public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/62031] [4.8 Regression] Different results between O2 and O2 -fpredictive-commoning
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:31:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-62031-4-IP5hvt2Q8S@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-62031-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62031
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62031
> >
> > --- Comment #9 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > Forgot to mention that my observation is true on trunk and 4.9 branch.
> >
> > I didn't notice it earlier because I run validations for every commit on the
> > 4.9 branch, and not as often on trunk.
>
> Can you please try to investigate? (does it only fail at -O0?!)
Especially please state if you are cross-testing and one target triplet that
shows the failure.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-16 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-06 7:27 [Bug c/62031] New: Different results between O2 and O3 for gcc-4.7.2-5 (Debian 4.7.2-5) tomasz.ostaszewski at interia dot pl
2014-08-06 8:40 ` [Bug c/62031] " mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2014-08-06 8:56 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62031] [4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] Different results between O2 and O2 -fpredictive-commoning rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-06 10:54 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-06 11:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-14 12:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62031] [4.8/4.9/5 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-15 7:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-15 7:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62031] [4.8/4.9 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-15 15:11 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62031] [4.8 " clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-15 15:14 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-16 7:56 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-10-16 9:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-10-16 9:56 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-16 12:28 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-20 7:48 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-26 13:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-26 13:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-27 14:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-03 7:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-03 13:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-62031-4-IP5hvt2Q8S@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--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).