[Bug fortran/34387] FAIL: gfortran.dg/optional_dim_2.f90

--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 07:34 --- This PR might have been fixed by the following patch. Jerry, can this PR be closed now or is it not fixed? Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Dec 11 03:56:05 2007 New Revision: 130768 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root

[Bug fortran/34427] [4.3 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 07:32 --- (In reply to comment #2) > This regression was introduced between revision 130629 and 130712. There was a stupid I/O bug of mine between Rev. 130708 and 130723. Have you tried with Rev. 130723 or later? -- burnus

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] [4.3 regression] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-11 06:16 --- (In reply to comment #9) > One of those "regressions" where actually GCC made progress overall. This > should be low priority for GCC 4.3. Probably it is too early in the morning here, but I can't see any traces of over

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] [4.3 regression] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 06:09 --- One of those "regressions" where actually GCC made progress overall. This should be low priority for GCC 4.3. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33761

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] [4.3 regression] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-11 06:00 --- Regression at least for 4.3. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords

[Bug target/27855] [4.3 regression] reassociation pass produces ~30% slower matrix multiplication code

--- Comment #20 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-11 05:57 --- Should this be tree-optimization? -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/34411] hang-up during read of non-expected input

--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 03:56 --- Subject: Bug 34411 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Dec 11 03:56:05 2007 New Revision: 130768 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130768 Log: 2007-12-10 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug fortran/34411] hang-up during read of non-expected input

--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 03:50 --- Subject: Bug 34411 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Dec 11 03:49:52 2007 New Revision: 130767 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130767 Log: 2007-12-10 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug testsuite/34388] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)

--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-12-11 02:43 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > It'd be interesting to know why it fails to match the error at line 74 (which > then leads to it complaining about finding an

[Bug fortran/34420] List directed reads from file fails

-- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34420

[Bug testsuite/34388] FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)

--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 00:58 --- > FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line 74) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) It'd be interesting to know why it fails to match the error at line 74 (which

[Bug c/27214] The C frontend introduces undefined pointer overflow

--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 00:45 --- I think this has been fixed by the pointer plus branch merge for 4.3.0. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27214

[Bug c++/33916] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Default constructor fails to initialize array members

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |

[Bug tree-optimization/32636] [4.3 Regression] 25_algorithms/search_n/iterator.cc: pch-related verify_ssa failure

--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-12-11 00:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] 25_algorithms/search_n/iterator.cc: pch-related verify_ssa failure > Could you please attach the testcase preprocessed, so I can try to debug it > using a cross? Tha

[Bug c++/33916] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Default constructor fails to initialize array members

--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 00:03 --- A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=117834 r117834 | mmitchel | 2006-10-17 22:35:29 + (Tue, 17 Oct 2006) -- janis at gcc dot gnu dot org c

[Bug fortran/34427] [4.3 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-12-10 23:49 --- This regression was introduced between revision 130629 and 130712. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34427

[Bug c++/34059] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with invalid base type for class member

--- Comment #8 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 23:03 --- Fixed on all the active branches. -- simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/34427] [4.3 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:57 --- I can't see how that would be related to the # line and include handling fixes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34427

[Bug c++/34059] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with invalid base type for class member

--- Comment #7 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:54 --- Subject: Bug 34059 Author: simartin Date: Mon Dec 10 22:54:26 2007 New Revision: 130756 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130756 Log: gcc/cp/ 2007-12-10 Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug tree-optimization/34371] [4.3 Regression] verify_stmts failed (incorrect sharing of tree nodes)

--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:51 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/34059] [4.1/4.2 regression] ICE with invalid base type for class member

--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:50 --- Fixed on the trunk, thanks. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/34371] [4.3 Regression] verify_stmts failed (incorrect sharing of tree nodes)

--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:49 --- Subject: Bug 34371 Author: jakub Date: Mon Dec 10 22:49:43 2007 New Revision: 130755 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130755 Log: PR tree-optimization/34371 * tree-vectorizer.h (s

[Bug c++/34059] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with invalid base type for class member

--- Comment #5 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:39 --- Subject: Bug 34059 Author: simartin Date: Mon Dec 10 22:39:27 2007 New Revision: 130754 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130754 Log: gcc/cp/ 2007-12-10 Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug fortran/34427] New: [4.3 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

