[Bug tree-optimization/17616] Micro-optimize tree_code_class

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 07:59 --- How about making the classes bitmasks? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17616

[Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 07:53 --- Not a hog, just a missed optimization. Let's reserve the *hog keywords for *real* hogs... -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/18442] [4.0 Regression] Rejects attribute((mode(SI))) when using -mint64

-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |200

[Bug c++/18497] New: error in parsing function template

The code in question: begin struct C { template void f() {} }; template void ff() { C c; c.f(); } end g++ 3.3 (version 3.3.5, Debian 1:3.3.5-2) cannot compile the above code. With command line "g++-3.3 -c -o a.o a.cc", it displays the following error messages: a.cc: In

[Bug middle-end/18494] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 07:14 --- When passed mode == BLKmode, mmix_function_arg generates a BLKmode reg, which GCC chokes on later. (I see mode == BLKmode on 3.4 too.) That seems invalid and rtl.texi, "node Machine Modes" says about BLKmode: "I

[Bug libfortran/18496] New: Build fails with "libgmp.so.6 not found" error

I have libgmp and libmpfr installed with an atypical prefix (not /usr/local or /usr) on the build machine because I do not have adminstrative rights. I invoked configure as ../gcc/configure --with-mpfr=/sys/sdf/sci --with-gmp=/sys/sdf/sci --prefix=/sys/sdf/sci The build progresses normally for a

[Bug middle-end/18494] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 05:46 --- pinskia says the fault is with mmix_function_arg -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug libfortran/18495] Intrinisc function SPREAD is broken

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 05:43 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug target/18442] [4.0 Regression] Rejects attribute((mode(SI))) when using -mint64

-- What|Removed |Added Known to fail|3.4.3 4.0.0 |4.0.0 Known to work|3.4.2 |3.4.2 3.4.3 Summary|[3.4/4.0 Regression] Reje

[Bug fortran/18495] New: Intrinisc function SPREAD is broken

Detected a fault in the fortran 90 version of the LLNL "mflops" test. SPREAD is causing a segmentation fault in "KERNEL 21". Replacing this section with the fortran77 kernel corrects the fault (BTW will report the benchmarks on the gfortran wiki - they do not look too bad at all!). The fault i

[Bug middle-end/18494] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 05:17 --- Oh, here is the reduced testcase (from structs.c): struct struct3 { char a, b, c; }; struct struct3 foo3 = { 'A', 'B', 'C'}, L3; void Fun3(struct struct3 foo3) { L3 = foo3; } -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bug

[Bug middle-end/18494] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 05:14 --- (gdb) p debug_rtx(entry_parm) (reg:BLK 0 $0 [ foo3 ]) Explicantly this part which caused it: - rtx reg = gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, REGNO (data->entry_parm)); + rtx reg = gen_lowpart (w

[Bug middle-end/18494] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 05:00 --- Confirmed, Almost certain it was caused by: +2004-11-13 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + + * calls.c (precompute_register_parameters): Force all PARALLELs + into pseudo registers. +

[Bug middle-end/18494] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

-- What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/18494] New: [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c (et al)

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 23:16:57 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb5.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c -O1 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/structs.c -O2

[Bug other/8888] Linking shared libraries with -pthread fails to link to libpthread

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=

[Bug tree-optimization/18400] wrong unrolling after vectorization due to invalid loop->nb_iterations

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18400

[Bug fortran/18218] Miscompare in sixtrack benchmark caused by loss of precision

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18218

[Bug java/17747] bogus duplicate class errors

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.4.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17747

[Bug tree-optimization/18431] Code for arrays and pointers are not the same

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18431

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 04:05 --- f1x0red. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 04:04 --- Subject: Bug 18480 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-15 04:04:03 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog calls.c Log message:

[Bug c++/16321] 64 bit structure passing problem (g++, not gcc)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 03:39 --- Any news? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16321

[Bug middle-end/18493] [3.4 Regression] gcc doesn't like switch blocks without case/default labels

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 03:29 --- Confirmed only effects the 3.4 branch. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/15231] [3.4 only] constant pool entries referring to nonexistent labels

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 03:24 --- It works on the mainline if we remove the use of the extension: ((void)((0)), irq_stat[0].__local_bh_count)++ gets replaced with ((void)((0)), irq_stat[0].__local_bh_count++) -- What|Remov

[Bug c/18493] New: gcc doesn't like switch blocks without case/default labels

Hi, int main() { goto bug; switch(0) { bug: return 0; } } This program doesn't compile with gcc 3.4.3. It gives this error message: /tmp/ccetXBGt.o(.text+0x1d): In function `main': : undefined reference to `.L2' However, this: int main() { goto bug; switch(0) { bug: return 0; default: ; } } do

