[Bug inline-asm/57299] Inline assembly memory dependencies produce spurious loads, register pressure, compilation failures

2013-05-15 Thread umbricola at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57299 --- Comment #6 from Chris Mihelich --- Ah, but "=m" and "m" operands shouldn't need any register at all: their purpose is just to declare that a specific piece of memory is written or read in the assembly code, a declaration that helps the optimiz

[Bug target/57260] Generated R_MIPS_GOT_MIPS relocation for direct function call while compiling with -O2 on MIPS N64

2013-05-15 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57260 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug middle-end/57278] -fno-if-conversion and -fno-if-conversion2 do not work as intended

2013-05-15 Thread shiwen.hu at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57278 --- Comment #3 from Shiwen Hu --- Thanks for the explanations regarding predicated instructions! How about the sign extension instructions that can be moved out of the loop? Shiwen

[Bug rtl-optimization/57300] New: statement in expression miscompiled at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-15 Thread dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
lower optimization, or with gcc 4.7 and earlier it works correctly. $ gcc-trunk -v Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu ... gcc version 4.9.0 20130515 (experimental) [trunk revision 198926] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -O2 -m32 small.c $ ./a.out 1 $ gcc-trunk -O3 -m64 small.c $ ./a.out 1 $ gcc-4.7 -O3 -m32

[Bug tree-optimization/57294] [4.9 Regression] ice in remove_described_reference

2013-05-15 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mjambor at suse dot cz --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug fortran/57296] Infinite loop in do while when using -O2

2013-05-15 Thread antti.pekka.hynninen at nrel dot gov
s not have that option. > > I'll try to compile gfortran from the source and see if the bug goes away. Ok, the code works after I compiled gfortran from sources. My current version is GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.8.1 20130515 (prerelease) I'm changing the status to resolved.

[Bug inline-asm/57299] Inline assembly memory dependencies produce spurious loads, register pressure, compilation failures

2013-05-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57299 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug inline-asm/57299] Inline assembly memory dependencies produce spurious loads, register pressure, compilation failures

2013-05-15 Thread umbricola at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57299 --- Comment #8 from Chris Mihelich --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > Actually it only needs 4 (and not 6) due to holding of the pointer of y and > x can happen with only 2 registers. That's not what GCC is doing, actually. When I

[Bug inline-asm/57299] Inline assembly memory dependencies produce spurious loads, register pressure, compilation failures

2013-05-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57299 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- Oh without optimization 6 registers will be used rather than the 4 that GCC can do with optimizations turned on.

[Bug c++/57301] New: bit rotation is not optimized in c but not c++

2013-05-15 Thread luto at mit dot edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301 Bug ID: 57301 Summary: bit rotation is not optimized in c but not c++ Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug middle-end/57286] [4.9 regression] infinite recursion in fold-const.c:10037

2013-05-15 Thread jojelino at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57286 --- Comment #5 from gee --- Created attachment 30129 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30129&action=edit proposed patch

[Bug middle-end/57286] [4.9 regression] infinite recursion in fold-const.c:10037

2013-05-15 Thread jojelino at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57286 --- Comment #6 from gee --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3) > Intuitively, I'd say: > > @@ -10041,7 +10041,7 @@ > >if (TREE_CODE (arg1) == COND_EXPR > || TREE_CODE (arg1) == VEC_COND_EXPR > - || COMPARISON_CLASS_

[Bug c++/57301] bit rotation is optimized in c but not c++

2013-05-15 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- How old is your gcc build? (please fill in the version field when reporting bugs) This was fixed by Jakub recently, so if you could check with current trunk...

[Bug c++/57301] bit rotation is optimized in c but not c++

2013-05-15 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > How old is your gcc build? (please fill in the version field when reporting > bugs) Oups, sorry, you mention it (4.7 and 4.8) in the text. > This was fixed by Jakub

<    1   2