On Linux/ia32, I got
FAIL: c-c++-common/pr41779.c -Wc++-compat (test for warnings, line 30)
FAIL: c-c++-common/pr41779.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
--
Summary: c-c++-common/pr41779.c doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UN
--- Comment #3 from glenn at zewt dot org 2010-02-20 06:51 ---
("4:16"? I havn't seen that before. I hope gcc isn't going to start
outputting character offsets by default; that's a lot of noise.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43126
"auto_ptr" is not the best class to use, it's functional. To correct for
constant correctness issues, I wrote the following:
template
class auto_ptr
{
protected:
type* p;
operator type&() {return *p;}
operator type() {return *p;}
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 06:27 ---
I should say the simple example was:
int f(int);
int g(int a, int b)
{
return f(a, b);
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43126
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 06:27 ---
Can you provide the source which reproduces this issue?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 06:25 ---
Confirmed.
The C front-end just emits:
t.c: In function g:
t.c:4:3: error: too many arguments to function f
While the C++ front-end emits:
t.c:1:5: error: too many arguments to function int f(int)
t.c:4:16: er
--- Comment #2 from mikestump at comcast dot net 2010-02-20 06:16 ---
Patch submitted http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00812.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43125
--- Comment #10 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 05:42 ---
That patch seems like too big a hammer; it basically undoes the effect of
-fwhole-program. I think we want to limit the change to the functions created
by cgraph_build_static_cdtor.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot or
These warnings have driven me insane for years:
blah.cc:1: error: too many arguments to function void a(int)
blah.cc:7: error: at this point in file
I always end up jumping to line 1 in the file. I glance at the message and
line number in the first line, and I'm jumping to that line number bef
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 05:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=19930)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19930&action=view)
patch for x86 failure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42837
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 05:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=19929)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19929&action=view)
patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42800
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 03:50 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #15 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 03:50 ---
Subject: Bug 40332
Author: jason
Date: Sat Feb 20 03:50:13 2010
New Revision: 156918
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156918
Log:
PR target/40332
* configure.ac (gcc_cv_as_cfi_ad
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 02:24 ---
Did you download gcc-4.4.3-core.tar only? Or the full gcc-4.4.3?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43073
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 01:56 ---
I have a patch.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassi
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 01:55 ---
The reason why this testcase cannot be solved like bug 23510 is that this
testcase produces many repeated:
error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 500 (use
-ftemplate-depth-NN to increase the maximu
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 01:48 ---
REOPENING and refining. Let's leave bug 9335 for the repeated error problem.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from mikestump at comcast dot net 2010-02-20 01:21 ---
I'm building up a linux cross compiler now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43125
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 01:05 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39315 ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-02-20 01:05
---
*** Bug 43124 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43125
On Linux/ia32, revision 156910 gave:
FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-used.c scan-assembler function_declaration_before
Revision 156906 is OK. Revision 156907:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-02/msg00490.html
is the cause.
--
Summary: [4.5 Regression] Revision 156907 failed gcc.dg/attr-
--- Comment #5 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 00:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=19928)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19928&action=view)
patch respin
So, after much single-stepping in the debugger, and some discussion on the
mailing list:
http://gcc
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 00:36 ---
But this is confirmed in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 00:36 ---
This is a different case than 9335.
Comeau does not handle this well either, so I am not sure how this case could
be solved.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 00:19 ---
Reduced testcase:
extern int strlen (__const char *__s);
int echo (int);
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
echo (({ int __s1_len, __s2_len;
(__builtin_constant_p (argv[0]) && __builtin_constant_p ("AA") &&
(__s
--- Comment #1 from kai dot germaschewski at gmail dot com 2010-02-20
00:03 ---
I think I should include this:
[...@fishercat linear_algebra]$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/sha
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 23:56 ---
This is not an uninitialized issue.
The reason this requires -O2 is that -Warray-bounds requires VRP to warn. The
gimple output already looks quite different.
-funsigned-char:
:
[pr35903.i : 309:15] D
I'm using the stock Fedora 12 gcc, RPM gcc-4.4.3-4.fc12.x86_64.
Whereas it appears to align __m128 variables correctly (16-bytes), it accesses
them as if they were only 8 byte aligned.
I read various threads etc about aligning variables on the stack, but my belief
is that this never was a problem
--- Comment #7 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk 2010-02-19
23:42 ---
updated patches & test results:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00742.html
explanation of the intention of those patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00712.html
--
ht
--- Comment #11 from amodra at gmail dot com 2010-02-19 23:39 ---
Fixed
--
amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 23:38 ---
Subject: Bug 42344
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Feb 19 23:38:20 2010
New Revision: 156914
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156914
Log:
PR middle-end/42344
* cgraph.h (cgraph_make_de
--- Comment #9 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk 2010-02-19
23:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=19927)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19927&action=view)
updated patch against 156812
gcc/testsuite/Changelog:
2009-12-17 Iain Sandoe
PR testsuite/4234
--- Comment #2 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk 2010-02-19
23:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=19926)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19926&action=view)
updated patch against 156812
gcc/testsuite/Changelog:
2009-10-06 Iain Sandoe
PR teststuite/41
--- Comment #25 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-19 23:32
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] huge
performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01
On 2/19/10, drow at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #24 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-1
--- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-02-19 23:32 ---
The binutils patch that broke libjava came from CodeSourcery, so I decided to
test their latest G++ lite for arm-linux-gnueabi (2009q3-67). That compiler is
based on gcc-4.4.1, and it does not have the libjava regression
--- Comment #40 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk
2010-02-19 23:28 ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> I checked in the real back end change in r156907.
