Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised)

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised)
Date	2017-05-06 22:52 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<oelcst$vhl$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(19 earlier) <661a92b8-5aad-4b52-b9c4-484556cf4ac7@googlegroups.com> <87shkjq2qs.fsf@gmail.com> <966b8240-6c88-4a9a-83aa-004646558fca@googlegroups.com> <oekbdg$g98$1@dont-email.me> <a06d0ebe-c2dd-4d0d-bae9-8d4fdc05b29a@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/05/17 20:26, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 6:21:31 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>                            And unfortunately for the embedded world, some
>> manufacturers still make chips with 8051 cores.
>
> As of a few years ago, they still *introduce* such chips (e.g. Nordic Semi's
> first integrated-radio controller was 8051 based).  I must confess I'm a bit
> puzzled as to why; with all the grad student projects that have been written
> in the last few decades, I would think that there should be some open-source
> core that would be just as functional, and to which it should be possible to
> retarget a compiler.
>

Serious SoC manufacturers would not consider an open-source core unless 
it came with massive levels of support.  It costs millions to make a 
chip - you don't just copy-and-paste a grad student project into one! 
When a company like Nordic Semi needs a cpu core, they license one from 
a solid company with a reputation for tried and tested cores, and where 
they know there are good tools already available - again, from companies 
that can provide proper support.  Other factors are licensing costs, 
core area, requirements for die setup (not all cores will fit on the die 
stackup used for radio chips), power, etc.  And of course, familiarity 
amongst the chips designers.

There are quite a number of suppliers of 8051 cores for SoCs, so it is 
not actually very surprising that they are a popular choice amongst 
manufacturers.  It may seem obvious that ARM or perhaps MIPS would be 
better choices - but often these chips don't need particularly powerful 
processors, and ARM and MIPS cores will usually impose requirements on 
the die setup and process sizes that don't suit every SoC design.  Of 
course, developers hate having to use 8051, and companies like Nordic 
Semi saw designers pick competitors' chips with ARM (or msp430) cores, 
they too moved to ARM for their cores.

> Incidentally, when I switched to Keil (rebranded as Archimedes 5) it was a
> major improvement over Archimedes 4 for that platform.
>
>> So you get this one - if you have to program for an 8051
>> microcontroller, you have to write your code in "Keil 8051 C" rather
>> than normal C.
>
> Even if one were using a different brand of compiler, I would think it would
> still be necessary to write "8051 C".  I'm not sure how any compiler vendor
> could make a language that was semantically better than Keil without
> sacrificing performance, and from what I've seen the Keil could yield
> efficient output if one write the soure code correctly.

Yes, "Keil 8051 C", "SDCC 8051 C", "IAR 8051 C", etc., are all subtly 
different almost-C languages, and for each compiler you have a different 
(but with a fair overlap) set of recommendations for how to write your C 
code in order to generate efficient object code.  It simply is not a C 
friendly core.

>
>> I just did a quick test with gcc on godbolt, with "-O2 -Wall -Wextra -x
>> c -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3".  The two loops above give identical code in
>> gcc 4.5, 4.6, and 5.4 (the versions on godbolt).  I don't know what
>> version Atmel are distributing, but it does not sound like one of the
>> modern popular ARM gcc builds.  So you don't get that one.
>
> I don't doubt that gcc made such optimizations, but in the code I tested
> any savings it achieved through such optimizations were outweighed by other
> places where it generated less efficient code than the Keil.  I understand
> that different application fields benefit from different kinds of
> optimizations; for the code I was testing, however, the savings from the
> kinds of optimizations gcc likes to perform were insufficient to make up
> for the places where Keil did a better job in straightforward code generation.
>
> BTW, I find it curious that no compilers I've seen for the ARM have a storage
> class up to 1K or 4K (depending upon the chip) of heavily-used globals which
> would be required to fit within direct displacement range of the start of the
> area containing them.  For a lot of embeddded programs, the vast majority of
> accesses are made to variables that could fit in such an area (it's not all
> that uncommon for ARM programs to have less than 1K of globals *total*), and
> using such an area would reduce the number of address-load instructions.

You are thinking of something akin to the "small data section" that is 
used by common ABIs on PowerPC (and, I think, MIPS)?   I have often 
wondered about that myself.  The PPC has 31 registers, compared to the 
ARM's 13 (excluding essentials like stack pointer, link register, and 
program counter).  The PPC can afford a small data section anchor 
(actually, it has two - one for read-write data, one for read-only data) 
without too much cost.

gcc has the "-fsection-anchors" option that can give a similar effect 
for data local to the translation unit, at least in some circumstances. 
But I too think a fair amount could be gained if the compiler took 
advantage of the limited range of ram to use anchor+offset modes more often.

>
>> -O3 optimisation is always a bit risky.  Sometimes things get slower
>> rather than faster, and sometimes code grows big enough that cache
>> sizes, bus bandwidths, etc., mean code that looks faster, actually runs
>> slower in practice.
>
> Keil is a different compiler from gcc.  Still, the same point does seem to
> apply to both.  What's bizarre is that both gcc and Keil will apply some
> "optimizations" which will always make the code worse.  GCC on x86, for
> example, will sometimes replace a "for" loop that copies exactly 7 bytes
> with a call to "memmove".  I find it hard to imagine that an implementation
> of memmove which was capable of handling arbitrary-size copies would be
> able to do a seven-byte copy faster than something like:
>
>         mov ebx,0xFFFFFFF9
>     lp:
>         movzx eax,byte [esi+ebx+8]
>         add   ebx,1
>         mov   [esi+ebx+6]
>         jnz   lp
>
> which should be a fairly easy way to transform the loop.