Revision 130629: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-12/msg00079.html failed 481.wrf: module_io.fppized.f90:18531: internal compiler error: in change_file, at fortran/scanner.c:322 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See for ins

[Bug target/34403] [4.3 regression] wrong frequency of block

--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:32 --- Should be OK now. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/34403] [4.3 regression] wrong frequency of block

--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:30 --- Subject: Bug 34403 Author: ebotcazou Date: Mon Dec 10 22:30:02 2007 New Revision: 130753 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130753 Log: PR target/34403 * config/i386/i386.c (ix

[Bug c++/34364] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] class& is not known as as a class-type anymore after dynamic_cast

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:19 --- Testing a fix. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unass

[Bug c++/34397] [4.3 regression] ICE on invalid default template parameter

--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:17 --- > What target is this on? i686-pc-linux-gnu. I can see the ICE since at least 2007-05-13 on mainline (I don't have any older mainline versions around). -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 22:08 --- The problem is similar to bug 17340. And so is my proposed fix. I've sent out a hack for testing to a few people. We'll get back to this one asap. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34400

[Bug fortran/34425] bogus warning

--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 21:45 --- FIXED on the trunk (4.3.0). Thanks for the bugreport. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/34425] bogus warning

--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 21:43 --- Subject: Bug 34425 Author: burnus Date: Mon Dec 10 21:42:56 2007 New Revision: 130752 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130752 Log: 2007-12-10 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fort

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

--- Comment #15 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-12-10 21:33 --- committed -- zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UN

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

he patch will only effect architectures with pre >> increment. >> >> Ok for commit? >> > > This is ok. > > Thanks, > Richard. > > >> Jakub, note that i changed the name of your testcase from 20071012-1.c >> to 20071210-1.c. >> I bel

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

t; PR rtl-optimization/34302 * auto-inc-dec.c (attempt_change): Change place where move is inserted. 2007-12-10 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR rtl-optimization/34302 * gcc.c-torture/execute/20071210-1.c: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/tes

[Bug libstdc++/34423] Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x

--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 21:08 --- (In reply to comment #4) ... Again, as I expected, 4.3.0 behaves differently, never sets > eofbit on underflow. I meant failbit of course. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34423

[Bug target/8835] [mcore-elf] bootstrap ICE at expr.c:2771

--- Comment #18 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 21:03 --- Mainline revision 130699: /n/11/rask/build/gcc-mcore-unknown-elf/mcore-unknown-elf/libstdc++-v3/include/iomanip: In function 'std::_Setfill<_CharT> std::setfill(_CharT) [with _CharT = char]': /n/11/rask/build/gcc-mcore

[Bug libstdc++/34423] Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x

--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 21:01 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Ok, thanks for the information. So the mystery > is then: why is failbit set on that read in 4.2.2 > and not 4.0.1 (and whatever version of libstdc++ > each is linking against). Inserting a litt

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

ncrement. > > Ok for commit? This is ok. Thanks, Richard. > Jakub, note that i changed the name of your testcase from 20071012-1.c > to 20071210-1.c. > I believe that this is the correct. > > Kenny > > > 2007-12-10 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

existing add to properly handle the case where the operands of the add change between the add and the load. Tested on ppc-32. The patch will only effect architectures with pre increment. Ok for commit? Jakub, note that i changed the name of your testcase from 20071012-1.c to 20071210-1.c. I

[Bug target/34412] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:1990

--- Comment #3 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 20:42 --- Broken prologue expander, notice the mode mismatch: (plus:QI (reg/f:HI -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34412

[Bug tree-optimization/32636] [4.3 Regression] 25_algorithms/search_n/iterator.cc: pch-related verify_ssa failure

--- Comment #25 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 20:25 --- Could you please attach the testcase preprocessed, so I can try to debug it using a cross? Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32636

[Bug libstdc++/34423] Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x

--- Comment #3 from conley at astro dot utoronto dot ca 2007-12-10 20:08 --- Subject: Re: Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x corrupts future reads Ok, thanks for the information. So the mystery is then: why is failbit set on that read in 4.2.2 and not 4.0.1 (and

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

--- Comment #10 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-12-10 20:02 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 19:35 --- > Created an attachment (id=14721) -->

[Bug java/34426] GCC 4.2.2 compile failed in java due to error in java class

--- Comment #2 from william-paul dot philibert at telus dot com 2007-12-10 19:58 --- Yes, CONFIG_SHELL set /bin/ksh -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34426

[Bug java/34426] GCC 4.2.2 compile failed in java due to error in java class

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 19:53 --- Do you have CONFIG_SHELL set, because that is required for building under solaris. Make sure you read the installation directions where all of this is described. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug fortran/34411] hang-up during read of non-expected input

--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-12-10 19:49 --- Patch of comment #4 works as advertised without regression at -m32 and -m64 for ppc-Darwin9 and Intel-Darwin8/9. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34411

[Bug c++/34362] Segmentation fault while using array of character pointers.

