http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-15
06:53:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 22395
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22395
An alternate patch that also works
This alternate patch also fixes the problem by initializing the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jvdelisle at gcc dot
|g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-15
06:43:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22394
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22394
A sample runtime case
The sample runtime case. The pointer is set to the specified element of the
v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #100 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-14
23:34:28 UTC ---
> Cool! The reduced code no longer makes any sense but it should compile.
> I'm sure this was a fair bit of work.
Actually delta made all the work down to 31 lines of typedefs/stru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #99 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-14 23:12:25 UTC ---
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> Minimized testcase:
>
> int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
> {
> int *p = (int *) arg;
> int x = *cr;
> lon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46477
Summary: GCC doesn't understand %c in asm instruction with
-mcmodel=large
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #98 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-14 22:35:54
UTC ---
Minimized testcase:
int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
{
int *p = (int *) arg;
int x = *cr;
long pu_err = 0;
if (x)
asm volatile ("stw %2,0(%1)": "=r" (pu_err): "r" (p),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46395
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2010-11-14 21:11:14
UTC ---
That appears to be a bug in postreload in that it does not take exceptions into
account. The change in rtl-opt/33721 just modifies the order how automatic
variables are allocated and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46405
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-14
19:16:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> We _could_ set the line length to unlimited when invoking the preprocessor
> automagically.
> Would this be a good idea? Hmm...
I do not think that that's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46367
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-11-14 19:09:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 22393
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22393
reduced testcase
Doesn't need -m32.
$ gcc -O pr46367.C
gcc: internal compiler error: Segmentation fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46405
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-14
18:50:30 UTC ---
The code that sets the span is never reached. I am studying this to see if I
can sort it out. I think the problem is in trans_decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-14
17:56:30 UTC ---
After getting rid of the segfault, it is clear the runtime results are wrong.
It does look like the span is not getting set correctly. So I begin to look for
why it is not being set.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #45 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-11-14 17:38:46 UTC ---
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
>
> --- Comment #44 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-14
> 16:16:35 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46474
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-14
17:47:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> If it's due to the reported difference using fma and not using fma then
> probably the tree fma code lacks checks for debug stmts. Try
If it is due to FMA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-14
17:50:21 UTC ---
if mingw.org modify GCC then this bug should be reported there, as I don't see
anything wrong in the libstdc++ code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46474
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46298
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw 2010-11-14
17:19:03 UTC ---
Jason - is this fixed now? If so can you close this please.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3713
--- Comment #28 from Paolo Carlini 2010-11-14
17:11:21 UTC ---
For the record, my favorite example in the C++ library,
testsuite/performance/27_io/fmtflags_manipulators.cc, pretty simple, still
probably noticeable by many of our users, is by now p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Summary: Missing Warning about unreachable code after return
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #44 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-14
16:16:35 UTC ---
OK, ialloc is because 4.3 folds:
oldbit_430 = 0;
D.12699_431 = oldbit_430 & 1;
D.12698_462 = D.12699_431;
D.12095_241 = D.12698_462;
if (D.12095_241 != 0)
goto ;
else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45365
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-14 15:53:28
UTC ---
Does -fsignaling-nans work here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45365
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46475
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46475
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-14 15:47:12
UTC ---
I think I have to debug my test scripts. I'm committing the change from
dg-warning to dg-bogus.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46475
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-14 15:47:03
UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Sun Nov 14 15:46:59 2010
New Revision: 166733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166733
Log:
2010-11-14 Paolo Bonzini
PR c/46475
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46475
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46475
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/nofixed-point-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2010-11-14
14:15:06 UTC ---
I am currently testing the patch below:
>From d16601c89e153c54ef017cca5db854898d9c6502 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dodji Seketeli
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:55:34 +0100
Subject: [
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46101
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|dseketel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46405
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46462
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-11-14 13:10:45
UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Sun Nov 14 13:10:41 2010
New Revision: 166732
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166732
Log:
2010-11-13 Paolo Bonzini
PR c/46462
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46474
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-11-14
11:58:51 UTC ---
I also see it on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (r166728, last bootstrap
r166379+patches).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44592
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|matz at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46474
Summary: [4.6 regression] powerpc64-linux bootstrap comparison
failure in libcpp/symtab.o
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46304
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-14
11:40:22 UTC ---
Even though it looks similar to PR45959 backporting the C++ revisions 165306
and 165307 does not fix the tree sharing problem on the 4.5 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45722
--- Comment #35 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-14
11:24:52 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Nov 14 11:24:47 2010
New Revision: 166731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166731
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45722
* tree-sra.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46315
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-14
11:34:42 UTC ---
The problem is indeed the note, but I don't think it comes from it being sort
of self-referential. The use of reg 83 in the note doesn't make it live so ce1
merges BB 4 just before in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45722
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46364
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #43 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-14
11:06:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 22392
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22392
Preprocessed ialloc.
One of smaller units that grows a lot. The culprint seems to be ext3_new_inode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46472
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46473
Summary: 'in' not allowed in 'for' loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46472
Summary: [C++0X] constexpr is not constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #42 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-14
09:27:09 UTC ---
Fixing little bug in unreachable function removal and working around PR46470
gets me to:
-2933 linux-2.4.23-pre3-testplatformfs/ext3/superb 8069
-1572 linux-2.4.23-pre3-testplatfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46471
Summary: Worse register regalloc leads to bigger code at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46470
Summary: "add$0x8,%rsp" no longer optimized to pop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-14
09:06:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 22389
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22389
preprocessed ext/super.c
Hi,
this testcase shows that we are no longer able to optimize away ext3_sop
54 matches
Mail list logo
