[Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?

public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
@ 2003-06-02  1:03 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
  2003-06-02  9:04 ` erik.oosterom@chess.nl
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-02  1:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221


dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
   GCC host triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
 GCC target triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu


------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com  2003-06-02 01:03 -------
Eric,

Could you check whether your problem still occurs with gcc 3.3? There have been a number of P-
IV optimizing bugs that have been fixed. Also, please note the any optimization level above -O3 is 
identical to -O3, so -O6 or -O9 will make no difference whatsoever (beyond -O3). Thanks,

Dara



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
  2003-06-02  1:03 ` [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler? dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-06-02  9:04 ` erik.oosterom@chess.nl
  2003-06-24 14:37 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: erik.oosterom@chess.nl @ 2003-06-02  9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221



------- Additional Comments From erik.oosterom@chess.nl  2003-06-02 09:04 -------
Subject: Re:  gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?

Hi Dara,

I shall try the snapshot 20030526, (but i do have not much time), does
this include your changes?
I understand that 09 is the same as 03, but the make script did use
that.

I let you know the results.

Redgards,

Erik




------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
  2003-06-02  1:03 ` [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler? dhazeghi@yahoo.com
  2003-06-02  9:04 ` erik.oosterom@chess.nl
@ 2003-06-24 14:37 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
  2003-07-02 13:21 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl @ 2003-06-24 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221



------- Additional Comments From erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl  2003-06-24 13:27 -------
Subject: Re:  gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?

Next week i will have time to look at it.

Erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-06-24 14:37 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
@ 2003-07-02 13:21 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
  2003-07-05 19:40 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl @ 2003-07-02 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221



------- Additional Comments From erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl  2003-07-02 13:21 -------
Subject: Re:  gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?

Thanks to you but the bugs seems to be solved. :)
The problem is a combination of P4 instructions and the -O3 flag.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-07-02 13:21 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
@ 2003-07-05 19:40 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
  2003-07-09 12:45 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
  2003-07-09 14:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi at yahoo dot com @ 2003-07-05 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221



------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi at yahoo dot com  2003-07-05 19:40 -------
Just to verify: the problem no longer occurs with gcc 3.3?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-07-05 19:40 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
@ 2003-07-09 12:45 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
  2003-07-09 14:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl @ 2003-07-09 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221



------- Additional Comments From erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl  2003-07-09 12:45 -------
Subject: Re:  gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?

I'am very sorry, i can't work futer on this project.

:(

Erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler?
       [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-07-09 12:45 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
@ 2003-07-09 14:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2003-07-09 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10221


bangerth at dealii dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2003-07-09 14:23 -------
Bug seems to be fixed, and no feedback forthcoming otherwise.
W.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-09 14:23 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <20030326124600.10221.eoo@chess.nl>
2003-06-02  1:03 ` [Bug optimization/10221] gcc -O9 will introduce wrong asembler? dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02  9:04 ` erik.oosterom@chess.nl
2003-06-24 14:37 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
2003-07-02 13:21 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
2003-07-05 19:40 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2003-07-09 12:45 ` erik dot oosterom at chess dot nl
2003-07-09 14:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).