--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
17:47 ---
Subject: Bug 19775
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 17:47:33
Modified files:
gcc: Change
Hi!
First, thanks to "Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for help.
Consider simple C++ program:
-
#include
template
void func_map(typename std::map<_K, _V>::iterator& root) {
}
int main() {
std::map mymap;
func_map(mymap.begin());
}
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen
dot de 2005-02-03 17:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] threefold performance
loss, not inlining as much
bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> To the reporter: in this case you probably want __attribute__ ((
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
16:49 ---
To the reporter: in this case you probably want __attribute__ ((leafify)), just
in case, though you are right in expecting the compiler to inline it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17863
testsuite/testsuite_hooks.cc is compiled as part of the libstdc++ build itself,
rather than just for testing. I have a build problem there that therefore stops
the whole gcc build
On line 233 ish there is:
int
try_mkfifo (const char* filename, mode_t mode)
{
#if defined (_NEWLIB_VERSION)
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-02-03 16:40
---
First thing to see is this:
...
mulss %xmm7, %xmm1
movss -12(%ebp), %xmm0
mulss %xmm4, %xmm0
subss %xmm0, %xmm1
movss -12(%ebp), %xmm0
mulss %xmm
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-02-03 16:29
---
Convincing evidence has been provided. I'll close the PR.
W.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-02-03 16:26
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> BTW: It looks there is a problem with -mfpmath=sse. I'll open another PR for
> this problem: "Floating point computation far slower for -mfpmath=sse" :).
PR 19780
--
http://gcc.gn
The testcase from PR 8126 runs ~20% slower when compiled with -mfpmath=sse:
--cut here--
#include
typedef float real;
int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
real v1x, v1y, v1z;
real v2x, v2y, v2z;
real v3x, v3y, v3z;
printf ("Start?\n");
v1x = 1.;
v1y = 0.;
v1z = 0.;
v
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-02-03 16:17
---
Promised timings, all on P4-3.2, 800MHz FSB:
gcc296 -O3:
real0m0.978s
user0m0.979s
sys 0m0.000s
gcc296 -O3 -march=i686:
real0m1.061s
user0m1.029s
sys 0m0.016s
gcc344-pre -03
real0m0.9
--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-02-03 16:05
---
(In reply to comment #26)
> > Are we looking to do this at -O2 as well? I guess thats a key question.
> > at just -Os, it might very well be sufficient.
>
> As stevenb noted today in IRC, the code reduction sub
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-03 15:59 ---
Each psABI defines how function address works. Not all of psABIs have
the same treatment for function address. Function address may mean different
things for different psABIs. You can't even compare function address be
--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03 15:51
---
FWIW, the reason this leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that I strongly believe
symbol visibility should be consistent between ELF platforms. There's at least
one ELF platform where resolving a function pointe
This is the new bug for PR 19405. Keeping track of that we no longer constant
fold long doubles in the
IBM 128bit long double format.
--
Summary: IBM 128bit long double format is not constant foldded.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:45 ---
Fixed, I will file a new bug for the missed optimization now.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:44 ---
Hmm, here is the story on powerpc-darwin, I can reproduce it with a full
bootstrapped compiler. And I
looked at the backtrace which looks very front-end dependent but it also was in
the gc at the time so
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-02-03 15:40
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Uros, what exactly are you trying to show with numbers with and without
> scheduling for Pentium 4? There is no scheduler description for it, so
Ooops... I have mixed-up the testcase
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:26 ---
Subject: Bug 19768
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 15:26:30
Modified files:
gcc: tree-ssa-dse.c ChangeLog
gcc
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:24 ---
Fixed. Thanks for your report.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:16 ---
Subject: Bug 19736
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 15:16:31
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Log message:
fix
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-03
15:15 ---
> Are we looking to do this at -O2 as well? I guess thats a key question.
> at just -Os, it might very well be sufficient.
As stevenb noted today in IRC, the code reduction substantially comes from less
spi
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:14 ---
Confirmed but you forgot the most important thing (even though you did say this
on the mailing lists),
the options you used to reproduce the failure.
