--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26
14:46 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> Smaller test case:
>
This works for me. The original test case does abort, though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22591
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26
16:19 ---
Testing patch. The shortcut we were taking in may_alias_p is invalid even with
strict aliasing.
--- tree-ssa-alias.c25 Jul 2005 12:04:50 - 2.107
+++ tree-ssa-alias.c26 Jul 2005 16:16:34
r 4.2.
--
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-7.c should be fixed properly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu do
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
Summary|gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-7.c|aliasing information in
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26
20:04 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01749.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26
20:23 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The other issue is cleanup CFG is not doing its job really, well really its
full job.
>
No. CFG cleanup is not prepared to handle the consequences of copy/const
propagatio
--
Bug 23086 depends on bug 22591, which changed state.
Bug 22591 Summary: [4.0 regression] wrong alias information causes an incorrect
redundant load elimination
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22591
What|Old Value |New Value
-
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26
20:56 ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> This is not yet fixed. The 4.0 branch has the same problem.
>
You are not very patient, are you?
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-29
16:38 ---
Fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01971.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
12:50 ---
Testing patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
14:17 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00102.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
15:10 ---
Testing patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-02
19:34 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00112.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-04
18:17 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00283.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
13:30 ---
Can't reproduce with mainline as of 2005-08-04. Could you try again?
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
13:36 ---
Bah. My compiler had checking disabled. Sorry about that.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|REOPENED
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
16:46 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I patched fold to change if (FOO > TYPE_MAX) or if (FOO < TYPE_MIN) to if (0)
> and this fixes the ice. I'll mail the patch when I get back from work
> t
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-05
17:39 ---
James has a potential fix for fold. If that doesn't work, a simple change to
extract_range_from_assert_expr should provide a similar effect. However, the
real problem in this PR is fold() not doin
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-15
14:15 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Hmm, can someone explain where in store_ccp we stuff constants
> into the mem_ref field of lattice values? There are a few places
> where simple_cst_equal is used to
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-19
13:27 ---
Testing patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23476
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-19
18:10 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01150.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-19
18:20 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01168.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-22 19:47
---
Proposed patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg01032.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757
--- Comment #19 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-02 15:31
---
Working on a fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33870
--- Comment #21 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 00:26
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00374.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 00:01
---
Subject: Bug 33870
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Nov 8 00:01:38 2007
New Revision: 129976
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129976
Log:
PR 33870
* tree.h
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 15:20
---
Subject: Bug 33870
Author: dnovillo
Date: Tue Nov 13 15:20:40 2007
New Revision: 130141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130141
Log:
pr 33870
* tree.h
--- Comment #24 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-13 15:47
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00719.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-08 14:24
---
Will work on this.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
.html
--
Summary: Testcase gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20070302-1.c is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
Repor
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-30 16:12
---
Subject: Bug 36245
Author: dnovillo
Date: Fri May 30 16:11:58 2008
New Revision: 136212
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136212
Log:
2008-05-30 Diego Novillo <[EMAI
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-02 17:04
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-05/msg02061.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 15:39
---
Subject: Bug 36245
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Jun 11 15:39:09 2008
New Revision: 136672
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=136672
Log:
2008-06-11 Diego Novillo <[EMAI
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-23 17:26
---
Working on it.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-26 02:53
---
Subject: Bug 25886
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Jan 26 02:53:01 2006
New Revision: 110243
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110243
Log:
* tree.h (TREE_RANGE_CHECK): Fix range p
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-26 02:57
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01745.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 14:26
---
Mine.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 15:49
---
This is actually:
2006-01-26 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tree-cfg.c (move_block_to_fn): Call
remove_stmt_from_eh_region for each moved statement.
which I need to move to trun
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 02:37
---
Subject: Bug 25874
Author: dnovillo
Date: Mon Jan 30 02:37:09 2006
New Revision: 110392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110392
Log:
PR 25874
* omp-low.c (execute_ex
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 03:09
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg02090.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 03:11
---
Subject: Bug 25874
Author: dnovillo
Date: Mon Jan 30 03:11:29 2006
New Revision: 110393
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110393
Log:
PR 25874
* omp-low.c (execute_ex
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 12:56
---
Mine.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 16:05
---
I can't reproduced this with [EMAIL PROTECTED] nor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you
please
try again?
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 22:36
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I still get a segfault for the testcase in comment #6.
