https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg01321.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Wonder if we can have an update on this?
TL;DR: there still seems to be a regression, but smaller and difficult to pin
down.
The benchmark often goes up and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #46 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #45)
>
> We SRA a bool field into a QItype variable and then think we need a VCE to
> get back to bool. Could the SRA variable have type bool?
A semi-wild guess, wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
Bug #: 56294
Summary: BOOT_CFLAGS='-O2 -g -fno-ipa-sra' leads to bootstrap
comparison failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
||2013-02-12
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-12
10:46:31 UTC ---
Sigh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-12
18:16:27 UTC ---
Yes, compiling the pre-processed source with -c -O2 -fno-ipa-sra
-fcompare-debug -fno-exceptions fails too. Time for some debug
counters.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-12
19:43:39 UTC ---
Yes, compiling the pre-processed source with -c -O2 -fno-ipa-sra
-fcompare-debug -fno-exceptions fails too. Time for some debug
counters.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-12
20:10:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29429
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29429
Experimental patch resolving more dependencies
This is my (untested, highly experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-13
10:56:15 UTC ---
With the debug counters I have identified the first function where the
difference in behavior of intra-SRA behavior with -g vs -g0 caused the
comparison failure but could not sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-15
16:00:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 29469
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29469
Reduced testcase
Testcase reduced by multidelta that fails with -c -O2 -fno-ipa-sra
-fno-e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-18
10:55:32 UTC ---
Probably not because s is a local variable, not a parameter and the
only function parameter in the testcase is an integer. Unfortunately,
I cannot reproduce the failure on hppa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-19
12:54:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
>
> That won't work (read: it will cause miscompiles). I believe with the
> most recent data-dependence reorg I added a bunch of testcases that sho
|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-19
13:00:20 UTC ---
Mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-19
14:48:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 29497
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29497
Patch to fix at least part of the problem
This patch fixes Jakub's testcase and the one pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #28 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-20
11:13:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Yes, preserving COMPONENT_REFs would help here, but it is not
> correct (even for this testcase the types do not match).
>
So you know where th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #29 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-20
12:56:36 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Feb 20 12:56:30 2013
New Revision: 196171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196171
Log:
2013-02-20 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-20
13:36:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Hey Martin,
>
> I noticed that this doesn't apply cleanly to google/4_7 without some
> massaging.
> The difference between trunk and google/4_7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56310
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56310
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-21
16:08:58 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Feb 21 16:08:51 2013
New Revision: 196207
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196207
Log:
2013-02-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-23
11:37:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29528
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29528
A simpler patch to fix issue in comment 7
The patch from comment #8 had problems of its own
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-23
11:50:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 29529
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29529
Another unrelated issue
Irrespective of ho we decide to deal with the first issue, there i
at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
||gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-27
16:11:02 UTC ---
OK, patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01233.html
fixes the testcase from comment #7 and patch
http
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor 2013-02-28
12:43:42 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Feb 28 12:43:33 2013
New Revision: 196340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196340
Log:
2013-02-28 Martin Jambor
PR
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=56294
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-05
16:49:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Which is the testcase that still fails? The attached and more reduced ones
> pass for me ...
The testcase from comment #10 (called "Another unre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #179 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-06
15:14:35 UTC ---
I'm currently (gcc revision 196427, FF changeset 123831:c95439870e05)
facing a few ICEs during the compilation phase with the following
backtrace:
#0 0x00f89a73 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56570
Bug #: 56570
Summary: ICE when streaming a TREE_BLOCK
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56570
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||56570
--- Comment #181 from Mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56570
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-08
10:43:12 UTC ---
I forgot the compilation options I use:
~/gcc/trunk/inst/bin/g++ -o CodeGenerator-shared.o -c -fPIC
-Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wcast-align -flto -fpermissive -Wno-maybe-uninitial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-12
08:32:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I can reproduce the failure with a i686-apple-darwin9 cross
> to hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
Can you please attach -fdump-tree-ealias-slim and
-fdump-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-12
09:09:12 UTC ---
Indeed, bootstrap with BOOT_CFLAGS='-O2 -g -fno-ipa-sra' now finally
passes. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-12
17:48:15 UTC ---
I'm just guessing, but is it possible that MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_STMTS is 0
even with -g on hppa-hpux? If so, that (and I suppose the debug
format) would be the cause and skipping/xfa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56718
Bug #: 56718
Summary: Early inlining prevents type based devirtualization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
||2013-03-25
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #31 from Martin Jambor 2013-03-28
12:36:36 UTC ---
The 4.8 workaround has been reverted yesterday with the commit below
so the bug should be alive and kicking again.
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Mar 27 14:06:58 2013
New Revisi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10474
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
||atches/2013-04/msg01032.htm
||l
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor 2013-04-17
15:58:17 UTC ---
I have submitted a patch to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56718
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
||2013-04-18
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2013-04-18
11:45:09 UTC ---
Hm, let me have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56988
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56718
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56988
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-04-29
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56988
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2013-05-02
14:05:35 UTC ---
Patch committed to trunk. I will commit the 4.8 version early next week.
