[Bug web/52239] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 4.4

["LpSolit at netscape dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239

--- Comment #18 from Frédéric Buclin <LpSolit at netscape dot net> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #17)
> the "Keywords" field auto-completes when editing an existing bug, but not in
> the form to create a new bug. I seem to remember that it used to work...

That's weird. I can indeed reproduce the problem on GCC Bugzilla, but not on my
local copy of GCC Bugzilla nor in a vanilla 4.4 installation. Investigating!
>From gcc-bugs-return-422079-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sat May 11 10:49:23 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-422079-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25874 invoked by alias); 11 May 2013 10:49:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25858 invoked by uid 48); 11 May 2013 10:49:21 -0000
From: "petschy at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/57236] Missed optimization: weird pointer update after the loop
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 10:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: petschy at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57236-4-o1ifwyvTLW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57236-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57236-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2
Content-length: 811

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW236

--- Comment #5 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
I spotted a minor size inefficiency in the code:

   0x0000000000400720 <+32>:    jle    0x4007c5 <_Z6write2R6Streamj+197>
   0x0000000000400726 <+38>:    mov    %rdx,%rsi
   0x0000000000400729 <+41>:    test   %r12b,%r12b
...
   0x00000000004007c5 <+197>:    mov    (%rbx),%rsi
   0x00000000004007c8 <+200>:    mov    %rbx,%rdi
   0x00000000004007cb <+203>:    callq  0x4005d0 <_ZN6Stream5WriteEPhS0_>
   0x00000000004007d0 <+208>:    mov    (%rbx),%rdx
   0x00000000004007d3 <+211>:    mov    %rdx,0x8(%rbx)
   0x00000000004007d7 <+215>:    mov    %rdx,%rsi
   0x00000000004007da <+218>:    jmpq   0x400729 <_Z6write2R6Streamj+41>

The mov at +215 would not be needed if the jump went to +38 instead of +41.