> This is revision 110467 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
Ah, yes. I had failed to notice the failure is on x86_64. So
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-02 12:27
---
Subject: Bug 25990
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Feb 2 12:27:02 2006
New Revision: 110511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110511
Log:
PR 25990
* tree-cfg.c (move_blo
--- Comment #15 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-02 12:37
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00121.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-02 14:53
---
Should be fixed with the patch for PR 25990.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-03 02:48
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed, I don't understand why Diego committed the full testcase and not
> the
> reduced one.
>
none of the reduced testcases were failing on my machine.
--
dn
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-03 18:24
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00223.html.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 12:12
---
Mine.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-un
--- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 04:20
---
Mine. This is the same issue as 23128/23129. Testing patch.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 12:38
---
Subject: Bug 26180
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Feb 9 12:38:35 2006
New Revision: 110794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110794
Log:
PR 26180
* tr
--- Comment #4 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 12:42
---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00743.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 13:40
---
Subject: Bug 26180
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Feb 9 13:40:52 2006
New Revision: 110795
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110795
Log:
PR 26180
* tr
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 13:41
---
.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-28 14:38
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Makes sense to anyone?
>
Unfortunately yes. I am hoping that we will soon be able to get rid of all
this nonsense. The vectorizer is running against a very recalcitrant alia
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-01 14:30
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> are you still working on this PR?
>
Yes. In fact, it's one of the kind of manipulations that drove the design
decisions in memory SSA.
> I think something similar t
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-09 19:01
---
Andrew, please do not close bugs if you do not understand the problem. You
obviously have not even tried to understand the problem. This PR is related to
26076 but it is *not* a duplicate.
The patch that I
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-09 20:07
---
> Diego, is this still an issue on mainline? I can look into the runtime error,
> though.
>
Works now. I can live with the LD_LIBRARY_PATH problem. Though I don't
remember how we handle other
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:31
---
Not going to work on this problem any time soon.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:36
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:45
---
The two pointers are assigned the same SMT. Is this still a problem?
Dereferenced pointers
D.1541, UID 1541, int *, symbol memory tag: SMT.5
D.1542, UID 1542, int *, symbol memory tag: SMT.5
Or do you need to
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 16:07
---
Not working on this anymore.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-21 16:19
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Any updates on this? It get's in the way of loop versioning conditionals
> which
> I now have to decompose manually into chained if's :/
>
Nope. I'm u
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23
13:18 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> A comment in the patch says "Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu", but
> it just means that it will have been tested by the time I post this patch. :-)
>
Patch
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-29
14:16 ---
Working on it today. Kazu, I hope you don't mind if I take it?
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-11
02:25 ---
Re-opening. A re-organization of the tree optimizers is causing us to
misdiagnose this test case once again. I am going to work on a better warning
implementation that doesn't get confused so e
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-13
18:20 ---
Sebastian, would you mind taking a look at this? It's assigned to me but it's
likely that you will be able to figure out what's going on in chrec more
quickly. And I won't have time
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-14
20:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I will test and submit this patch after Diego submits his VRP revamp
> unless Diego heavily modifieis this part of VRP.
>
This is already in my current VRP change
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-14
20:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
>
> > I will test and submit this patch after Diego submits his VRP revamp
> > unless Diego heavily modifieis this part of VRP.
>
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-31
01:48 ---
This is caught by CCP1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:03 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:06 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:06 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:07 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:07 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:08 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:08 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:09 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:12 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
03:14 ---
Fixed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 21861 depends on bug 21029, which changed state.
Bug 21029 Summary: [4.1 Regression] vrp miscompiles Ada front-end, drops loop
exit test in well-defined wrap-around circumstances
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21029
What|Old Value |New Valu
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
17:14 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
17:15 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Not. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00128.html
Open a new PR. This is a completely different and not related to VRP. Closing.
--
What|Remo
--
Bug 21861 depends on bug 21029, which changed state.
Bug 21029 Summary: [4.1 Regression] vrp miscompiles Ada front-end, drops loop
exit test in well-defined wrap-around circumstances
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21029
What|Old Value |New Valu
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
18:26 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
18:37 ---
Fixed. Likely with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
18:44 ---
How is this related to VRP at all? Removing dependency on 18373.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
18:47 ---
This is not related to range propagation. Removing dependency on 18373.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
18:50 ---
Fixed. Likely with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg00127.html, but
it may have been fixed earlier. The natural range for i_6 is computed as [0, 9]
so this isn't something that was f
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-02
20:24 ---
Kazu is not working on this anymore.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|kazu at cs
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-03
13:55 ---
The issue is that the propagator engine does not implement the concept of
multiway branches taking some edges. It supports ONE, NONE or ALL.
Frankly, I'm not at all convinced that this is worth han
201 - 300 of 377 matches
Mail list logo
