public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/23451] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Redundant reloading from stack frame
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060110213258.20533.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-23451-5724@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 21:32 -------
Since GCC 3.2 also has this problem, contrary to what the reporter claims, I am
not sure if we should keep this marked as a regression. Obviously it is a
missed optimization, so the bug report is valid in that sense, and we should
keep it open at least.
Could the reporter check whether GCC 3.2 really does not have this problem, or
if perhaps this is a regresion from even older compilers? This problem may
have been introduced when the new (*cough* 7 years old) ix86 backend was
contributed. In that case, this may still be a regression from GCC 2.95. But
I am not willing to go that far back in history ;-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23451
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-10 21:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-23451-5724@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-31 5:05 ` [Bug target/23451] [3.4/4.0/4.1 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 20:36 ` [Bug target/23451] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 20:57 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 21:27 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 21:33 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2006-01-10 22:44 ` herbert at gondor dot apana dot org dot au
2006-01-10 22:58 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:00 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:00 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:01 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:25 ` herbert at gondor dot apana dot org dot au
2006-01-10 23:36 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:41 ` herbert at gondor dot apana dot org dot au
2006-01-10 23:44 ` [Bug target/23451] Redundant reloading from stack frame on i386 steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-10 23:45 ` herbert at gondor dot apana dot org dot au
2006-01-29 18:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-22 23:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060110213258.20533.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).