[Bug rtl-optimization/17107] Opportunity to improve code generated for complex logical expression

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 02:39 --- The reason why we convert TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR to be TRUTH_AND_EXPR is because the BRANCH_COST is 2 on PPC. (this is done in fold-const.c). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17107

[Bug tree-optimization/18403] FAILs to vectorize testcases on ppc64-linux

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 02:34 --- At least on powerpc-darwin (with -m64) we now vectorize these loops but we ICE because we have: pointer_type + int_type which is not valid and is even worse on 64bit targets as int is 32 bit so we try to

[Bug tree-optimization/15559] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] misses opportunity for hoisting an expression that would simplify control flow

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 02:17 --- An example of where not doing hurts: int ii; int f(int i, int b, int *c) { if (b) ii = i +1; else { *c = ii = i+1; } return ii; } As there is a store to ii and then a load from it. --

[Bug c++/18354] [4.0 Regression] expression "+1" not considered constant (as template parameter).

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-15 02:01 --- Updated patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01191.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18354

[Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 01:58 --- Now I see what is the difference between this and PR 18431, <= vs <. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803

[Bug tree-optimization/18431] Code for arrays and pointers are not the same

--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 00:20 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/18431] Code for arrays and pointers are not the same

-niter.c tree.c tree.h gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog Added files: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute: 20041114-1.c Log message: PR tree-optimization/18431 * fold-const.c (associate_trees): Do not produce x + 0

[Bug other/7257] [3.4/4.0 regression] -O3 -fverbose-asm does not display -flag-inline-functions

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 00:14 --- Posted a first patch that fixes the symptom: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01188.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7257

[Bug c++/18492] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 23:14 --- Confirmed. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18492

[Bug c++/18492] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 23:12 --- Woops that comment was for PR 18485. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords|EH

[Bug rtl-optimization/18485] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C g++.old-deja/g++.niklas/t132.C g++.old-deja/g++.other/singleton.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 23:12 --- Confirmed. This is exception handling related. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNC

[Bug c++/18492] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 23:12 --- Confirmed. This is exception handling related. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNC

[Bug target/18492] New: [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C (test for excess errors) WARNING: g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C compilation failed to produce executable With the message in the .log being: /gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/thunk1.C: In member fu

[Bug rtl-optimization/18485] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C g++.old-deja/g++.niklas/t132.C g++.old-deja/g++.other/singleton.C

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:58 --- g++.old-deja/g++.niklas/t132.C and g++.old-deja/g++.other/singleton.C of the same test-run seem to be the same bug judging by the g++.log contents. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/18491] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: WARNING: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p10769a.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:56 --- It also fails on ppc-darwin: : WARNING: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p10769a.C compilation failed to produce executable And x86_64-linux-gnu:

[Bug target/18491] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: WARNING: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p10769a.C

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:53 --- By "failing" I mean "has the warning". Apparently it's not logged as a failure. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18491

[Bug target/18491] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: WARNING: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p10769a.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: WARNING: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p10769a.C compilation failed to produce executable (no FAIL/PASS/XFAIL/XPASS though) With the message in the .log being: /gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p10769a.C: In member function 'void A::main()': /gcc

[Bug target/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions

--- Additional Comments From ken dot duda at gmail dot com 2004-11-14 22:40 --- Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions > Did you miss the question? Umm, apparently I did.. the only thing I see in the bug log that looks like a question is this:

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:35 --- Yes that fixes all the problems. Thanks. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING

[Bug target/18490] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.old-deja/g++.law/bit-fields2.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:33 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug target/18490] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.old-deja/g++.law/bit-fields2.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/bit-fields2.C With the message in the .log being: FAIL As is evident in the test file, this test was skipped for mmix-knuth-mmixware in the old testsuite framework, but "skip-if" in this test (and all tests?) wasn

[Bug fortran/18481] ICE with integer variable "format"

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:25 --- Confirmed. Looks like NIST f77 has the same ICE (from PR 17423): FM020.f:177: internal compiler error: in gfc_add_modify_expr, at fortran/trans.c:154 FM311.f:401: internal compiler error: in gfc_add_modify_

[Bug target/18489] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/rtti/tinfo1.C

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:22 --- s/""/"Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004"/ in original entry. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18489

[Bug target/18489] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/rtti/tinfo1.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:18 --- The reason why this is xfailed on the 3.4 branch is because it was broken there when it was added on almost all targets. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/18489] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/rtti/tinfo1.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "" I get: FAIL: g++.dg/rtti/tinfo1.C scan-assembler _ZTIP9CTemplateIhE: No particular info in the g++.log. The test is absent on an unspecified 3.3 checkout and is xfailing on an unspecified 3.4 checkout. It's unknown to, and unlikely to ever have succeeded. The test assumes