The gcc folks like to track that sort of thing and fix it when someone 
notices it (how often do people copy 7 bytes?  How often do those people 
examine the generated assembly code?  It's easy to miss cases like 
that).  Check if it still applies to the latest versions, and if not 
then file a "missed optimisation" bug report.

>
>> Keil's ARM compiler is used by some people, but gcc (especially from the
>> GNU ARM Embedded group) is vastly more popular.  And ARM are in the
>> process of replacing the Keil compiler with clang/llvm.
>
> I wonder if they'll add to clang an option to uphold a reasonable
> interpretation of the Standard without having to disable type-based
> aliasing altogether, since there are many situatons where it can be usefully
> applied without causing any trouble.  Perhaps it may be possible to come
> up with a strained interpretation of the Standard that stretch the Standard
> that would allow clang's behavior, but from what I can tell it can't even be
> relied upon to recognize aliasing between union members having common initial
> sequences even when all accesses to the members are done on lvalues of one
> of the following forms:
>
>    [unionLValue]
>    [unionLValue].[member]
>    [unionLValue].[lastAccessedMember].[field]
>
> and the last form is only used after a union has been written by storing a
> value of union or union-member type to the same union member employed by
> the third type.
>
> Oh well, in initial testing clang at least seems--unlike gcc--to uphold
> volatile semantics which are suitable for embedded-systems programming.
>

Where does gcc fail here?

Thread

gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 09:06 +0100
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2017-04-22 09:49 +0100
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:52 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:37 +0100
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:07 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 08:33 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 22:32 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 14:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 07:00 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:19 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 11:30 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-22 16:12 +0200
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:16 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-23 05:41 -0500
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-23 14:14 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-24 04:04 -0500
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:22 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-24 12:05 -0400
            Re: gcc rules OK (optimised/non-optimised) "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-24 17:06 -0400
              Re: gcc rules OK (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 15:06 -0700
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:31 +0000
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 09:29 +0000
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 10:47 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:36 +0100
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-22 13:50 +0000
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 15:35 +0100
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:36 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 08:37 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-25 11:07 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-25 11:57 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:34 +0100
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 11:25 +0200
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:57 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:38 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 22:38 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-22 08:35 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-22 18:55 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-22 21:04 +0200
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-22 21:51 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-22 14:56 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 16:49 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-30 16:02 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 11:51 -0500
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 21:42 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 17:35 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 11:57 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 18:44 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 11:34 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 12:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 21:18 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:33 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 16:27 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 10:16 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 11:34 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:43 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 12:54 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 17:49 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 18:05 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 20:37 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 10:22 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 11:01 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:18 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 11:55 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:14 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-04 09:34 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 10:09 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 18:25 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-04 11:28 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 11:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 13:07 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 14:19 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 16:44 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:09 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:17 +1200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 22:26 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:38 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-04 22:49 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 19:58 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:32 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:53 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 13:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:58 +1200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 14:45 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 06:41 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-05 10:40 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-06 13:21 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-06 11:26 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-06 22:52 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-07 19:01 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 11:09 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-07 19:48 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 11:17 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 06:36 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 16:21 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 09:16 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 21:20 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 13:07 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 22:46 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 14:38 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-08 21:16 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 15:09 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 15:14 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 15:43 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 16:56 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 16:57 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 17:27 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-08 17:41 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 06:16 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-09 12:11 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 09:58 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:40 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-10 12:05 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-09 13:55 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 09:26 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 13:56 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:22 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:26 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 17:36 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 01:12 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 21:15 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 10:41 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-11 15:32 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 01:54 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-12 07:45 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 23:52 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 12:57 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-10 21:56 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 10:45 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-11 14:43 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:55 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 07:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-12 09:02 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:14 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 16:04 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-10 17:33 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-09 13:51 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 09:14 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-08 21:07 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:30 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:44 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:42 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-05 14:10 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 17:12 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-04 15:08 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 12:24 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-04 18:29 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-04 18:07 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 20:15 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 15:47 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 01:22 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 18:57 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 09:30 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:25 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 10:33 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 10:10 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 12:49 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-05 18:31 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-05 22:18 -0600
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-07 23:58 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 07:33 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 13:04 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-08 07:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 19:01 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-09 06:39 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-10 06:42 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:53 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-05 00:33 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-05 10:54 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 12:27 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 02:10 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:56 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:00 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-04 15:15 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 14:06 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 00:43 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-04 13:31 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 21:52 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 23:16 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 09:19 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 17:28 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-01 13:12 +0000
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 10:08 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-30 22:32 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 13:59 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-30 17:47 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 21:49 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 11:24 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 12:45 -0700
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-23 23:11 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 10:46 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 13:23 +0200
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 15:38 +0100
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 17:31 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-24 17:15 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 10:36 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 12:06 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 14:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-25 11:09 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 10:25 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-04-27 05:51 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-01 09:08 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-01 10:48 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-01 11:39 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-05-01 13:54 +0200
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 08:55 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 12:18 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 11:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 13:13 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-01 19:47 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-05-01 18:51 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 14:06 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-01 21:05 +0100
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 16:06 -0500
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 14:19 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 08:41 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 10:07 +0000
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 08:44 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 09:03 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 09:51 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 11:30 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 11:41 -0700
                Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-01 11:51 -0700
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-24 08:51 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-24 12:13 -0700
              Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-01 09:11 +0000
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 14:04 -0700
    Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 10:57 +0100
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 11:38 +0100
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-22 13:43 +0000
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 18:22 +0100
            Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-04-22 17:48 +0000
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-22 14:24 -0700
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:03 -0700
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0400
      Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:48 +0000
        Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 10:14 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-24 10:33 +0100
          Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-24 13:32 +0200
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-24 13:47 +0000
  Re: gcc failure (optimised/non-optimised) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-26 08:53 +0200

csiph-web