--- Comment #2 from stevekoe at hotmail dot com 2007-12-10 19:47 --- Thank you. -- stevekoe at hotmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED

[Bug java/34426] New: GCC 4.2.2 compile failed in java due to error in java class

I am trying to compile GCC 4.2.2 on a T2000 running Solaris 10 release "Solaris 10 11/06 s10s_u3wos_10 SPARC" I compiled GCC 4.2.2 successfully using GCC 4.1.1, no error. When I try to compile GCC 4.2.2 with a compiled GCC 4.2.2 it result in a series of error reporting problem with "java.lang", "

[Bug fortran/34425] New: bogus warning

trunk gfortran, testcase derived from CP2K: INTEGER :: i(-1:1) CALL S(i) CONTAINS SUBROUTINE S(i) INTEGER :: i(0:2) END SUBROUTINE END test.f90:2.7: CALL S(i) 1 Warning: Actual argument contains too few elements for dummy argument 'i' (1/3) at (1) -- Summary: bogus warnin

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 19:35 --- Created an attachment (id=14721) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14721&action=view) gcc43-pr34302-test.patch And here is an executable testcase, fails without your auto-inc-dec.c fix for -O and hig

[Bug libstdc++/34423] Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x corrupts future reads

--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 19:26 --- What you call "corruption of future reads" is just failbit set, due to underflow, evidently. You can simply reset it to goodbit and proceed. That said, I have no idea why the behavior is different in 4.2.2 vs 4.0.1, since n

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 19:14 --- > Actually this is perfectly quadratic: Two basic blocks are fake (exit and > entry) so there are 564 real basic blocks. (564 / 4)^2 = 141^2 = 19881. > Indeed the number of edges scales with the number of MCASE

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #14 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-12-10 19:13 --- [13:51]you wont believe this [13:51] yes [13:51]but that SJLJ thing, that's almost entirely call overhead [13:52] stevenb: calling what ? [13:52]the calls to df_live_{confluen

[Bug fortran/34420] List directed reads from file fails

--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:49 --- I believe it is a duplicate of PR 34404 and was fixed yesterday. Please update libgfortran (or the whole GCC) and try again. Thanks for the report. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34420

[Bug fortran/34424] Internal file forbidden as I/O list item

--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:45 --- > The following code is invalid (from comp.lang.fortran): http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/91a37e74fa305e31/ Agreed. > This is basically equivalent to: Here, no compiler detects

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:40 --- The problem seems to be that we just converge too slowly because the CFG is densely connected: 566 basic blocks and 19925 edges. Actually this is perfectly quadratic: Two basic blocks are fake (exit and entry) so th

[Bug fortran/34246] gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_16.f03 doesn't work

--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:36 --- > As noted, the test in comment #6 gives an ICE The ENTRY fix needs to go into build_entry_thunks: if (thunk_sym->attr.function) { if (gfc_return_by_reference (ns->proc_name)) {

[Bug fortran/34424] Internal file forbidden as I/O list item

-- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last recon

[Bug fortran/34424] New: Internal file forbidden as I/O list item

The following code is invalid (from comp.lang.fortran): character(len=16) :: strtofind !String one is looking for strtofind = "1 " write(strtofind,'(A1,A,A1)') ',',trim(adjustl(strtofind)),',' print *, "|", strtofind , "|" end 9.4.4.4 Data Transfer (in F95) says "If an int

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-12-10 18:15 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:01 --- > Created an attachment (id=14719) --> (

[Bug c++/34423] Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x corrupts future reads

--- Comment #1 from alexanderconley at gmail dot com 2007-12-10 18:12 --- Created an attachment (id=14720) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14720&action=view) This is the .ii file for sample code which produces this bug Generated using -save-temps and gcc-4.2.2 --