[Bug target/18338] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/bitfld-4.c and g++.dg/abi/bitfield4.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:15 --- g++.dg/abi/bitfield4.C is the same test except with the C++ front-end compiling it. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:14 --- Try again. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http

[Bug target/18338] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/bitfld-4.c

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:14 --- *** Bug 18483 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18338

[Bug target/18483] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/abi/bitfield4.C execution test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:14 --- This and PR 18338 are one in the same in that they are the same tests run over the C and C++ front- ends. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18338 *** -- What|Removed

[Bug bootstrap/18486] [4.0 Regression] fixincl fails with make -jN profilebootstrap

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:09 --- Hmm, I do a normal bootstrap all the time, so this must be a profiledbootstrap problem. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/18488] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/opt/vt1.C

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:07 --- Confirmed, your assumention about not running this test is correct. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/18485] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Component|target

[Bug target/18488] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/opt/vt1.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.dg/opt/vt1.C scan-assembler-not section[^\n\r]*_ZTV1S[^\n\r]*"[^w"\n\r]*" With the message in the .log being: /gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/vt1.C:1: warning: -fpic not supported: ignored The test is not known to ever having succeeded.

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 22:02 --- That fixes those regressions but there was another one (before) which I did not report in this one: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/960829-1.c -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /Users/pinskia/src/l

[Bug tree-optimization/18487] Warnings for pure and const functions that are not actually pure or const

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 21:57 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug tree-optimization/18487] New: Warnings for pure and const functions that are not actually pure or const

It would be nice if GCC can issue warnings for pure or const functions that are not actually pure or const. int foo (int) __attribute__ ((pure)); int bar (int) __attribute__ ((const)); int g; int foo (int a) { g = a; /* A pure function is not supposed to write to memory. */ return 0; } int

[Bug bootstrap/18486] New: fixincl fails with make -j

make profiledbootstrap -jN with high N breaks while fixincl. The compilation works ok without -j One error is always: mv: cannot stat `tmp-macro_list': No such file or directory with a bunch of follow-ons. -- Summary: fixincl fails with make -j Product: gcc Ve

[Bug target/18485] New: [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C (test for excess errors) With the message in g++.log being: /gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C: In function 'void Go()': /gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/forscope1.C:25: error: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK is missi

[Bug target/18349] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/visibility-1.c (actually all) g++.dg/ext/visibility/*

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 21:20 --- I'm logging these failures here as well; apparently the same bug, seen with "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004": FAIL: g++.dg/ext/visibility/assign1.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/ext/visibility/assign1.C sca

[Bug target/18484] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/abi/empty6.C

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.dg/abi/empty6.C (test for warnings, line 6) With the message in g++.log being: (none, as there are no warnings or errors) Not known to ever having worked for this target and fails with unspecified checkouts of 3.3 and 3.4. At a

[Bug target/18483] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: g++.dg/abi/bitfield4.C execution test

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: g++.dg/abi/bitfield4.C execution test With the message in gcc.log being: sizeof short failed __alignof__ short failed sizeof signed short failed __alignof__ signed short failed sizeof unsigned short failed __alignof__ unsigned short fa

[Bug target/18350] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-convert-1.c (1-3 actually) gcc.dg/torture/builtin-power-1.c

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 20:57 --- I'm logging these failures here too, seemingly never having succeeded and failing (as do the builtin-convert tests) with "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004". FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-power-1.c -O0 (test for exc

[Bug tree-optimization/18425] ICE in vector.tcc when -ftree-vectorize enabled

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 20:45 --- Subject: Bug 18425 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 20:44:52 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog Added files: gcc/t

[Bug tree-optimization/18400] wrong unrolling after vectorization due to invalid loop->nb_iterations

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 20:45 --- Subject: Bug 18400 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 20:44:52 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog Added files: gcc/t

[Bug target/18482] New: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1

With LAST_UPDATED: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" I get: FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o link FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o link FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t020 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o link FA

[Bug fortran/18481] New: ICE with integer variable "format"

/configure --prefix=/home/ig25 --with-gcc-version-trigger=/home/ig25/gcc/gcc/version.c --enable-languages=c,c++,f95 --no-create --no-recursion Thread model: posix gcc version 4.0.0 20041114 (experimental) $ cat format-int.f90 program internal integer k character(len=80) chr read(chr,k) end program

[Bug target/18459] [4.0 Regression] gcj no longer works on win32

--- Additional Comments From ovidr at users dot sourceforge dot net 2004-11-14 20:25 --- I use binutils-2.15.91-20040904-1 from mingw.org (latest I think). I thought by removing the change to cygming.h this weak sym problem would be gone, but I guess there are other changes somewhere th

