--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 05:00 ---
> # of expected passes9946
Something is messed up with your dejagnu because there should be many more
tests.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
f expected passes9946
# of unexpected failures1
# of expected failures 54
# of unsupported tests 170
/opt/gcc-4_3-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0 20070611 (experimental)
A HUGE difference. The GNU/Linux apt-get or aptitude in combination with
installing mpf
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 04:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well here's one example:
>
> http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/lunar-dev/2006-July/005821.html is the error
Actually that is a build failure with glibc. The real question is, does glibc
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-12 03:03 ---
Here is the reduced testcase:
---
unsigned int _IDEC_glbround;
unsigned int _IDEC_glbflags;
typedef unsigned UINT32;
typedef signed SINT32;
typedef unsigned long long UINT64;
typedef signed long long SINT64;
typedef
__attribu
--- Comment #35 from kazssym at nifty dot com 2007-06-12 02:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=13684)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13684&action=view)
Refreshed configuration that worked for me
I made a new Interix 3 configuration that bootstrapped C and C++ compiler
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-06-12
01:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Bootstrap failure in stage1 on hppa*-*-*
> --- Comment #2 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 01:14 ---
> This is a one-liner but I can't access the machine
--- Comment #3 from jlawson-gcc at bovine dot net 2007-06-12 01:36 ---
This seems like a rather unexpected crash given the seemingly valid example
code. Can anyone from the GCC team indicate the actual compiler issue that
might cause this example to fail, and specifically indicate an ex
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 01:31 ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg00745.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 01:20 ---
Actually I take that back, this is even invalid GNU C.
3.3 gave:
t.c:1: error: storage size of `overflow' isn't known
While 4.0.4 gave an ICE. We should have gave an error here.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 01:18 ---
Reduced testcase:
static enum warn overflow;
int foo (void)
{
return overflow;
}
I think this is valid GNU C, though invalid standard C.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 01:14 ---
This is a one-liner but I can't access the machine holding the patch now
(gsyprf11 on HP's test cluster) and I can't remember the line :(
--
spark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
spark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirm
__builtin_isinfd32/__builtin_isinfd64/__builtin_isinfd64 call
isinfd32/isinfd64/isinfd128, which aren't documented. They
also don't have __dpd_/__bid_ prefix.
--
Summary: DFP calls undocumented libdecnumber functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 00:44 ---
This was caused by the Dataflow merge, S. Park is on the trail of fixing this.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
In stage1,
/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.3/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dave/gnu/gcc-4.3/objdir/./gcc/
-B/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.3.0/hppa-linux/bin/
-B/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-
4.3.0/hppa-linux/lib/ -isystem
/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.3.0/hppa-linux/inclu
de -isystem /home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.3.0/
The following invalid code snippet fails with
foo.c:4: internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:489
static enum warn overflow;
int foo (int code, tree stmt)
{
if (code == 0 || code > (int) overflow)
code = overflow;
return code;
}
--
Summary: An invalid c
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-12 00:22
---
There are two different code paths in the compiler for implicit and implicit
none. I will see if I can find the spot for this check to be added. I came
across it once before.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:50 ---
There were a couple of things wrong with the way this was reported, first it
was reported against 4.1 which actually still has a java source compiler but
then it was mentioned it was really for ecj connection.
Can
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:44 ---
I'm reopening this. Andrew P., please leave it open if you would.
We chose what goes into -Wall, and this is a bug in the
implementation of that choice.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:13 ---
Maybe the assert should be changed to check error count.
/* When guessing was done, the hints should be already stripped away. */
gcc_assert (!flag_guess_branch_prob);
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org chang
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:11 ---
Part of the problem is PR 29478 which causes this warning/error to show up.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 23:01 ---
Yes this is fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:56 ---
I have verified that this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01634.html
causes this regression.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:51 ---
I am thinking it was Steven's patch, though most likely just exposed a latent
bug somewhere else.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:49 ---
Revision 123214 is good and revision 123223 is bad.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:42 ---
Fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #14 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:41 ---
fixed on trunk
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:39 ---
Subject: Bug 29786
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 11 22:39:21 2007
New Revision: 125628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125628
Log:
2007-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:39 ---
Subject: Bug 30875
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jun 11 22:39:21 2007
New Revision: 125628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125628
Log:
2007-06-12 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:38 ---
Revision 123178 is good and revision 123254 is bad.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
T
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32110
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:25 ---
binutils's version style changed.
I don't remember if they changed it back or not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--- Comment #8 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2007-06-11 22:05 ---
Bug bootstrap/12019 looks similiar to this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32154
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 22:05 ---
Revision 123081 is good and revision 123304 is bad.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
T
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 22:00
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:59 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:57 ---
Yes this is fixed now, thanks.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:53 ---
Not really because this is a standard GCC option and having it different
between java and other languages is wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html
Please read the documentation bef
--- Comment #6 from cagney at redhat dot com 2007-06-11 21:48 ---
That is something for _java_ developers to decide.
--
cagney at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is a bug in the GCJ command line parser option parser, not in ECJ.