OK on i686/powerpc d9
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43061
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
Severity|normal
./xgcc -B . -march=generic ~/test.c
/home/manuel/test.c:1:0: error: generic CPU can be used only for -mtune= switch
/home/manuel/test.c:1:0: error: bad value (generic) for -march= switch
/home/manuel/test.c:1:0: error: bad value (generic) for -march= switch
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--
--- Comment #9 from cgerdy at wanadoo dot fr 2010-02-19 22:17 ---
Subject: Re: bug with gfortran on Windows vista, correct on Linux
thank you
That is the answer to your question :
C:\Users\gerdy>gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i586-pc-mingw32
Configured with:
../gcc-trunk/c
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 22:12 ---
Subject: Bug 43121
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 22:12:25 2010
New Revision: 156913
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156913
Log:
PR bootstrap/43121
* except.c (sjlj_emit_function
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40315
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
AssignedTo|jason at gcc dot gnu do
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|NEW
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jason at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:41 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=19925)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19925&action=view)
patch for 4.6
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41970
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:29 ---
EDG 4.1 gives the same mangled name, so if anything needs to be fixed, it's the
ABI document.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:25 ---
FIXED in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:23 ---
Not working on this now.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assig
--- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:21 ---
Suspending until the committee can rule on this, but I expect the result to be
that the testcase is ill-formed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:21 ---
Subject: Bug 36513
Author: manu
Date: Fri Feb 19 21:21:34 2010
New Revision: 156912
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156912
Log:
2010-02-19 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 36513
testsuite/
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:20 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This could be somewhat similar, I really wonder if this needs a temp:
>
> TYPE T1
> INTEGER :: a(3)
> END TYPE T1
> TYPE(T1), POINTER :: x,y
> ALLOCATE(x,y)
> x%a=y%a
> END
I think one ne
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:14 ---
FIXED in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 21:12 ---
Subject: Bug 41779
Author: manu
Date: Fri Feb 19 21:12:09 2010
New Revision: 156911
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156911
Log:
2010-02-19 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 41779
* c-
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 20:59 ---
Yeah, the Expand from SSA patch broke Jakub's fix for PR 34037. I'm testing a
patch that just tweaks the logic a bit to make it work again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42800
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 20:13 ---
The problem is that instantiate_decl_rtl isn't being run on the rtl for the
upper bound temporary, because it isn't visible to instantiate_decls. This
happens because even though the temp got added to cfun->local_decl
--- Comment #39 from mikestump at comcast dot net 2010-02-19 19:15 ---
I checked in the real back end change in r156907.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43061
--- Comment #5 from mr dot nuke dot me at gmail dot com 2010-02-19 19:15
---
> Which means there is already an operator+ defined which is done using the
> generic GNU vector support. If you remove your definition of operator+, it
> works without it.
>
I could have sworn I saw
error
--- Comment #38 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 19:06 ---
Subject: Bug 43061
Author: mrs
Date: Fri Feb 19 19:06:38 2010
New Revision: 156907
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156907
Log:
PR objc/43061
* cgraphunit.c (process_function_and_v
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:56
---
If the date is correct, it is an older version.
