--- Comment #1 from bradh at frogmouth dot net 2009-05-26 06:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=17916)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17916&action=view)
.i for bug40252
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40252
gcc version 4.5.0 20090525 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-save-temps' '-g' '-DDEBUG_PASSWORD' '-DDEVELOPER'
'-Wall' '-Wshadow' '-Werror-implicit-function-decla
If a file has errors and gcc gets the -V X.X.X command line option, then the
exit code is 0. The following illustrates it:
[zoltan manocska]~>arm-elf-gcc --version
arm-elf-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions
--- Comment #6 from jwbates at mac dot com 2009-05-26 05:26 ---
Update: after some restructuring, the problem still occurs when using the -g
flag, but does not occur when the -O flag is used.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40036
--- Comment #1 from Jay dot St dot Pierre at Colorado dot EDU 2009-05-26
05:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=17915)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17915&action=view)
config.log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40250
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 04:42 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This sounds like either an as bug
An expression that is the difference between two *other* sections is not
regularly allowed for ELF targets...
> or a bug in the target back-end accepting
> so
When I try to build gcc-4.4.0 on the IRIX64 platform, the build fails with:
ar rc libbackend.a insn-attrtab.o insn-automata.o insn-emit.o insn-extract.o
insn-modes.o insn-opinit.o insn-output.o insn-peep.o insn-preds.o insn-recog.o
ggc-page.o alias.o alloc-pool.o auto-inc-dec.o bb-reorder.o bitmap
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 03:27 ---
When porting code such as in the description, it can be argued that
robustifying the code is an important part; that undefined code that just
happened to "work" for the initial target(s) is corrected to use defined
constr
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 03:24 ---
This sounds like either an as bug or a bug in the target back-end accepting
some memory address it should not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 00:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=17914)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17914&action=view)
preprocessed code from compiling crtend.o
At a glance, one would believe some function in crtstuff.c is lacking a
no
With revision 147851 cris-elf built.
>From revision 147853 and on, bild is broken as follows:
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/./gcc/xgcc
-B/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj/cris-elf/newlib/ -isystem
/tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/cris-elf/gccobj
Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/
-
O1 -w -c -o 20090518-1.o
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile
/20090518-1.c(timeout = 300)
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20090518-1.c: In function
'foo':
/test/gnu/gcc/gc
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 23:12 ---
Fixed for 4.4.1.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 23:07 ---
Subject: Bug 38064
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 25 23:07:05 2009
New Revision: 147855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147855
Log:
PR c++/38064
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): All
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 23:02 ---
The following should be enough. gfc_can_put_var_on_stack is also called
elsewhere but those calls shouldn't matter so much.
Index: trans-decl.c
===
---
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 23:01 ---
Subject: Bug 38064
Author: jason
Date: Mon May 25 23:01:02 2009
New Revision: 147854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147854
Log:
PR c++/38064
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): All
Revision 147848:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00825.html
caused:
FAIL: gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_escape_substr_pointer.c scan-ipa-dump
ipa_struct_reorg "is a field in the structure"
--
Summary: [4.5 Regression] Revision 147848 failed
gcc.dg/struct/wo_pr
real, pointer :: ptr
nullify(ptr, mesh%coarser)
end
gives an ICE:
nullify(ptr, mesh%coarser)
1
Internal Error at (1):
free_expr0(): Bad expr type
--
Summary: ICE on invalid SOURCE= using NULLIFY
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNC
--- Comment #12 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2009-05-25 20:26 ---
I noticed this is still accepted by gcc 4.5; one stuck into ffmpeg and broke
the build with another compiler.
For instance, this only fails in c():
int as(int a)
{
asm ("" : : "m"((int)a));
}
int c(int a)
{
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-05-25 20:05 ---
The following invalid code (reduced from the original code):
! { dg-do compile }
! This tests various error messages for PROCEDURE declarations.
! Contributed by Janus Weil
program prog
contains
subroutine foo(
--- Comment #4 from vvv at ru dot ru 2009-05-25 19:54 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is very odd? What is the assembler doing that the compiler isn't?