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 2 14:03:02 2013
New Revision: 198540
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2013-05-03
13:45:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > @@ -1993,6 +1994,18 @@ ipa_intraprocedural_devirtualization (gi
> >token = OBJ_TYPE_REF_TOKEN (otr);
> >fndecl = gimple_get_virt_method_for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56988
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Redirecting to builtin_unreachable committed as revision 198926.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-11
10:50:29 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Aug 11 10:50:24 2012
New Revision: 190313
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190313
Log:
2012-08-11 Martin Jambor
PR fortran/4863
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-23
09:31:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Is the fix for this in a released version of GCC?
If I understand our web ViewCVS correctly, the 4.7.1 release was based
on revision 188597 and I have comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
Bug #: 54394
Summary: fatigue2 -flto run time regression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-29
18:26:32 UTC ---
Confirmed and mine. Thanks for the simple testcase.
||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
||atches/2012-08/msg01991.htm
||l
Last reconfirmed||2012-08-29
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-30
15:32:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > You can try whether it fixes your regression too.
>
> Yes, it does. Thanks.
Great, thanks.
>
> Did you check if you get the same run time with -flto an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-30
15:58:40 UTC ---
The aggregate functions and their use in inlining/ipa-cp heuristics is
in, at least with my PHI predicate computing patch which I
re-submitted today we even get a predicate for known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-31
13:13:09 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Aug 31 13:13:03 2012
New Revision: 190831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190831
Log:
2012-08-31 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-31
14:05:50 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Aug 31 14:05:45 2012
New Revision: 190833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190833
Log:
2012-08-31 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-31
17:15:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This commit or the previous one caused a lot of ICEs (see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-08/msg02988.html):
>
> /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54409
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2012-09-03
10:51:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
>
> That looks quite wasteful ... that vector will be extremely sparse.
Do you mean that it will be wasteful after the patch or in general?
In any case, w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54477
Bug #: 54477
Summary: Inlining summary generation should not change the
current function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
||2012-09-04
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2012-09-04
14:02:31 UTC ---
Yay, I can see this on gcc61.fsffrance.org too. I will have a look
what is going on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2012-09-14
13:55:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
>
> Martin,
> Have you done any more digging on this? I just discovered that cpu2006
> benchmark 471.omnetpp suffers the same problem (8 byte loads turned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-02
11:58:58 UTC ---
I get the SSA verification failure even on the PR 54146 testcase (as opposed to
the reduced one). Please re-assign to me if fixing that will cause the
originally reported segf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-18
17:37:25 UTC ---
I already have a work-in-progress patch based on your suggestions that
works for the testcase but need to think a bit more about less obvious
cases that might happen. However,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-19
16:01:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28493
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28493
Untested patch
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-22
14:55:35 UTC ---
Unfortunately, the patch causes -fcompare-debug issues. The problem
is that with it we create some declarations only when producing debug
info which can affect UIDs which then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-22
15:14:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Can you say what -fcompare-debug failures you saw (or was it a bootstrap
> problem already)?
Bootstrap actually passes. I's gcc.dg/pr46571.c that f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-26
16:13:08 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Oct 26 16:13:00 2012
New Revision: 192848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192848
Log:
2012-10-26 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-07
15:56:00 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Nov 7 15:55:54 2012
New Revision: 193298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193298
Log:
2012-11-07 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-11-08
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-08
15:01:27 UTC ---
Confirmed and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55238
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-08
17:33:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 28637
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28637
Untested patch
This is the fix I am currently bootstrapping and testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55238
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
||2010.12.17 13:48:15
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-17
13:58:21 UTC ---
Yes, I know. Mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-17
16:12:25 UTC ---
I've nailed this down to
gimple_call_set_arg (call_stmt, 0, tmp);
in gimple_adjust_this_by_delta. When I comment it out, the corruption
goes away (though the produced code is of c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47027
Summary: a-stwiun.ads:441:80: (style) this line is too long
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-20
18:35:51 UTC ---
OK, it's not later, the folding is called from within ccp which I
guess is not happy that there is a new ssa name or some such nuisance.
Which means that the best fix is probably to g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46734
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-21
11:05:52 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 21 11:05:49 2010
New Revision: 168109
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168109
Log:
2010-12-21 Martin Jambor
Backport from ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46734
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43085
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-21
14:35:17 UTC ---
And it fails for me even when I switch both IPA-SRA and IPA-CP off.
So at the moment I have reasons to believe the bug is not in any of my
areas of knowledge or interest. And since t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46984
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-21
15:11:50 UTC ---
Fix submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01618.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45934
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-22
12:57:00 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 22 12:56:54 2010
New Revision: 168168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168168
Log:
2010-12-22 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-22
12:57:00 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 22 12:56:54 2010
New Revision: 168168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168168
Log:
2010-12-22 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46302
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-22
12:57:00 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 22 12:56:54 2010
New Revision: 168168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168168
Log:
2010-12-22 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46987
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-28
14:36:58 UTC ---
This seems to be a fallout from the fix to PR 46351 and PR 46377
(revision 166535, patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00933.html).
The problem is that struct pack9_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-29
00:07:02 UTC ---
Proposed fix posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01912.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45934
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-29
08:45:34 UTC ---
This still needs at least the following patch in the series
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01215.html) in order to
be considered fixed.
201 - 300 of 2365 matches
Mail list logo
