http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:14:19 UTC ---
Actually it is not noop_move_p that's at fault here, but the disgusting hack
for NOOP_MOVE_INSN_CODE. The insn is marked as a NOOP_MOVE somewhere else in
combine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:22:36 UTC ---
int
set_noop_p (const_rtx set)
{
rtx src = SET_SRC (set);
rtx dst = SET_DEST (set);
if (dst == pc_rtx && src == pc_rtx)
return 1;
if (MEM_P (dst) && MEM_P (src))
re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:46:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Already wrong in the .expand dump:
This comment somehow ended up in the wrong PR. It should be in bug 50078.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-11
15:47:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Comes from SSA expand => Matz
Comes from SSA expand because it is already wrong in the .expand dump:
;; MEM[(volatile unsigned int *)&var][arg_1(D)] ={v}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #50 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-12
18:24:58 UTC ---
Perhaps someone can comment on, and test, Joern's patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00461.html
@Richard E: That would be a middle-end fix, if it's correct, so perhap
||2011-10-10
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49629
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50770
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
gcc dot gnu.org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-30
17:11:15 UTC ---
This is the early forwprop eliminating the promotion cast from char to int. I
don't think this is a valid transformation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-04-30
21:43:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27272
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27272
Eliminate unreachable case labels
This is basically what the code in stmt.c used to do, and the ne
||2012-05-02
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-02
09:29:33 UTC ---
Solaris 8 is obsolete. Support for it will be removed in the next GCC release
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-02
12:57:17 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Wed May 2 12:57:10 2012
New Revision: 187048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187048
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/53153
* gimplify.c (p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53168
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-03
08:31:54 UTC ---
I don't remember. Did you look at the paper/thesis to see if it says anything
about this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-04
20:04:56 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Fri May 4 20:04:47 2012
New Revision: 187181
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187181
Log:
PR other/29442
* read-md.c (fprint_md_p
||2012-05-04
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-04
20:10:07 UTC ---
Is this issue a GCC bug? Or does comment #4 resolve the problem?
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-04
20:11:13 UTC ---
Works in all currently maintained GCC versions.
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WORKSFORME
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-04
20:12:51 UTC ---
Works with all currently maintained GCC version.
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #14 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-04
20:16:57 UTC ---
The patch of comment #13 and the observation of comment #8 are Good Enough for
me to consider this problem fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-05
10:06:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 27315
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27315
Avoid diving deep through generated IOR trees for EQ_ATTR
This patch tries to keep IOR-trees for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-05
10:13:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 27316
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27316
Difference in insn-attrtab.c before/after applyin
PR52391_compare_IOP_tree_v1.diff
tmp-attrtab.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
--- Comment #14 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-06
21:40:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27328
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27328
Remove unused sched_branch_type stuff from m68k
Patch speaks for itself.
Without patch, trunk r1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
10:35:52 UTC ---
Another problem in forwprop:
t.c.060t.ccp2: switch (a.1_2) , case -1 ... 0: >
t.c.061t.forwprop2: switch (b.0_1) , case 0 ..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52391
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
13:57:49 UTC ---
Duh!
Index: gimplify.c
===
--- gimplify.c (revision 187219)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -1658,6 +1658,10 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
14:40:43 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon May 7 14:40:33 2012
New Revision: 187248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187248
Log:
PR middle-end/53245
* gimplify.c (prepro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
:00:00 |2012-05-08
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-08
18:59:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> It appears to me that gcc61 is using the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-08
19:03:01 UTC ---
>From gcc61:
$ /lib/libc-2.7.so
GNU C Library stable release version 2.7, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see th
||2012-05-10
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-10
22:17:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 27369
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27369
Compute REG_LIVE_LENGTH smarter
The way local_live is used to compute REG_LIVE_LENGTH is just stup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Summary|Very slow regi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-17
17:55:01 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu May 17 17:54:52 2012
New Revision: 187633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187633
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/53125
* regstat.c (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-17
19:09:14 UTC ---
Mikael, is it possible for you to test if this is caused by this patch, please?
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=142443
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-17
21:19:28 UTC ---
To fix this properly, the input location should be tracked for the format
string. The location of the format string as argument to printf is available in
c-family/c-format.c:check_f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-20
21:47:37 UTC ---
Made some new timings with a bunch of compilers, and looking at IRA timings:
gcc-3.4.6 (stock FSF)
100 0.12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-21
23:15:31 UTC ---
What does clang report for this:
#include
void f() {
printf(
"%."
