--- Comment #4 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-08 06:47 ---
This patch created more problems than it solved. Reverting for the time being.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-08 06:46 ---
Subject: Bug 33454
Author: bje
Date: Mon Oct 8 06:45:56 2007
New Revision: 129121
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129121
Log:
PR ada/33454
Revert:
2007-08-31 Ben Elliston
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-08 03:53
---
*** Bug 33662 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-08 03:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33669 ***
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-08 02:22 ---
I've confirmed that the patch in the trail of pr33669 fixes this too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33662
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-07 21:57
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
This patch fixes pr33669.
The failure only happens if you have a block with 2 or more uses of a
multiword pseudo register that is local to thi
--- Comment #13 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 21:48 ---
The current set of warnings is:
../../../libgfortran/runtime/backtrace.c:66: warning: 'local_strcasestr'
defined but not used
../../../libgfortran/runtime/environ.c:312: warning: 'init_choice' defined but
not used
../
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 21:45 ---
Fixed.
Let's close this and watch for occurences of
gamma_5.f90 failing, then open a new bug report
if that happens.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 21:36 ---
Subject: Bug 33683
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Oct 7 21:36:09 2007
New Revision: 129116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129116
Log:
2007-10-07 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR li
--- Comment #1 from bero at arklinux dot org 2007-10-07 21:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=14317)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14317&action=view)
Preprocessed source, bzip2-ed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33685
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I../.. -DMAGIC=\"/usr/lib/rpm/magic\"
-DHAVE_LIBZ=1 -O2 -march=i586 -mtune=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer -fweb
-frename-registers -MT softmagic.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/softmagic.Tpo -c
softmagic.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/softmagic.o
softmagic.c: In function 'cvt_16':
softmagic.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33619
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33616
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 20:03 ---
If we reject the common as syntactically wrong, it should never be resolved.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Holen sie sich jetzt 2400 EUR in Cash ab
Und gehen Sie dabei einen sicheren und koeniglichen Weg !!!
Alles mehrsprachig und einfach erklaert, starten Sie jetzt !!!
Für jeden erhaeltlich, ganz einfach: Anklicken, Registrieren, abholen !!!
WO ERHALTEN SIE SONST 2400 Euro in 12 Monaten aufgeteil
--- Comment #1 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 19:52 ---
Probably more of a target issue than a frontend issue. Please push back to the
frontend with an explanation what the FE is doing wrong if the backend does the
right thing.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 19:51 ---
I think this patch is incorrect (there is no specific ordering of modes as far
as I know. I think it should be using GET_MODE_SIZE instead.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30243
--- Comment #12 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-07 19:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/26698
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/2007-10/msg00379.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 19:49 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> E.g. the following is legal:
iff PRECISION(X) <= 350 :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25095
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-10-07 19:48
---
Changing target milestone to 4.2.3. Hopefully the attached patch will be
committed by then.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-10-07 19:46
---
Created an attachment (id=14316)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14316&action=view)
Patch by Anatoly Sokolov
Proposed patch by Anatoly Sokolov.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 19:43 ---
E.g. the following is legal:
INTEGER :: I(350)
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: K(500) = (/ i, i=1,500 /)
REAL :: X
DATA I(4+K(PRECISION(X))) / 1 /
whereas
DATA I(PRECISION(X)) / 1 /
isn't.
--
tobi at gcc dot gn
--- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-07 19:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33664
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/2007-10/msg00375.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-07 19:05 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33542
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/2007-10/msg00372.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 18:43
---
I have tested this on x86-64-linux. It works here as well. After reading the
man page myself, I think this is the answer and I would commit it as obvious.