Well I say it is not a bug according to the documentation :).
Really you should use -Wno-unused-paramter if you don
--- Comment #4 from cagney at redhat dot com 2007-06-11 21:44 ---
This is a bug in the GCJ command line parser option parser, not in ECJ.
--
cagney at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:43 ---
This works for powerpc64-linux-gnu.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32293
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.3
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:40 ---
ecj1 is not part of GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-11 21:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=13683)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13683&action=view)
A testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 4.3.0 20070611 (experimental) [trunk revision
When I was building libbid on Linux/Intel64, I got ICE. Gcc 4.2 is OK.
--
Summary: [4.3 Regression] internal compiler error: in do_SUBST,
at combine.c:502
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Comment #2 from cagney at redhat dot com 2007-06-11 21:38 ---
This bug is refering to the command line options parser and how it maps GCC
style options onto ECJ options.
--
cagney at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:28 ---
This testcase is still slow:
WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-fnargs.c -O1
(test for excess errors)
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-fnargs.c -O2 (test
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 21:19 ---
Confirmed, I have not looked into this close enough but this is a front-end bug
as the type (and aliasing set) of the typeid variable is different from
std::type_info's.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from mfouts at danger dot com 2007-06-11 20:59 ---
Subject: RE: xgcc invokes as with invalid -m option while assembling
crtbegin.o
#!/bin/sh
exec "$@"
-Original Message-
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 20:57 ---
pthread.h comes from your libc and not GCC. GCC does have any builtins for
pthread* so closing as invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-06-11 20:50 ---
It is not portable to pass a long when an int is expected. But exchanging
unsigned and signed variants of the same type is always possible.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32291
The following generates a spurious warning about control reaching the end of a
non-void function:
#include
void* foo(void*) {
pthread_exit(1);
}
--
Summary: pthread_exit should have attribute __noreturn__
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONF
--- Comment #4 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 20:40 ---
Reported to crash as well on gcc 3.4 and 4.2, with a message like this:
gcc 4.2: cc1plus: out of memory allocating 385029117 bytes after a total of
155668480 bytes
Reported to compile fine on Microsoft Visual C++ 8.0
--
Compiling the following snippet with -Wformat (or -Wall) causes the compiler to
complain: "wformat-bug.C:8: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int',
but argument 2 has type 'uint32_t'"
The problem seems to be that stdint.h defines uint32_t as "long" in cygwin. I
realize that int != long o
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2007-06-11 20:17 ---
gcc -c -g -gnat05 e.adb works on 4.1.2, but it ICEs on 4.2 and 4.3.
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) in gen_type_die, at dwarf2out.c:12720
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I run Debian Linux 4.0 on my SGI box. When I type "apt-get source gcc-4.1", it
> downloads a version of gcc 4.1.2 that appears to be extensively hacked up.
> This
> version produced the refe
--- Comment #4 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-11 18:59 ---
Sorry, yes, reading back I wasn't being very clear. I meant to say that the
impression I was left with was that it wasn't a result of my change, but of the
test environment, an idea which was supported by my own benchmark
--- Comment #5 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 18:46 ---
I just built gcc version 4.3.0 20070611 and noticed this:
# grep -B4 -A2 undefined\ reference\ to
/opt/gcc-4_3-build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log | head -n 6
Executing on host: /opt/gcc-4_3-build/gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc-4_3
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:45 ---
Note this is most likely a dup of another bug which is talking about PPC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2007-06-11
18:39 ---
I run Debian Linux 4.0 on my SGI box. When I type "apt-get source gcc-4.1", it
downloads a version of gcc 4.1.2 that appears to be extensively hacked up. This
version produced the referenced error. Could
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:36 ---
Actually IIRC the machine's glibc was upgaded at the same time.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 18:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=13682)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13682&action=view)
The same as #13681 but without those tons of empty lines
$ perl -ne 's/#.*$//; print if /\S/' reduced-problem.ii >
red
--- Comment #2 from richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co dot uk
2007-06-11 18:11 ---
Dup of 7046.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21560
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 18:16 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> When I compile the following function using the mips version of gfortran I get
> the message:
>
> q.f90: In function 'set_numeric_values':
> q.f90:3: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_var
--- Comment #2 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 18:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=13681)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13681&action=view)
Preprocessed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32290
--- Comment #1 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-06-11 18:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=13680)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13680&action=view)
Unpreprocessed source file (informational)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32290
This is the output of a valid 60 line source file compile. The preprocessed
source is 30 KB in size and I know that there are no cycles in the code.
$ gcc -v -save-temps reduced-problem.cpp
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c+
--- Comment #1 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 18:01 ---
There is a "`" missing from the end of that line, we need:
+as_ver=`echo $as_ver | grep -o [0-9.+] | tr -d [:cntrl:]`
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32287
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 17:51
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 17:18 ---
>> "has to be the build compiler".
>OK.
A new error has popped up in this same section of the log between the compiling
and execution of gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 .
Running
/root/downloads/gcc-4_3-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
--- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-11 17:00 ---
Pardon me. I was not trying to be unobservant.