[Bug target/18473] unrecognizable insn compiling various sources

--- Additional Comments From martin at netbsd dot org 2004-11-14 19:56 --- Forgot to mention (and did not try myself): I've been told this same stuff compiles just fine for NetBSD/hppa on a i386 host. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18473

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 19:49 --- Try that. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING http:

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

-- What|Removed |Added CC|rth at redhat dot com | AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug target/18459] [4.0 Regression] gcj no longer works on win32

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 19:38 --- "error: app.exe is not a valid Win32 application" sounds like a binutils problem, I would report it to them. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18459

[Bug target/18459] [4.0 Regression] gcj no longer works on win32

--- Additional Comments From ovidr at users dot sourceforge dot net 2004-11-14 19:34 --- Small followup: Even though the hello world app works, a much larger app does not work (error: app.exe is not a valid Win32 application.) unless I 'strip' it. I'm not sure why that would be... (If

[Bug target/17279] [3.4 Regression] internal compiler error with 128 bit integers

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 19:03 --- Fixed on the mainline but a number of things have to be backported to the 3.4 branch to get this fixed. -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug objc/18406] [3.4 Regression] ICE compiling Objective C code with long double arguments

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 19:02 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug objc/18406] [3.4 Regression] ICE compiling Objective C code with long double arguments

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 19:01 --- Subject: Bug 18406 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_4-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 19:01:03 Modified files: gcc: Change

[Bug target/17279] [3.4/4.0 Regression] internal compiler error with 128 bit integers

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:54 --- Subject: Bug 17279 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 18:54:19 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog c-common.c Log message:

[Bug target/18328] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: execute/20040629-1.c

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:43 --- Known to work with: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" (Known to fail with: "Sat Nov 13 21:48:30 UTC 2004") -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/18324] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c execution, -O0

--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:43 --- Known to work with: "Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004" (Known to fail with: "Sat Nov 13 21:48:30 UTC 2004") -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/18400] wrong unrolling after vectorization due to invalid loop->nb_iterations

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:33 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/18425] ICE in vector.tcc when -ftree-vectorize enabled

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:31 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/18400] wrong unrolling after vectorization due to invalid loop->nb_iterations

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:30 --- Subject: Bug 18400 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 18:30:36 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-vectorizer.c Log mes

[Bug tree-optimization/18425] ICE in vector.tcc when -ftree-vectorize enabled

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:25 --- Subject: Bug 18425 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 18:25:35 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-vectorizer.c Log mes

[Bug middle-end/18480] [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18480

[Bug middle-end/18480] New: [4.0 Regression] ICE in emit_group_move with recent change

foo (a, b, c, d, e, i0, f, i1) double a, b, c, d, e, f; int i0, i1; {} main () { foo (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 1, 6.0, 2); } Caused by: 2004-11-13 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * calls.c (precompute_register_parameters): Force all PARALLELs into pseudo regis

[Bug tree-optimization/18431] Code for arrays and pointers are not the same

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:04 --- Subject: Bug 18431 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-14 18:04:26 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-flow.h tree-ssa-loop-i

[Bug target/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions

--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-14 18:04 --- Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions Ken, Did you miss the question? Paul >>(iii) gcc 4.0.0 20041010 (experimental) I get 0.62 and 0.59micro-sec/new >> >>This

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-14 17:49 --- Well, if unshare_expr is invalid for SWITCH_EXPRs, I guess you should either do your check within unshare_expr itself, or at least add a gcc_assert() to unshare_expr so that we check that it is never called

[Bug c/18479] [4.0 Regression] __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) in C causes internal compiler error

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 17:40 --- : Search converges between 2004-07-21-trunk (#492) and 2004-07-23-trunk (#493). Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c/18479] __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) in C causes internal compiler error

-- What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |c http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18479

[Bug c++/18479] New: __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) in C causes internal compiler error

Using GCC v4.0_20041107 on FreeBSD v5.3: struct __attribute__ ((visibility("default"))) Foo { int foo; }; int main(void) { Foo foo; return 0; } If compiled as a C++ file, all is fine. If compiled as C you get: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'declaration', have 'exceptional'

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 17:30 --- *** Bug 18475 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added Bug 18478

[Bug tree-optimization/18475] [4.0 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault in tree_verify_flow_info with -funswitch-loops

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 17:30 --- The underlying problem is the same as that of PR 18478. Basically, SWITCH_EXPR is incorrectly duplicated when a basic block is duplicated. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18478 *** --

[Bug tree-optimization/18475] [4.0 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault in tree_verify_flow_info with -funswitch-loops

--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 17:26 --- See PR 18478 for patch. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug fortran/18476] internal compiler error on strange read

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 17:21 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

  1   2   >