--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:41 ---
*** Bug 28348 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 2006-09-03 06:41 ---
Fixed on the mainline:
t.cc: In function void bar() [with T = N::A]:
t.cc:9: instantiated from here
t.cc:4: error: argument dependent lookup finds N::foo
t.cc:7: error: in call to foo
Which means this is a
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:37
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I just now tried that. Now I'm getting this error:
> make: *** No rule to make target `bootstrap'. Stop.
That does not make sense.
Anyways try these instructions:
cd gcc-src # the top
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:33 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:30 ---
Confiremed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCO
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:30 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:28 ---
Reload 1: reload_in (V2SI) = (const_vector:V2SI [
(const_int -1
[0x])
(const_int -1
[0xf
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:10 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:08 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 06:03 ---
Confirmed, this works just fine with typedefs:
typedef void (*type1)(int n, int x[n]);
void foo(type1 p){}
So we have a problem by looking at some parts of the function declation:
SAVE_EXPR ;
--
pinskia at gcc d
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:58 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:50 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:44 ---
Confirmed, we don't add to the calls the chain decl.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:39 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:36 ---
Confirmed, patches should be sent to gcc-patches@
after reading: http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:33
---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE during bootstrap for vax|[4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE
|architecture
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:30 ---
Confirmed, can you send your patch to gcc-patches@ as mentioned on
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
With all the requested information with the email as requested by that page.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 05:28 ---
cvs -qz9 -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/sources/gcc up -Pd
The sources on gnu.org are so out of date, it is not funny.
We use svn now, there is a NOTE file about this in the cvs server.
Read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 03:44
---
Just an added note. Compile time for large values of n is very long. Many
seconds. For n - 2000
$ time gfc pr28914.f90
real1m5.009s
user1m3.896s
sys 0m0.048s
This is on 3.2 gigahertz machine.
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 21:29 ---
Well actually this is just address section which goes funny. We use CSE at the
rtl level do to some address mode selection (which I feel is wrong). Part of
the reasons why we go funny is that we do the add in 32bit
char a[10], b[10];
int f1(int i)
{
return a[i+1] + b[i+1];
}
With -O1 and higher, gcc performs CSE on i+1:
addl$1, %edi
movslq %edi,%rdi
movsbl a(%rdi),%eax
movsbl b(%rdi),%edx
addl%edx, %eax
ret
This doesn't happen with the equ
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-02 21:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28935
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00061.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 19:24
---
I tested the provisional patch on i686-linux-pc-gnu.
Had to set tmp_loopvar = NULL when declared to avoid warning message on
possibly uninitialized variable.
Fixes the test case in this PR. Regression testsd
The gcc build instructions must be updated for gcj-eclipse changes
before we can merge the branch.
--
Summary: [ecj] update build instructions to account for changes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 17:11 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 17:03
---
*** Bug 28934 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 17:03 ---
This is a dup of bug 27735.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27735 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:52 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> We're folding:
This is related to PR 23049 which was the same problem but in DOM instead of
CCP.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:49 ---
Reduced testcase (this one fails at -O2 also):
class SHA256
{
unsigned m_digest;
unsigned long long m_count;
unsigned char _buffer[64];
static void Transform (unsigned * data);
void WriteByteBlock (unsigned
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:44 ---
We're folding:
#55 0x08184f06 in fold_stmt (stmt_p=0xa7cacbfc) at
/home/richard/src/trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c:2408
2408result = fold (rhs);
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (*stmt_p)
indexD.1531_315 = 0 != 0 ? 1
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:35 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase:
int col[8];
int extend_options(int w, int h, int *map, int x, int y, int index)
{
int dx, dy;
for (dx = -1; dx <= +1; dx++)
{
int index = (dy < 0 ? 6-dx : dy > 0 ? 2+dx :
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 16:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=12179)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12179&action=view)
test case
Testcase from application "p7zip".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28937
--- Comment #12 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 16:34 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Here's another testcase. It fails at -O3. Is this code problematic too?
> No it is not problematic but it is a different bug. Can you file it
> seperately?