The only question is what do other platforms do? AIX hp
--- Comment #7 from patrik dot hagglund at bredband dot net 2007-10-07
17:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=14315)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14315&action=view)
example benchmark in libacovea-5.1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32358
--- Comment #6 from patrik dot hagglund at bredband dot net 2007-10-07
17:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=14314)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14314&action=view)
example benchmark in libacovea-5.1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32358
--- Comment #2 from dkwan at transmeta dot com 2007-10-07 17:55 ---
Sorry about the breakage. I only tested the original patch on Linux. The
obvious patch should be fine. I am not familiar with mingw-w64. Does it
provide a similar conditional variable as POSIX? If so, another way to fix
--- Comment #5 from patrik dot hagglund at bredband dot net 2007-10-07
17:44 ---
I have found two bugs using my own (unfinished/unreleased) Acovea
replacement (available upon request). Both are for -fsee.
gcc (GCC) 4.3.0 20071005 (experimental)
--
gcc -std=gnu99 -O3 -fsee fftbench.c
--- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 17:16 ---
Something like the patch below fails unfortunately -- when resolving arglists
we still don't know enough about the callee (viz the checks of ptype, that are
already a hack on top of my original patch attempt) to determi
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 16:48 ---
This fixes things at least on my system; this also
passes regression-testing.
Index: mathbuiltins.def
===
--- mathbuiltins.def(revision 129050)
+++
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 16:39 ---
Sources retrieved with
svn merge -r HEAD:'{2007-10-04}' .
lead to the seg fault reported by Gerald. So the
problem was introduced between 2007-10-03 and
2007-10-04.
Also, note that the problem does not appear in
x
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-07 15:19 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Gcc 4.3 revision 128885 is much slower than gcc 4.1 redhat revision 128771
> with -O2 -ffast-math on 64bit Linux/Core 2 Duo:
>
> 437.leslie3d -26.2%
>
The main difference betw
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xuepeng dot guo at intel dot
||co
--- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-07 15:16 ---
Gcc 4.3 revision 128885 is much slower than gcc 4.1 redhat revision 128771
with -O2 -ffast-math on 64bit Linux/Core 2 Duo:
437.leslie3d -26.2%
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Remo
--- Comment #17 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-07 14:39 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Subject: Bug 33572
>
> Author: aoliva
> Date: Sat Oct 6 11:43:56 2007
> New Revision: 129051
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129051
> Log:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR tree-op
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-07 14:33 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Bug 33655
>
> Author: aoliva
> Date: Sat Oct 6 11:47:51 2007
> New Revision: 129052
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129052
> Log:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR tree-opti
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-07 14:25 ---
Subject: Bug number PR20851
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/2007-10/msg00357.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #25 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 12:49 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
>
> the first line is correct, the second is not.
>
Richard, does this do it for you?
{
char char.3[1:1];
char.3[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1} = (*(char[0:][1:1] *) atmp.0.data)[S.2][1]{lb:
--- Comment #7 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2007-10-07 12:31 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I get:
pr33680.c: In function גfג:
pr33680.c:1: error: expected an SSA_NAME object
pr33680.c:1: error: in statement
D.1618_93 = D.1556 /[ex] 4;
pr33680.c:1: internal compiler error: verify_ssa f
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 12:05 ---
*** Bug 33684 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 12:05 ---
I just had reduced this bug before.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33680 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 12:01 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think we need to use tgamma() where available. If it isn't, we
> need a test to check whether gamma() is equivalent to tgamma() or
> to lgamma().
>
> Yuck.
It may be simpler to calculate
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 11:46 ---
Fixed.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 11:45 ---
Subject: Bug 20851
Author: tobi
Date: Sun Oct 7 11:45:15 2007
New Revision: 129069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129069
Log:
PR fortran/20851
fortran/
* expr.c (check_inquiry): Typo fix in err
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at naturalbridge dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from bero at arklinux dot org 2007-10-07 10:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=14313)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14313&action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33684
Compiling the attached preprocessed code at -O3 fails with
elbg.c: In function 'try_shift_candidate':
elbg.c:245: error: expected an SSA_NAME object
elbg.c:245: error: in statement
D.7733_702 = D.6104 /[ex] 4;
elbg.c:245: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
Please submit a full bug report,
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 10:22 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I checked and the simplification routines work correctly, which means there is
> no real testsuite coverage for these functions. We should always include
> testcases comparing values calcul
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfir
52 matches
Mail list logo