-funsafe-math-optimizations is needed to reproduce th
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:14 ---
Subject: Bug 19736
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 15:13:45
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa.c
gcc/tes
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:14 ---
Subject: Bug 19763
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 15:13:45
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa.c
gcc/tes
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
15:12 ---
Fixed. thanks for your report.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From amacleod at redhat dot com 2005-02-03 14:37
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> We have incomming into out-of-ssa,
>
>x.1 = exp1
>x.2 = x.1 + exp2
>x.3 = x.2 + exp3
>
> We're currently allowing TER to produce
>
>x.3 = exp1 + exp2 + exp3
>
> Wh
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
13:46 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From peter at syncad dot com 2005-02-03 13:16
---
Created an attachment (id=8134)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8134&action=view)
This is the preprocessed code which leads to the crash.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
13:03 ---
Subject: Bug 19117
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 13:03:26
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog gcc.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From joel at oarcorp dot com 2005-02-03 12:24
---
Subject: Re: gnat tools not buildable cross
neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
> 00:57 ---
> Joel, I'm suspicious that the res
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-02-03 11:09
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I do not see a way to attach the preprocessed code here.
Try here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19776
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19776
unsigned long le1_bit(unsigned long x) {
return x == 0 || (x & (x - 1)) == 0;
}
yields with 4.0.0 20050201:
le1_bit: clr v0
lda t0,-1(a0)
beq a0,L1
and a0,t0,t0
bne t0,L2
L1: lda v0,1
L2: ret
that is, two unnecessary jump
--- Additional Comments From sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2005-02-03
10:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=8133)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8133&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19777
The attached sample code fails when compiledwith bounds-check, yet there's no
bounds violation. Note that it works correctly if the vector is declared with
v(n) instead of v(*).
- i686-pc-linux-gnu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMP]$ gfortran -fbounds-check -otmp2
$ uname -a
Linux localhost 2.4.7-10 #1 Thu Sep 6 16:46:36 EDT 2001 i686 unknown
$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/local/toolchain-4.0.0
--with-gcc-version-trigger=/home/syncad/gcc-4.0-20050130/gcc/version.c
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc ve
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3.3 regression]|[3.4/4.0 regression]
|sqrt(pow(x,y)) != |sqrt(pow(x,y)) !=
|pow(
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-03
10:29 ---
I have fixed the diagnostic issue as well. I don't see anything else in this PR
which is worth a regression, so I'm closing it.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03
10:26 ---
Subject: Bug 17401
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-03 10:26:23
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog parser.c decl2.c
g
--- Additional Comments From oliverst at online dot de 2005-02-03 10:19
---
strange...I just tried it again with this example:
extern void foo(int);
int main()
{
int i = i;
foo(i);
return i;
}
And I get only this (C and C++ front-end / -O1, -O2 and -O3):
$ gcc
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to fail|
This one should not abort:
#include
#include
int main()
{
double x = -1.0;
if (sqrt(pow(x,2)) != 1.0)
abort();
return 0;
}
but both, 3.4.4 and 4.0.0 do sqrt(pow(x,y)) -> pow(x,y*0.5)
which in this case means sqrt(1.0) -> -1.0.
Ouch.
--
Summ
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-03
09:27 ---
Patch posted by Roger:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00205.html
(thanks!)
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-02-03 09:03
---
Subject: Re: gnat tools not buildable cross
> Arnauds:
> checking for .preinit_array/.init_array/.fini_array support... yes
For the record, it's Laurent's, not Arno's
Arno
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
The following testcase fails when using sjlj EH unwind (mingw32
compiler) but succeeds when using Dwarf2 EH unwind (also mingw with
sources modified to enable Dwarf2).
Is this related to PR 19771?
/* sjlj_vla.cc */
extern "C" void abort(void);
void foo()
{
int size = 1;
int a[size];
a[0]
44 matches
Mail list logo
