search for: 028877

Hi, I was tracking the issue discussed earlier, and I was wondering if a bug for the missed optimizations, was ever filed, and if it has been fixed since? If so in which llvm version, and more specifically which optimization pass. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-January/028877.html Thanks, Regards, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110307/2be61c20/attachment.html>

...as tracking the issue discussed earlier, and I was wondering if a bug for the > missed optimizations, was ever filed, and if it has been fixed since? If so in > which llvm version, and more specifically which optimization pass. > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-January/028877.html this doesn't really sound like an LLVM optimizer issue, it looks more like an issue with the llvm-g++ front-end to LLVM. In order to conform to the platform ABI (x86-64 in this case), the front-end has to carefully arrange how parameters are passed to functions and return values handled....

...22:17:09] Sent RTP packet to 178.119.146.190:59051 (type 08, seq 028875, ts 2789674816, len 000160) [Aug 9 22:17:09] Sent RTP packet to 178.119.146.190:59051 (type 08, seq 028876, ts 2789674976, len 000160) [Aug 9 22:17:09] Sent RTP packet to 178.119.146.190:59051 (type 08, seq 028877, ts 2789675136, len 000160) [Aug 9 22:17:09] Sent RTP packet to 178.119.146.190:59051 (type 08, seq 028878, ts 2789675296, len 000160) [Aug 9 22:17:09] Sent RTP packet to 178.119.146.190:59051 (type 08, seq 028879, ts 2789675456, len 000160) [Aug 9 22:17:09] Sent RTP packet to 1...