--- Comment #20 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-06-26 06:31 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Can someone tell me if anyone is looking into this problem with the hopes of
> fixing it? I just noticed that despite the posted code demonstrating the
> problem, and verification on: Pentium
--- Comment #2 from murdo at catapult dot com 2006-06-26 02:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11754)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11754&action=view)
Minimum failing case plus gcc version, command, output and .i file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-26 02:42 ---
*** Bug 28166 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-26 02:42 ---
This was fixed in 4.0.0 and this is also a dup of bug 16780.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 16780 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
Internal compiler error when compiling an inline static function with
-finstrument-functions and -finline-functions, even if the function has the
no_instrument_function attribute.
No error occurs if inlining is turned off or an addressable version of the
function is provided with -fkeep-inline-fun
In a main translation unit, this:
#pragma GCC system_header
results in this warning:
warning: #pragma system_header ignored outside include file
However, this doesn't:
_Pragma ("GCC system_header")
In fact, this causes GCC to emit a line marker switching the main translation
unit to look like a
--- Comment #19 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2006-06-26 00:55 ---
Thanks for the info. I'm sorry to hear that no performance regression tests
are done, but I guess it kind of explains why these problems reoccur :)
As to not unrolling, the fully unrolled case is almost always comm
--- Comment #14 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-06-26 00:24 ---
The problem appears to be that DECL_COMPLEX_GIMPLE_REG_P is not getting set on
the declarations correctly. The VAR_DECLs that are operands to the additions
don't have DECL_COMPLEX_GIMPLE_REG_P set, so fail the is_gimple
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfir
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 20:05
---
Unfortunately we don't have infrastructure for performance regression tests.
Btw. did you check what happens if you do not unroll the innermost loop
manually but let -funroll-loops do it? For me the performance i
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 19:55 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|U
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:13 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:13 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:12 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:12 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:11 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:11 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:10 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:09 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.1
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25072
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 22038
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 28119
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25073
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 20867
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 27554
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 20874
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 25056
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 18:08:13 2006
New Revision: 114994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114994
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 17:19
---
Fixed everywhere.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-const.c (const_binop): Be prepared for self returning zero.
Simplify code handling complex values.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20060625-1.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fold-const.c
branches
-const.c (const_binop): Be prepared for self returning zero.
Simplify code handling complex values.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20060625-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #6 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 17:06
---
Fixed in 4.1.2 and 4.0.4.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 17:05
---
Subject: Bug 27821
Author: lmillward
Date: Sun Jun 25 17:05:22 2006
New Revision: 114989
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114989
Log:
PR c++/27821
* decl.c (grokdeclarator):
--- Comment #4 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 17:00
---
Subject: Bug 27821
Author: lmillward
Date: Sun Jun 25 17:00:43 2006
New Revision: 114988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114988
Log:
PR c++/27821
* decl.c (grokdeclarator):
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #21 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-06-25
15:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtin-bitops-1.c
execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
> I looked at the documentation for lshiftrt, but it doesn't say
> whether
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 25072
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 22038
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 28119
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 20867
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 25073
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 20874
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 25056
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug 27554
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jun 25 15:11:02 2006
New Revision: 114987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114987
Log:
2006-06-25 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #1 from tiramisu dot xc at gmail dot com 2006-06-25 13:38
---
Created an attachment (id=11747)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11747&action=view)
/tmp/cciuGwmP.out
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28164
using ACE 5.4.1
command line:g++ -I/usr/local/ACE_wrappers test.cpp
gcc version 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)
source:
#include
struct ERR
{
ACE_INET_Addr err[10][2]; /// right: int err[10][2]; or ACE_INET_Addr [10];
};
ERR temp = {0};
int main()
{
return 0;
}
--
Summary:
--- Comment #17 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2006-06-25 13:17 ---
OK, thanks for the reply. I will assume gcc 4 won't be fixed in the near
future. My guess is this will make icc an easier compiler for users, which I
kind of hate, which is why I worked as much as I did on this rep
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 12:31
---
Created an attachment (id=11746)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11746&action=view)
Patch described in the bug report
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remov
Currently, string assignments are done via calls to _gfortran_copy_string,
which is a simple wrapper around memmove/memset:
void
copy_string (GFC_INTEGER_4 destlen, char * dest,
GFC_INTEGER_4 srclen, const char * src)
{
if (srclen >= destlen)
{
/* This will truncate if too
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 12:02 ---
.003.original is already wrong:
t0 = *((float *) (i * 0fffc) + corr) * (float) *ww-- ;
we ask fold to fold (unsigned)-i * 4U
which continues to ask fold to fold i * -4U (buggy already), which is from
case
--- Comment #2 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 11:28
---
Fixed.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #1 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 11:28
---
Subject: Bug 28054
Author: lmillward
Date: Sun Jun 25 11:28:01 2006
New Revision: 114986
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114986
Log:
PR c++/28054
* decl2.c (grokbitfield): R
--- Comment #4 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 11:07
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 11:07
---
Subject: Bug 28051
Author: lmillward
Date: Sun Jun 25 11:07:05 2006
New Revision: 114985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114985
Log:
PR c++/28051
* mangle.c (mangle_conv_op_
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 10:58 ---
Is there a testcase for this bug that can be examined on more common
host/target systems?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27937
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 10:30 ---
Reduced testcase, still needs -O3 (and checking enabled):
void Lag_max_wght(float corr[], long wght_flg)
{
float t0, max;
const float *ww;
long i;
if ( wght_flg > 0 ) {
for ( i = 143; i >
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-25 10:01 ---
min is not less than max:
(gdb) call debug_tree (min)
constant
invariant 4294966724>
(gdb) call debug_tree (max)
constant
invariant 2147483647>
but worse, their types don't match. (I guess the former wants to
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-06-25 09:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=11744)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11744&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28162
I just tried to compile the attached source code with compiler flag -O3.
GNU C compiler version 4.2 snapshot 20060624 said
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gnu/42-20060617/bugs> ~/gnu/42-20060624/results/bin/gcc -O3
bug18.c
bug18.c: In function 'Speech_Encode_Frame_init':
bug18.c:24528: warning: passing argum
--- Comment #3 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-06-25 08:47 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> How did you configure GCC becase having TFmode there sounds like you
> configured
> to have 128bit long double to be default.
>
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/ppc-pld-linux/4.1.2/specs
Several g++ tests in tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1 fail with
the execution error. A reduced testcase is
extern "C" void abort (void);
struct S
{
long long d:23;
int e:32;
int f:32;
} a;
int main (void)
{
a.e = -3;
a.f = 1;
if (a.e != -3)
abort ();
return 0;
}
which shows that
Several g++ tests in tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1 fail during
the compilation with the error message like
error: size of array 'foo' is too large
with -mms-bitfields. A reduced testcase is
typedef long int along __attribute__((aligned (32)));
struct S
{
unsigned char a;
along d:130;
in
61 matches
Mail list logo
