http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50304
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #2 from Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||venkataramanan.kumar at amd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #6 from Venkataramanan
2013-03-04 08:34:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> int first;
> void thread_backedge (void)
> {
> int i = 0;
>
> do
> {
> if (first ==1)
> {
> foo ();
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56509
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56509
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
09:08:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 29577
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29577
gcc48-pr56509.patch
Would it help to just move opts_obstack and opts_concat from opts.c to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56315
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
09:21:38 UTC ---
That reduced testcase actually compiles in a few seconds on a fast box, so
let's make it larger, then it will take a few years:
struct S { unsigned long s1; void **s2[0]; };
v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56507
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bratsinot at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56464
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-04
09:45:14 UTC ---
Sorry, I didn't notice that in 54383 we aren't in a class.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56516
Bug #: 56516
Summary: problem parsing templates: object.field < 10
interpreted as ill formed template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56494
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-03-04
09:53:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This happens because 0 - 1 overflows in sizetype:
>
> #6 0x00ac3e3d in size_binop_loc (loc=0, code=MINUS_EXPR,
> arg0=0x76d65d60
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-04 09:57:40 UTC ---
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
>
> --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-03-01
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
10:02:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 4 10:02:26 2013
New Revision: 196424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196424
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* tree-vec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
10:06:27 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 4 10:06:22 2013
New Revision: 196425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196425
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* tree-vec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
10:08:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 4 10:08:01 2013
New Revision: 196426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196426
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* tree-vec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56516
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
10:09:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 4 10:08:57 2013
New Revision: 196427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196427
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* tree-loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walter.mascarenhas at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56517
Bug #: 56517
Summary: ICE: in find_valid_class, at reload.c:704
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56517
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #12 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Summary|[C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener 2013-03-04
10:52:35 UTC ---
Why TER into debug-insns at all?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler
2013-03-04 10:46:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Then I suppose that if anything this is library, not core, even if there are
> interactions. Is there an open LWG DR?
You may want to refer to:
http://
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56504
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-04
10:53:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Unfortunately, no further documentation is available, telling whether, e.g.,
> src and dst may be the same or not.
AMD told me that "src" and "dst"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
10:56:14 UTC ---
Because TERed stmts won't be expanded, so there is nothing to refer to.
Furthermore, in many cases expand_debug_expr relies on seeing the inner
operand.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56515
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56518
Bug #: 56518
Summary: Segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56518
--- Comment #1 from Elisey Zanko 2013-03-04
11:10:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 29579
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29579
A preprocessed file causing bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56519
Bug #: 56519
Summary: DO CONCURRENT: wrongly accepts calls to impure
intrinsics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-03-04
11:12:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 4 11:12:30 2013
New Revision: 196428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196428
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52631
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-03-04
11:12:42 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 4 11:12:30 2013
New Revision: 196428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196428
Log:
PR testsuite/52641
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56519
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56518
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|elis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
11:29:16 UTC ---
> What will the result be used for in this case? The result, usizetype_max,
> is certainly not 0 - 1 == -1 as it is unsigned.
It's used for the upper bound of variable-sized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56515
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.6
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-03-04
13:13:58 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef struct {
float l, h;
} tFPinterval;
tFPinterval X[1024];
tFPinterval Y[1024];
tFPinterval Z[1024];
void Compute(void)
{
int d;
f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-03-04
13:24:04 UTC ---
The wrong-code with -O3 -fno-tree-coalesce-vars stopped occurring at r190284,
Richard Biener's large "Allow anonymous SSA names" patch. The patch
description mentions minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
Bug #: 56520
Summary: Syntax error causes misleading message: "Invalid
character in name"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49828
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-03-04
14:19:37 UTC ---
We don't properly "vectorize" the 2nd reference to the load (this time
unpermuted). When vectorizing the 2nd SLP instance with that reference
we encounter
/* Check if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56521
Bug #: 56521
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Uninitialized value_id
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-04 15:12:25 UTC ---
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
>
> --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
15:38:53 UTC ---
> Hm, if hb < lb - what kind of pair do you expect? The only case
> where lb - 1 is the "upper bound" (whatever upper bound is for an
> empty array ...) - isn't lb - 1 always e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
Bug #: 56522
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bytemark ASSIGNMENT 9% / 11% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56521
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-03-04 15:45:09 UTC ---
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
>
> --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56523
Bug #: 56523
Summary: -Wunitialized is described to be enabled -Wall
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56515
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-04 16:06:25 UTC
---
> We build the function decls via build_fn_decl which ends up using
> input_location of the first random function we are processing.