At the command line just type: gfortran -v
gfortran will then display the version information for you.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43115
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:51 ---
FYI, this is 15.3/6. __m128 isn't a class nor an enumeration. Maybe it is
for the other compilers as implementation detail.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:39 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm assuming you are referring to and F32vec4. While I will apply
> this
> workaround (one of many many workarounds to get fancy C++ code to work with
> g++) it still doesn't solve the un
--- Comment #2 from mr dot nuke dot me at gmail dot com 2010-02-19 18:34
---
I'm assuming you are referring to and F32vec4. While I will apply this
workaround (one of many many workarounds to get fancy C++ code to work with
g++) it still doesn't solve the underlying problem, and affect
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:31 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:30 ---
Subject: Bug 43084
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 18:30:22 2010
New Revision: 156904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156904
Log:
PR debug/43084
* ipa-struct-reorg.c (add_access_t
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=19924)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19924&action=view)
gcc44-pr42233.patch
Backported patch for 4.4 branch, so far only compile tested.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #15 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:19 ---
Subject: Bug 42233
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 18:19:06 2010
New Revision: 156903
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156903
Log:
PR middle-end/42233
* dojump.c (do_jump) : Inver
--
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 #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=19923)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19923&action=view)
patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40332
--- Comment #7 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 16:28 ---
Sorry, David and I talked offline about the last patch and he still has some
reservations about the code (even the pre-patched code). After discussing
this, I'm going to try adding a splitter which should hopefully
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-02-19 16:05 ---
Subject: Re: New: g++ does not allow overloading operators for sse types
(__m128, __m128d)
Well there is already a builtin operator+ for vector types with the
generic vector support.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2
Well there is already a builtin operator+ for vector types with the
generic vector support.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2010, at 7:50 AM, "mr dot nuke dot me at gmail dot com" > wrote:
When trying to overload operators for __m128 and __m128d types. For
example,
the following code:
#i
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 15:59 ---
Fixed, thanks.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIG
--
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
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43122
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43121
When trying to overload operators for __m128 and __m128d types. For example,
the following code:
#include
#include
inline __m128 operator + (const __m128 A, const __m128 B)
{
return _mm_add_ps(A, B);
}
int main()
{
float a[4];
float b[4];
for(size_t i = 0; i <
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 15:42 ---
Subject: Bug 42916
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 19 15:42:31 2010
New Revision: 156898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156898
Log:
2010-02-19 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-02-19 15:14 ---
It is caused by revision 156889:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-02/msg00472.html
Jakub, you missed:
[...@gnu-12 gcc]$ grep add_reg_br_prob_note *.[ch]
except.c:add_reg_br_prob_note (get_insns (), REG_BR_PR
On Linux/ia64, I got
/libdecnumber/libdecnumber.a-lmpc -lmpfr -lgmp -rdynamic -ldl -lz -lelf
libbackend.a(except.o): In function `sjlj_emit_function_enter':
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/../../src-trunk/gcc/except.c:1165:
undefined reference to `add_reg_br_prob_note'
collect2: ld re
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 14:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=19922)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19922&action=view)
gcc45-pr43084.patch
So far untested fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43084
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 14:39 ---
Confirmed. Broken since it is supported.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 14:33 ---
Ping?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42427
--- Comment #1 from goeran at uddeborg dot se 2010-02-19 14:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=19921)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19921&action=view)
Test case
No special flags, just compile with "c++ thunk.cc -o thunk".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
Diamond shaped class structure with a covariant return method causes GCC to
fail to adjust base pointers. In the attached program, the output is a huge
number instead of the expected 123.
Looking at what happens in GDB, it appears that the this pointer in the call of
A(const A &other) gets a B re
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 14:17 ---
Assigning to myself to fix the VTA issues in this pass (and perhaps switch it
to use XNEW*/XCNEW*), but not to give it the rest of TLC the pass needs...
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #24 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 14:08 ---
If no one else has EEMBC available, ask me and we can verify any fix. We've
been using Steven's and Joern's patches; we tried other approaches, but in the
end we weren't able to come up with any other approach that wo
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-02-19 13:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] "-fcompare-debug
failure" with "-O1 -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize"
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-0
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 13:45 ---
Trunk behaves similarly - I wonder if this is similar to 41021.
Here's what trunk generates.
push{r4, r5, r6, r7}
vld4.8 {d16-d19}, [r0]
sub sp, sp, #96
mov r7, r1
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 13:45 ---
Heh, have just been looking into this too and figured out it is the alignment,
already in *.expand dump. With -O2 as opposed to -O1 the testcase now succeeds
for both -m32 and -m64 though (but I have in my tree PR4289
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 13:40 ---
The difference is in alignment and some part of a patch of mine seems to
fix it ...
-(insn 230 229 231 3 t.i:5 (set (reg/v:SI 383 [ h ])
-(mem/c/i:SI (symbol_ref:DI ("seed") )
[0
seed+0 S4 A128])) -1 (nil)
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 13:23 ---
Assuming this is fixed. Please reopen if it is not.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #23 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 13:19 ---
Richi: not really. It tries to separate paths where at least one has mostly
constants in their PHI args. This applies to this testcase for the first
chain of PHI nodes, which are separated as intended. But this simp
--- Comment #11 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2010-02-19 13:08 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This issue was discussed on the WG14 reflector in October 2008, and the
> general
> view was that the standard should not make INT_MIN % -1 well defined (as this
> would impose a significant
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 12:48 ---
First patches for (single-image) Coarray support, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranPatchTracker
about half of the work is already done & approved for committal when the 4.6
development starts.
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 12:47 ---
Subject: Bug 42233
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 12:47:18 2010
New Revision: 156893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156893
Log:
PR middle-end/42233
* loop-doloop.c (add_test):
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 12:35 ---
I've tried
--- gcc/lambda-code.c.jj 2009-11-25 16:47:37.0 +0100
+++ gcc/lambda-code.c 2010-02-17 15:00:40.0 +0100
@@ -1885,7 +1885,8 @@ not_interesting_stmt (gimple stmt)
loop, we would have alrea
--- Comment #10 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 12:33 ---
Okay. You were right, my tree was a outdated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43077
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 12:32 ---
Initialization before call issue moved to PR43119.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43077
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