[Bug target/34415] [4.3 Regression] Possible miscompilation on MIPS

--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:11 --- Confirmed. -- rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|un

[Bug c++/34423] New: Reading doubles smaller than 1e-308 in gcc 4.2.2 on os x corrupts future reads

When reading double precision values as ASCII using c++ standard library routines ( std::ofstream ), if a number smaller than about 1e-308 is read it is returned as zero. Furthermore, this corrupts all future reads from the same file. This was discovered on OS X 10.5.1 using the fink install of gc

[Bug rtl-optimization/34302] [4.3 regression] Invalid code reordering

--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 18:01 --- Created an attachment (id=14719) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14719&action=view) engine.i Smaller testcase, will try to turn that into executable testcase later tonight. -- http://gcc.gnu.o

[Bug c/34422] New: Bootstrap error with --enable-fixed-point

When compiling todays (20071210) SVN snapshot of gcc using: ../gcc-SVN-20071210/configure --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-arch=athlon64 --enable-fixed-point make I the compilation fails with: ... /home/drab/tmp/GCC/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/drab/tmp/GCC/build/./gcc/ -B/usr/local/x86_64-pc

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-10 17:26 --- (In reply to comment #6) > FSF GCC 4.1 does not have -mtune=generic. OK, OK. Now with 'gcc version 4.1.3 20070716 (prerelease)': -m32 -O2: 29.306s -m32 -O3: 29.582s I don't have 4.2 here. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bug

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-12-10 17:13 --- Subject: Re: non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Fair enough. It looks that this problem is specific

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-10 17:12 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Fair enough. It looks that this problem is specific to Core2. Here are timings with 'gcc version 4.3.0 20071201 (experimental) [trunk revision 130554] (GCC)' on vendor_id : GenuineIntel

[Bug fortran/34421] New: ENTRY functions: Character with different stringlength not rejected

"If the characteristics of the result of the function named in the ENTRY statement are the same as the characteristics of the result of the function named in the FUNCTION statement, their result variables identify the same variable, although their names need not be the same. Otherwise, they are sto

[Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3

--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 17:07 --- Early unrolling will be addressed earliest in the next stage1. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086

[Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3

--- Comment #14 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-12-10 16:41 --- Dominique, What do you get when you use the proposed early-complete-unrolling patch from PR34265 and is there any movement towards getting some form of that patch into gcc trunk? -- http://gcc.gnu

[Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3

--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-12-10 16:37 --- I think so. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086

[Bug fortran/34420] New: List directed reads from file fails

Consider the following example: $cat myread.f integer n, i idmy character*2 typ(10) character*10 lab(10) character*40 wav(10) integer pos(10), neg(10), iat(10), ieq(10) complex val(10) open(10,file='XX',status='old') read(10,*,err=950,end=990) n

[Bug fortran/34246] gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_16.f03 doesn't work

--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-12-10 16:11 --- The patch in comment #11, fix the problem for ppc Darwin9 without regression for ppc/Intel Darwin9. As noted, the test in comment #6 gives an ICE (g95 gives an error 'Duplicate BIND attribute specified at (1)') that

[Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3

del: posix gcc version 4.3.0 20071210 (experimental) (GCC) for 'gfc -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops induct.f90' (with/without -fvect-cost-model), the execution time is: 93.986u 0.051s 1:34.04 99.9%0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w while for 'gfc -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops --param min-vect-loop-

[Bug libstdc++/34419] Weirdness with numeric_limits in special functions

--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 15:52 --- Confirmed. -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/34419] New: Weirdness with numeric_limits in special functions

This is to track this issue: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2007-04/msg00098.html -- Summary: Weirdness with numeric_limits in special functions Product: gcc Version: 4.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/27516] install failure due to unconditional invocation of makeinfo for treelang.texi

--- Comment #13 from haubi at gentoo dot org 2007-12-10 15:40 --- Just asking for status of this bug: Seems to be still valid with gcc-4.2.2 - don't (want to) have texinfo installed. -- haubi at gentoo dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/34418] Runtime segfault when compiled with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG defined

--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-12-10 15:17 --- I cannot reproduce on x86_64-linux, both mainline and 4_2-branch, with the boost_regex library as provided in OpenSUSE 10.3. Anyway, the problem seems rather hard to debug because of the the boost_regex .so library. Please