>
> But that doesn't seem to be the issue af
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
16:10:53 UTC ---
> How can the patch cause a name collision when all the patch does is
> avoid creating a new decl...? They are static and thus should be
> mangled.
They clearly aren't.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56523
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2013-03-04
16:16:16 UTC ---
On which basis do you think it doesn't? In practice, for a stupid example like
the below, with -Wall:
int main()
{
int a;
return a;
}
I get:
test.c: In function ‘main’:
test.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
16:18:21 UTC ---
> So, can the Ada FE be changed to use that? Hacks like this belong with a
> comment in the FE that needs them IMHO.
The 2 other related hacks are in stor-layout.c line 2214
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
Manu Evans changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||turkeyman at gmail dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56403
--- Comment #9 from Adam Seering 2013-03-04
16:43:07 UTC ---
Thanks!
I'm curious if the fix is likely to get backported?
Also, is there a straightforward workaround? Would you expect it to trigger
with all cases of a va_list not allo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506
--- Comment #3 from Michael Mehlich
2013-03-04 16:58:45 UTC ---
Considering that based on 14.5.3(5) a template member declaration
X,T>...>::type x;
with T bound to int,bool,char must expand to
X,int>,
Y,bool>,
Y,char>>::type x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56403
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-04
17:02:23 UTC ---
The fix seems extremely safe, so I think backporting to 4.6 and 4.7 makes
sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56464
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-04
17:12:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 4 17:12:32 2013
New Revision: 196437
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196437
Log:
PR c++/56464
PR c++/54383
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54383
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-04
17:12:48 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 4 17:12:32 2013
New Revision: 196437
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196437
Log:
PR c++/56464
PR c++/54383
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56464
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54383
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-04
17:15:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> A guess is that you end up creating SSA names during code transform in
> different
> order - which can result from walking a hashtable to do things
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
Bug #: 56524
Summary: Compiler ICE when compiling with -mips16
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56523
--- Comment #2 from corentinjabot at gmail dot com 2013-03-04 17:33:26 UTC ---
Actually after a few more test it works correctly but the statement "This
enables some extra warning flags that are not enabled by -Wall." is confusing
since the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56424
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2013-03-04
17:41:41 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 4 17:41:32 2013
New Revision: 196439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196439
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56424
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56523
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56424
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56525
Bug #: 56525
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Access to ggc_freed memory in
flow_loops_find
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54995
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56447
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||temtaime at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55828
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.bayda at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
Bug #: 56526
Summary: [4.8 regression] false positive for
maybe-uninitialized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2013-03-04 19:04:58 UTC
---
Created attachment 29580
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29580
save-temps output from same commandline/path
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56509
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2013-03-04 19:50:07
UTC ---
This is working.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56511
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56527
Bug #: 56527
Summary: Provide an import counterpart to
attribute((visibility("protected")))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56486
Dara Hazeghi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.6/4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56494
--- Comment #4 from rdsandiford at googlemail dot com 2013-03-04 21:06:10 UTC ---
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> Created attachment 29578
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29578
> gcc48-pr56494.patch
Thanks fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-04 21:50:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> +1
>
> I'm seeing the same pattern.
> Infact, I'm noticing a lot of my maths code seems to be performing a lot of
> redundant moves.
Some examples
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-04
21:52:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 4 21:52:08 2013
New Revision: 196445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196445
Log:
PR middle-end/56461
* diagnost
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56528
Bug #: 56528
Summary: __attribute__((visibility)) ignored for a function
declaration with an asm label
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
Bug #: 56529
Summary: [SH] Calls to __sdivsi3_i4i and __udivsi3_i4i are
generated on SH2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