"*d");
}
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53442
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-21
22:32:38 UTC ---
Have you compared the linker command lines (using gcc -v)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-21
23:21:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27466
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27466
Pass around the location of the format string
First, admittedly rather lame, attempt at some impro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53447
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53321
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53321
--- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-26
19:42:26 UTC ---
Note, btw, that verify_cgraph() doesn't catch this. Honza, you loved checkers
so much a few years ago -- maybe this checker (also yours??) should be enhanced
:-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18687
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-27
23:14:03 UTC ---
If this is fixed for GCC 4.7, why leave the bug report open? Do you plan to
back-port a similar fix to older release branches?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #15 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-30
18:52:18 UTC ---
This bug results in real warnings being introduced unnoticed, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg02005.html
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|middle-end |other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-26
10:47:05 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Tue Jun 26 10:47:01 2012
New Revision: 188983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188983
Log:
PR other/33190
* config/mips/mips.h: Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-26
11:27:47 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Tue Jun 26 11:27:41 2012
New Revision: 188984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188984
Log:
PR other/33190
* doc/tm.texi.in: Doc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-26
22:21:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Learned some more. (For reference, this is all from Fr 17 Aug 21:29:16 UTC
> 2007 (revision 127595).)
>
> Not defined by any target, but used in the main
||2012-06-27
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-27
23:16:32 UTC ---
Confirmed. Results in confusing dumps, too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53791
Bug #: 53791
Summary: Branches not re-ordered using profile-information
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53791
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-28
12:05:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The other trivially obvious possibility is to pattern-match this open-coded
> switch/case and transform it back to switch/case early.
The test case is a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804
Bug #: 53804
Summary: branch reordering missed optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-29
10:43:19 UTC ---
On x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, this case is optimized because the second branch
condition is combined for both foo1 and foo2:
:
D.1723_4 = b_3(D) > 0;
D.1724_5 = a_2(D) < 0;
D.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53818
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
gcc dot gnu.org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-06
23:28:55 UTC ---
The problem is that the switch is not fully cleaned up, there are multiple case
labels going to the same target basic block:
(gdb) p debug_bb(e->src)
;; basic block 2, loop depth 0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-07
12:35:49 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Jul 7 12:35:44 2012
New Revision: 189349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189349
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/53881
* tree-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-08
20:23:40 UTC ---
Test case:
$ cat testsuite/g++.dg/pr53690.C
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-std=c++11" }
extern "C" int printf (__const char *__restrict __format, ...);
typedef unsigned sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |tromey at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
gcc dot gnu.org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
||2012-07-09
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-09
15:32:33 UTC ---
Doctor, it hurts when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53887
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-09
18:53:39 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jul 9 18:53:35 2012
New Revision: 189389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189389
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/53887
* tree-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53887
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53924
Bug #: 53924
Summary: unhelpful diagnostic in invalid declaration list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53924
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53944
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-12
18:23:33 UTC ---
Try obj-c++
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|4.2.0 |4.6.0
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-13
09:17:05 UTC ---
$ cat compare_lang.ads
package compare_lang is
type the_range is range 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21998
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53955
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Priority|P3
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #17 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-13
17:41:12 UTC ---
Will take care of GCC 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |
Version|4.7.2
||2012-07-14
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-14
14:46:40 UTC ---
Please provide a test case, not a link.
||2012-07-15
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-15
20:56:51 UTC ---
Without a test case on a platform that is supported in GCC, there isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-15
21:08:30 UTC ---
FWIW, as far as I understand the ia64 data speculation semantics, it is OK to
use a speculated load, but the check must then be done on the use, i.e. in t
his case chk.s b6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-15
21:17:34 UTC ---
What does the recovery code at 4404710 look like?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-15
22:52:31 UTC ---
Ah, of course the "move branch register" instruction faults if the NaT bit of
the source register is set. So the recovery code is irrelevant, and this could
be a GCC bug. Need a test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53908
--- Comment #19 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-16
09:36:11 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jul 16 09:36:04 2012
New Revision: 189512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189512
Log:
Backport from trunk:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimizat
||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-16
19:48:50 UTC ---
I don't see how reverting this helps. We should understan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-16
20:23:20 UTC ---
The problem seems to be that PARM_DECLs are not marked as REG_USERVAR_P.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-16
21:57:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 27806
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27806
Proposed fix: Distinguish between a user variable and a function argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-18
23:13:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 27827
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27827
Somewhat reduced, preprocessed test case
Fails with a cross-compiler from x86_64 to ia64 with trun
401 - 500 of 1051 matches
Mail list logo
