Revision: 168515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168515
Log:
Fix PR lto/47162.
2011-01-05 Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47181
Summary: memops-asm testcase fails with -flto
-fuse-linker-plugin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47182
Summary: libquadmath.texi: undefined flag: BUGURL
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
--- Comment #4 from Jan 2011-01-05 15:13:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > Checking __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64 __x86_64__ for
> > > pointer size is wrong since pointer size may be
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #13 from John Marino 2011-01-05 15:14:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Thanks for confirming. ACATS is clean on both i386 and i586 Linux SJLJ now,
> are there any remaining failures on BSD platforms?
There are no ACATS or gnat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-05 15:17:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > > Checking __amd64, __amd64__, __x86_64 __x86_64__ for
> > > > pointer s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou 2011-01-05
15:33:24 UTC ---
> The regression tests just completed for OpenBSD i386.
> There is one failure on ACATS (cb1010a timeout)*
This is a stack checking test.
> 3) the STACK_CHECK_STATIC_BUILTIN macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47162
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46402
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-05
16:10:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 22906
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22906
fmaq-test.c
Testcase I was using.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #15 from John Marino 2011-01-05 16:25:56
UTC ---
[off PR]
Hi Eric,
Can you clarify one statement?
Regarding the ten "stack-check" tests as I can them (c5210[3x,4x,4y],
cb1010[a,c,d], null_deref[1,2], stack-check[1,2]), I now underst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39213
--- Comment #22 from Rob 2011-01-05 16:26:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> At long last.
It was only 2 years... I have some older than that.
Thank you for your work on my Bug Report,
Rob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45915
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
Ian Bolton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.rauberg at gmx dot de
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47175
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou 2011-01-05
16:55:57 UTC ---
> Regarding the ten "stack-check" tests as I can them (c5210[3x,4x,4y],
> cb1010[a,c,d], null_deref[1,2], stack-check[1,2]), I now understand that
> it is expected that these tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41580
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-05
17:19:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 22907
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22907
Draft patch - not fully working
(In reply to comment #4)
> Note: If both arguments are TYPE-valued,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2011-01-05 17:31:20
UTC ---
The only difference in the hot loop is the usage of two regs in the address:
4.5.1:
.L142:
movapd%xmm0, (%rcx)
mulpd%xmm6, %xmm2
addq$32, %rbx
movapd%xm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47183
Summary: Please discard unused functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22210
John T changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrt at worldlinc dot net
--- Comment #15 from Jo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46402
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-05
17:56:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 22905 [details]
> gcc46-pr46402.patch
Please also add an item to libquadmath.texi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46416
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-05
18:00:00 UTC ---
I now compared the list of libquadmath functions at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libquadmath/Math-Library-Routines.html with the
C99 functions in math.h and complex.h (cf. http://en.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47183
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-05
18:00:15 UTC ---
I don't see any unused functions here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05 18:06:25 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 5 18:06:21 2011
New Revision: 168524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168524
Log:
2011-01-05 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11412
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
18:18:34 UTC ---
Compiling revision 168524 gives:
../../work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c: In function 'gfc_trans_class_assign':
../../work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:6172:42: error: 'vtab' may be us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
Victor K. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vityan at vityan dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
--- Comment #9 from Dmitri Zolotukhin 2011-01-05
18:30:46 UTC ---
@Victor K.
Are you using the MinGW or TDM version of GCC?
TDM 4.5.0 passes the test cases on my machine. Seems the problem existed only
in the 4.4.* branch of gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47184
Summary: gcc interprets C++0x initialization construct as
function declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
18:41:36 UTC ---
> Simple solution:
>
> - gfc_symbol *vtab;
> + gfc_symbol *vtab = NULL;
This is the fix I have also reached and it allows gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c to
be compiled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05 18:55:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> REOPEN: Causes build issues (cf. comment 7).
Thanks for noticing, and sorry for the breakage.
> Simple solution:
>
> - gfc_symbol *vtab;
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47185
Summary: UB in TR1 and C++0x placeholders and non conforming
implementation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth 2011-01-05 19:10:41 UTC
---
I successfully did on i386-pc-solaris2.11. I'd suggest a slightly updated
version
(attached), with two changes
* We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-05 19:15:19 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jan 5 19:14:56 2011
New Revision: 168526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168526
Log:
2011-01-05 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47185
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2011-01-05 19:17:42 UTC
---
Created attachment 22909
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22909
slightly revised patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-01-05 19:30:49
UTC ---
> this could be the reason for slowdown.
Hm, not really.
But, by changing the generated assembly around loop entry:
$ diff -u testcase2.s testcase2_.s
--- testcase2.s2011-01-05 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2011-01-05 19:48:58
UTC ---
Applying the same medicine to original test gets us from:
wall time for map2alm: 6.908527s
to
wall time for map2alm: 6.703142s
where 4.5.1 wins with:
wall time for map2alm: 6.651740
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #22 from Sean McGovern 2011-01-05
19:50:09 UTC ---
Sorry, still learning -- collect2 is definitely not the place for this.
Target-specific plugin maybe?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-05 20:09:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > this could be the reason for slowdown.
>
>
> $ gcc -lm testcase2.s
> $ time ./a.out
>
> real0m4.239s
> user0m4.234s
> sys0m0.001s
>
> The im
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46416
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47183
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-01-05 22:13:55 UTC ---
It's operator delete(void*). Also, typeinfo for S, typeinfo name for S, vtable
for __cxxabiv1::__class_type_info are unused, too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47185
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
22:31:14 UTC ---
> * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for the
> first *).
I don't think this cover x86_64-*-*, this is why I have tested *86*-*-*
> * The comm
text.startup,"ax",@progbits
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
xorl%eax, %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.6.0 20110105 (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47183
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-05
22:51:36 UTC ---
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12370
now tracks the gold problem
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12369
now tracks the GNU LD problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.*, |i386-pc-solaris2.*,
|s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47146
--- Comment #6 from Pierre Innocent 2011-01-06
03:17:01 UTC ---
Daer Kargl,
Thanks, my mistake !
The C99 tests failures may be due to non-athlon specific code.
Still checking !
Regards,
Pierre Innocent
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, sgk at troutmask dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #22 from Mark Mitchell 2011-01-06
03:55:40 UTC ---
On 1/5/2011 5:36 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 40259 5.6000 cc1plus cc1plus
> lookup_field_1
I've looked at this, in the distant pas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47139
--- Comment #4 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-06 07:34:28 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Jan 6 07:34:24 2011
New Revision: 168535
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168535
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47139
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47139
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47167
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2011-01-06 07:38:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Some loop performance is very sensitive to code sizes. This change
>
> -mulpd%xmm10, %xmm2
> +mulpd%xmm0, %xmm2
>
> will impact loop size d
95 matches
Mail list logo