[Bug c++/34395] [4.3 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'type_pack_expansion' not supported by dump_type_prefix/suffix

--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 14:40 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/34394] [4.1/4.2 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'abs_expr' not supported by dump_expr

--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 14:39 --- Oops, didn't mean to close this altogether. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/34418] New: Runtime segfault when compiled with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG defined

Hello, the following test program segfaults when _GLIBCXX_DEBUG was defined at compile time. People in [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed this was rather be a gcc bug, so I post it here: === #include int main() { std::string s("table.dat"); boost::regex expression("table.dat"); boost::regex

[Bug c++/34394] [4.1/4.2 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'abs_expr' not supported by dump_expr

--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 14:39 --- Fixed on the trunk. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|

[Bug c++/34395] [4.3 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'type_pack_expansion' not supported by dump_type_prefix/suffix

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 14:38 --- Subject: Bug 34395 Author: jakub Date: Mon Dec 10 14:38:05 2007 New Revision: 130745 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130745 Log: PR c++/34395 * error.c (dump_type_prefix, dump_ty

[Bug c++/34394] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'abs_expr' not supported by dump_expr

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 14:31 --- Subject: Bug 34394 Author: jakub Date: Mon Dec 10 14:31:30 2007 New Revision: 130744 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130744 Log: PR c++/34394 * error.c (dump_expr): Handle ABS_EX

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #12 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 14:22 --- I've seen this on PowerPC and SPARC now, so I can confirm it is target independent. -- joel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/34395] [4.3 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'type_pack_expansion' not supported by dump_type_prefix/suffix

-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/34417] simplify '(x & A) % B' if 'B > A/2'

--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 13:40 --- Confirmed. VRP could do this, though we generally avoid creating control flow and extra basic blocks here. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/34394] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Broken diagnostic: 'abs_expr' not supported by dump_expr

-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-12-10 13:02 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 12:32 > --- > Thanks f

[Bug tree-optimization/34416] Tree optimization pipeline needs re-tuning

--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-12-10 12:32 --- Subject: Re: Tree optimization pipeline needs re-tuning On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Insert usual rant about running more and more and more and more and more and > more and more and more

[Bug middle-end/34400] [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions

--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 12:32 --- Thanks for the test case! Will investigate. -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-12-10 12:31 --- (In reply to comment #3) > I don't think this qualifies as a 4.3 regression - Fair enough. It looks that this problem is specific to Core2. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33761

[Bug tree-optimization/34416] Tree optimization pipeline needs re-tuning

--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 12:28 --- Insert usual rant about running more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more passes, with total disregard for compilation time of the common cases where optimization d

[Bug tree-optimization/34416] Tree optimization pipeline needs re-tuning

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-12-10 12:04 --- Subject: Re: New: Tree optimization pipeline needs re-tuning On 10 Dec 2007 10:07:09 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - run DCE after vectorization, the IL is completely hosed for >

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/34416] New: Tree optimization pipeline needs re-tuning

On 10 Dec 2007 10:07:09 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - run DCE after vectorization, the IL is completely hosed for >tree based costs otherwise (affects unrolling costs) This is already done: NEXT_PASS (pass_vectorize); {

[Bug target/27855] [4.3 regression] reassociation pass produces ~30% slower matrix multiplication code

gcc version 4.3.0 20071210 (experimental) [trunk revision 130738] (GCC) Family: 15 Model: 4 Stepping: 10 Type: 0 Brand: 0 CPU Model: Pentium 4 D (Foster) Original OEM Processor name string: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz Please note that CPU runs in 32bit mode. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/34403] [4.3 regression] wrong frequency of block

--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 11:14 --- Specific to x86. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/34417] New: simplify '(x & A) % B' if 'B > A/2'

Hi, In one of my application I need the expression '(x & 0xf) % 9'. Because of the restricted range of (x & 0xf) it's possible to replace the modulo operation with an if (see examples below). It would be nice if gcc could do this optimization automatically. unsigned fooA(unsigned x) { re

[Bug tree-optimization/33761] non-optimal inlining heuristics pessimizes gzip SPEC score at -O3

--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 10:52 --- I don't think this qualifies as a 4.3 regression - http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SPEC/CINT/sb-haydn-head-64-32o-32bit/index.html shows that while there were jumps, the numbers close to the 4.2 release are actually quit

  1   2   >