I'll have a look at gcc and see if _I_ can build a patch to test the version of
mpfr and alter operation / configuration / etc. as needed to allow older
versions of mpfr and t
When I compile the following function using the mips version of gfortran I get
the message:
q.f90: In function 'set_numeric_values':
q.f90:3: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_variable, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:381
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See htt
--- Comment #3 from appfault at hotmail dot com 2007-06-11 16:35 ---
Well here's one example:
http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/lunar-dev/2006-July/005821.html is the error
you get when bootstrapping using binutils 2.17 with gcc 3.4.6 and glibc 2.3.6.
Reverting to binutils 2.15 fixes t
Our C++ program compiled with gcc 4.1.1 on Aix 5.3 terminates abnormally with a
core dump.
This happens in the initialization phase of the program. The program is the
core process of our application.
We can reproduce it at will.
This problem occurs with a binary compiled in the production environ
This bug report may be distantly related to but (hopefully) is not a dupe of:
[4.3 Regression] Warnings while compiling libobjc with the uleb128 changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30731
When I make gcc 4.3.0 I create a "make log" like so:
make 2>&1 | tee make_1_log.txt
File: gcc
--- Comment #2 from jconner at apple dot com 2007-06-11 16:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00951.html
> I'm slightly worried about backporting this to gcc-4_1-branch though.
> Has that been resolved?
I recall being told that the
--- Comment #2 from appfault at hotmail dot com 2007-06-11 16:01 ---
I wouldn't consider the bugzilla itself to be fixed until a regression test has
been added to the gcc test suite.
Can you confirm that this test case has been added to the gcc regression test
suite? I searched the tes
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 15:43 ---
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00951.html
I'm slightly worried about backporting this to gcc-4_1-branch though.
Has that been resolved?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32285
--- Comment #41 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 15:40
---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
On 11 Jun 2007 14:17:46 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot o
The following occurs with svn head and GNAT GPL 2007.
$ gcc -c -g -gnat05 e.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.3.0 20070611 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in gen_type_die_with_usage, at dwarf2out.c:12921
extern void abort (void);
_Complex v = 3.0 + 1.0iF;
void
foo (_Complex z, int *x)
{
if (z != v)
abort ();
}
_Complex bar (_Complex z) __attribute__ ((pure));
_Complex
bar (_Complex z)
{
return v;
}
int
baz (void)
{
int a, i;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
foo (bar (1.0iF * i), &a);
r
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-11 15:25 ---
Hi Benjamin. If you ask me, this issue is INVALID: it is *not* supported
building the library normally and then passing -D_GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING
on the command line, and never was! Simply because basic_string is expo
--- Comment #3 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-11
14:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What if you remove the pointless 'volatile' from a?
>
No, removing the 'volatile' doesnt help either. The 'volatile' was because this
is part of a bigger test.
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=13679)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13679&action=view)
add checks for empty
Possible patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32284
This is a regression post 3.4.6.
gcc-4.1.x, gcc-4.2.x, gcc-4.3.x all have it.
ie:
// $ c++ -O -D_GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING str.cc -o str
#include
int main()
{
std::string abc;
return 0;
}
gives:
*** glibc detected *** ./a.out: free(): invalid pointer: 0xb7f3c678 ***
=== Back
--- Comment #40 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:17
---
And again, a 4.2/4.3 regression wrt compile-time _and_ memory-usage. Mainline
needs 1.2GB ram and whatnot time, 4.1 is happy with 500MB and about 10s.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wha
--- Comment #39 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:15
---
Created an attachment (id=13678)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13678&action=view)
unincluded testcase
unincluded testcase that also "works" with mainline. Where the slowness is
also
present.
--- Comment #38 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 14:11 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> > the patch doesn't fix the sipQtCorepart0.ii time hog, only mem hog is fixed.
> > g++ needs about 300MB of ram and +inf? (canceled after 6 days) of time.
ops little eye damage, the g++ sits on
--- Comment #37 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:08
---
Looks like it's still PTA:
tree PTA : 255.00 ( 0%) usr 17.25 ( 0%) sys 278.07 ( 0%) wall
28100 kB ( 0%) ggc
(just a snapshot after a few minutes compile)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-11 14:06 ---
What if you remove the pointless 'volatile' from a?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32283
--- Comment #36 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 14:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=13677)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13677&action=view)
testcase for time-hog.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-11
13:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=13676)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13676&action=view)
Testcase displaying the said behaviour
Added testcase that exposes the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.
Consider the following code snippet
static volatile short a[(2048)];
short foo (int len, int v)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
a[i] = v;
}
return a[0];
}
This should generate a post_inc for accessing elements of a. The problem seems
to be in the loop optimizer that fails to ide
--- Comment #35 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 13:17 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> Can you check where the time is spent on?
naturally, i'm building gcc with debuginfo now...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30052
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-11 13:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic
behaviour.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, pluto at agmk dot net wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #33 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-06-11 13:04 ---
> i'm reopening this bug b
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