Sure, P
ICE at -O3:
502:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c -O3 p7zip-SHA256.cc
p7zip-SHA256.cc: In member function 'void
NCrypto::NSHA256::SHA256::WriteByteBlock()':
p7zip-SHA256.cc:16: internal compiler error: in add_virtual_operand, at
tree-ssa-operands.c:1309
Please submit a full bu
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:29
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Here's another testcase. It fails at -O3. Is this code problematic too?
No it is not problematic but it is a different bug. Can you file it
seperately?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 16:25 ---
Also fails with x86 with -O3 -msse
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28934
--- Comment #4 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 16:23 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hmm, which target, exact flags? It works for me (i686).
-O3, x86_64
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28934
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:17 ---
*** Bug 28936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:17 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28934 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:15 ---
Hmm, which target, exact flags? It works for me (i686).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 16:15 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28935
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-09-02 14:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=12178)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12178&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28936
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package ctags-2006.5.31-3
with GNU C++ version 4.2 snapshot 20060826.
The compiler said
ruby.c: In function 'parseIdentifier':
ruby.c:227: error: edge from 49 to 51 should not be marked irreducible
ruby.c:227: error: basic block 51 should not be marked irreducib
--- Comment #7 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:17
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #4 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:17
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summa
--- Comment #4 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:16
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #3 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:16
---
Fixed in 4.2.
--
lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #3 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:15
---
Subject: Bug 27494
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Sep 2 14:15:37 2006
New Revision: 116661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116661
Log:
2006-09-02 Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P
--- Comment #6 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:15
---
Subject: Bug 27397
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Sep 2 14:15:37 2006
New Revision: 116661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116661
Log:
2006-09-02 Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P
--- Comment #2 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:15
---
Subject: Bug 27670
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Sep 2 14:15:37 2006
New Revision: 116661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116661
Log:
2006-09-02 Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P
--- Comment #3 from lmillward at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 14:15
---
Subject: Bug 27493
Author: lmillward
Date: Sat Sep 2 14:15:37 2006
New Revision: 116661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116661
Log:
2006-09-02 Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-09-02 13:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR28905
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00060.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 13:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=12176)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12176&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28935
(gdb) run -ftree-vectorize -O3 orig.c
Starting program: /usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.2.0/cc1
-ftree-vectorize -O3 orig.c
vprintf getchar getc_unlocked getchar_unlocked putchar fputc_unlocked
putc_unlocked putchar_unlocked feof_unlocked ferror_unlocked strtod strtol
strtoul str
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 13:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=12175)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12175&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28934
ICE at -O3:
(sid)32:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c -O3
exuberant-ctags-ruby.c
exuberant-ctags-ruby.c: In function 'parseIdentifier':
exuberant-ctags-ruby.c:50: error: edge from 32 to 34 should not be marked
irreducible
exuberant-ctags-ruby.c:50: error: basic block 34 should
--- Comment #10 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 13:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=12174)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12174&action=view)
test case
Testcase from application "p7zip".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28544
--- Comment #9 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-02 13:27 ---
Here's another testcase. It fails at -O3. Is this code problematic too?
(sid)45:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~] /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -c -O3
p7zip-SHA256.cc
p7zip-SHA256.cc: In member function 'void
NCrypto::NSHA256::SHA25
--- Comment #38 from guenter at roeck-us dot net 2006-09-02 13:23 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] returning constant double
>
> What is confusing to me is that the r->r case is using evmergehi
> and evmergelo. This is placing the value in bot
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 10:15 ---
The problem is, that for
i_1: VARYING
size_3: VARYING
i_4: ~[0, 0] EQUIVALENCES: { } (0 elements)
i_5: [-INF, -1] EQUIVALENCES: { i_6 i_7 } (2 elements)
i_6: ~[0, 0] EQUIVALENCES: { i_7 } (1 elements)
i_7: [0, si
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-02 08:34 ---
Fixed for 4.2.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 08:31 ---
Subject: Bug 24469
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Sep 2 08:31:45 2006
New Revision: 116660
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116660
Log:
2006-09-02 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richar
69 matches
Mail list logo