There are exist some optimizations impossible without exact knowledge of
address and opcodes,
One example avoiding of branch mispr
--- Comment #6 from ian at airs dot com 2009-05-25 18:32 ---
With unscoped enums the similar code works because cp_build_binary_op applies
the default integral promotions to the enums, and winds up comparing two int
values. The promotions are not applied to scoped enums because
default_
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-05-25 16:11
---
CC-ing Jason...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 15:59 ---
I have some CCP / fold_stmt patches that produce
movdqa .LC1(%rip), %xmm0
pcmpeqd %xmm0, %xmm0
pmovmskb%xmm0, %eax
cmpl$65535, %eax
setne %al
movzbl %a
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 15:21 ---
Fixed (mostly).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 15:20 ---
...hm, when I wanted to make such a testcase I realized that the SSE
code is not very portable. So I changed my mind and won't use it.
I'll be adding different union scalarization checks, though.
--
http:
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 15:18 ---
Subject: Bug 36327
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 25 15:18:21 2009
New Revision: 147851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147851
Log:
2009-05-25 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfir
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-05-25 15:09 ---
I am testing revision 147849. If it still fails, I will find some small
testcases.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40245
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||ia64-*-*
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 15:00 ---
Without details there is not much to do.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40245
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-05-25 14:58 ---
Please try gcc 4.4. We have fixed a bunch of alignment issues.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64, revision 147829:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00806.html
breaks SPEC CPU 2K/2006 at -O3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-05/msg00239.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-05/msg00238.html
They haven't been fixed as of revision 14784
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 14:48 ---
Subject: Bug 40176
Author: janus
Date: Mon May 25 14:48:24 2009
New Revision: 147850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147850
Log:
2009-05-25 Janus Weil
PR fortran/40176
* prim
On Linux/ia64, revision 147829:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00806.html
caused:
FAIL: Matrix4f -O3 compilation from source
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-10.c scan-tree-dump-times slp "unsupported alignment
in basic block." 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-4.c scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic blo
--- Comment #2 from abhishek dot shrivastav24 at gmail dot com 2009-05-25
14:36 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Works for me (your simple program is not a valid program).
>
The whole program is like this:
/* sample.c */
#include
#define N 1000
int main()
{
int a[N], b[N], c[N], i;
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 14:23 ---
Works for me (your simple program is not a valid program).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40243
Even a simple program like:
for(i=0;i<1000;i++)
a[i]= b[i]+c[i];
is vectorized using -ftree-vectorize -msse2 -O2 flag. Unaligned instruction are
generated. For any program, Not even a single aligned instruction is generated.
As, the variable STACK_BOUNDARY in function "vect_can_force_dr_alignmen
Hello,
during cross compilation of gcc, the libffi build for the target breaks with
this error message:
libtool: compile: /home/frogger/pengutronix/toolchain/libffi/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/frogger/pengutronix/toolchain/libffi/build/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/arm-1136jfs-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/usr/local
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 13:28 ---
This has been fixed for 4.4 and above somewhen between r134840 and r136241,
likely http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134989.
I don't think it was a regression, so fixing it just in 4.4 is sufficient.
-
--- Comment #8 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 12:56 ---
Fixed for 4.4.1, 4.5.0.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|AS
--- Comment #7 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 12:13 ---
Subject: Bug 40027
Author: ro
Date: Mon May 25 12:13:38 2009
New Revision: 147846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147846
Log:
PR bootstrap/40027
* config/i386/i386.c (USE_HIDDEN_LIN
--- Comment #6 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 12:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40027
Author: ro
Date: Mon May 25 12:12:08 2009
New Revision: 147845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147845
Log:
PR bootstrap/40027
* config/i386/i386.c (USE_HIDDEN_LIN
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 10:31 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-25 10:04 ---
fixed on current trunk.
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
The ?: operators are supposed to group right. In gcc they do, but in cpp they
do not (i.e., they seem to group left in #if statements).
Example:
#include
using std::hex;
using std::dec;
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
int main()
{
# if ( 1 ? 0x0DFF : 3 < 5 ? 1ull << 36 : 1ull << 40 ) <=
--- Comment #2 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-05-25 08:20 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> this is likely being fixed by Ira
I committed the fix. Could you please check if it really fixes this one as
well?
Thanks,
Ira
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40240
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-25 07:56 ---
Subject: Bug 40238
Author: irar
Date: Mon May 25 07:56:32 2009
New Revision: 147844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147844
Log:
PR tree-optimization/40238
* tree-vect-stmts.c (ve
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-25 07:48 ---
this is likely being fixed by Ira
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
51 matches
Mail list logo
