public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-07-18 23:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 8:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-18 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-18 23:23:21 UTC ---
Only f3 is not optimized correctly on the trunk on the tree level. bool ^ 1
should be converted into ~bool .
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-07-18 23:23 ` [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-19 8:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 8:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-19 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-19 08:07:15 UTC ---
I have a patch for this already.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-07-18 23:23 ` [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 8:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-19 8:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 13:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-19 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-19 08:33:23 UTC ---
On x86_64 we have
f3:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
xorb $1, (%rdi)
andb $1, (%rdi)
ret
already, thus only a truncation to bitfield precision is left.
As we expand ~*p as *p ^ 1 folding on the tree level isn't strictly necessary
so this is a missed opt on RTL or expand.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-19 8:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-19 13:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 13:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-19 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-19 13:28:19 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 19 13:28:15 2011
New Revision: 176460
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176460
Log:
2011-07-19 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_2): Remove TRUTH_*_EXPR handling.
(expand_expr_real_1): Remove TRUTH_*IF_EXPR and STATEMENT_LIST
handling.
PR middle-end/18908
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_2): Do not unnecessarily truncate the
result of BIT_*_EXPR to bitfield precision.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/expr.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-19 13:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-19 13:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-19 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-19 13:29:49 UTC ---
Now we get
f1:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
ret
f2:
.LFB1:
.cfi_startproc
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
ret
f3:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
xorb $1, (%rdi)
ret
f4:
.LFB3:
.cfi_startproc
movb $1, (%rdi)
ret
thus, fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-19 13:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-20 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-20 13:36:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 20 13:36:30 2011
New Revision: 176510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176510
Log:
2011-07-20 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR middle-end/18908
* tree.c (integer_all_onesp): Use TYPE_PRECISION, not mode precision.
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bitwise_binary): Remove bogus
ADDR_EXPR folding. Canonicalize X ^ ~0 as ~X.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr18908.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitwise-sink.c: Adjust.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/tree.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-20 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-20 13:35:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 20 13:35:20 2011
New Revision: 176508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176508
Log:
2011-07-20 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR middle-end/18908
* tree.c (integer_all_onesp): Use TYPE_PRECISION, not mode precision.
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bitwise_binary): Remove bogus
ADDR_EXPR folding. Canonicalize X ^ ~0 as ~X.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr18908.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitwise-sink.c: Adjust.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr18908.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitwise-sink.c
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-30 19:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-30 20:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-30 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 20:00 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Still f4 looks weird (wrong-code?!) as we fold *p = ~*p to *p = (int) *p != -1;
> I'll open a PR for this.
We decided this was the correct thing as we start out with ~((int)*p) != 0
which then gets folded into (int)*p != -1 and then VRP comes around and says
(int)*p can only be [0,1] so it gets folded into 1.
Chris said the same thing in comment #2.
So f4 is now fixed.
In summary, we still have some issues though:
f1: not fixed (at least on PPC):
lbz 3,0(3)
rlwinm 3,3,0,31,31
blr
That mask should not be there.
f2: fixed:
f2:
lbz 3,0(3)
blr
f3: fixed
f3:
lbz 0,0(3)
xori 0,0,1
stb 0,0(3)
blr
f4: fixed, only a store of 1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-02 14:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-30 19:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 20:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-30 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 19:26 -------
On the trunk we have:
f1 (const _Bool * p)
{
<bb 2>:
return (_Bool) ((int) *p & 1);
f2 (const _Bool * p)
{
<bb 2>:
return *p;
f3 (_Bool * p)
{
<bb 2>:
*p = (_Bool) !*p;
f4 (_Bool * p)
{
<bb 2>:
*p = 1;
where i686 assembly looks good for all cases.
Still f4 looks weird (wrong-code?!) as we fold *p = ~*p to *p = (int) *p != -1;
I'll open a PR for this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-02 14:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 19:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 20:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-02 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 14:21 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Acutally f3 is not fixed but I don't understand how not.
No f3 is fine, f4 is broken still.
*p = (int) *p != -1;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-25 5:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-02 14:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-18 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 17:32 -------
Acutally f3 is not fixed but I don't understand how not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-11-22 22:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-25 5:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-25 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-25 05:06 -------
So now truely only f1 is the only one to fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-22 20:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-22 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-22 22:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-25 5:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-22 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 22:24 -------
I think the first one is harder, I think part of this is already done for int
type but not boolean_type maybe that is a hint on how to fix it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC target triplet|alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-22 20:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-11-22 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-22 22:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-22 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 21:00 -------
The current issue with f4 is that (~((int)a)) != 0 is not converted to ((int)a
!= (~0)) which will then fold to 1, this issue with ~a != 0 not being convert
to a != ~0 is PR 24990 which I am working on a fix.
Then the only one left in this bug would be f1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-11-22 20:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-22 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-22 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 20:57 -------
f3 problem is PR 24989 which I have a fix for already, testing it right now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
2004-12-09 17:39 [Bug middle-end/18908] New: " falk at debian dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-04 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-04 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-04 18:15 -------
f2 is now fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC build triplet|alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
2004-12-09 17:39 [Bug middle-end/18908] New: " falk at debian dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-01 18:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-04 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-04 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 18908 depends on bug 15618, which changed state.
Bug 15618 Summary: Missed bool optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15618
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
2004-12-09 17:39 [Bug middle-end/18908] New: " falk at debian dot org
2004-12-09 17:45 ` [Bug middle-end/18908] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-25 20:42 ` sabre at nondot dot org
@ 2005-05-01 18:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-04 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-01 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-01 18:25 -------
With the patch for PR 15618 applied, f2 is fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
2004-12-09 17:39 [Bug middle-end/18908] New: " falk at debian dot org
2004-12-09 17:45 ` [Bug middle-end/18908] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-04-25 20:42 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2005-05-01 18:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: sabre at nondot dot org @ 2005-04-25 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From sabre at nondot dot org 2005-04-25 20:42 -------
note that the correct simplification for f4 is "*p = 1".
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools
2004-12-09 17:39 [Bug middle-end/18908] New: " falk at debian dot org
@ 2004-12-09 17:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-25 20:42 ` sabre at nondot dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-09 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-09 17:45 -------
Confirmed here is what we get on ppc:
_f1:
lwz r3,0(r3)
rlwinm r3,r3,0,31,31 <-- not useful
blr
.align 2
.globl _f2
_f2:
lwz r0,0(r3)
addic r2,r0,-1
subfe r3,r2,r0 <-- previous two instructions not useful (comes from _Bool !=0 is not converted
to _Bool, I think there is another bug about this)
blr
.align 2
.globl _f3
_f3:
lwz r0,0(r3)
xori r0,r0,1
addic r9,r0,-1
subfe r2,r9,r0
stw r2,0(r3)
blr
.align 2
.globl _f4
_f4:
lwz r0,0(r3)
nor r0,r0,r0
addic r9,r0,-1
subfe r2,r9,r0
stw r2,0(r3)
blr
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-12-09 17:45:04
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-20 13:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-18908-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-07-18 23:23 ` [Bug middle-end/18908] Missed folding opportunities with bools pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 8:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 8:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 13:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-19 13:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-20 13:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
[not found] <bug-18908-2744@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-22 20:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-22 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-22 22:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-11-25 5:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-02 14:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 19:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 20:01 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-09 17:39 [Bug middle-end/18908] New: " falk at debian dot org
2004-12-09 17:45 ` [Bug middle-end/18908] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-25 20:42 ` sabre at nondot dot org
2005-05-01 18:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-04 18:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu 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).