http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Smolsky 2011-08-26
00:48:02 UTC ---
Also, I have just built the same suite with GCC version 4.7 that came from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20110820/gcc-4.7-20110820.tar.bz2 and
the performance degradation rem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50193
Bug #: 50193
Summary: ARM: ICE on a | (b << negative-constant)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Smolsky 2011-08-25
22:08:49 UTC ---
BTW, the uint16_t test also got slower for the same very reason. Here is the
inner-most loop generated by g++4.6:
text:00400DA0 loc_400DA0:
.text:00400DA0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2011-08-25
21:02:02 UTC ---
Here's the backtrace from the failure.
(gdb) bt
#0 internal_error (gmsgid=0x10e73c80 "verify_ssa failed") at
/home/wschmidt/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/diagnostic.c:838
#1 0x000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50192
Bug #: 50192
Summary: Wrong character comparision with wide strings
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50188
--- Comment #4 from Michael Zolotukhin
2011-08-25 20:21:10 UTC ---
If I understand standard correctly, in this case behavior isn't undefined. Am I
right?
If so, then if behavior of optimized code (loop is infinite) is correct,
behavior of not opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48582
--- Comment #1 from Takaya Saito 2011-08-25
20:09:49 UTC ---
Current C++0x draft 14.3.2/5 says 0 is not a valid template-argument
for a non-type template-parameter of pointer type.
So, `f<0>();' is ill-formed, as current gcc rejects it.
But 14.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50050
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin 2011-08-25
19:10:11 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Aug 25 19:10:06 2011
New Revision: 178086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178086
Log:
2011-08-25 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/50050
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49864
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-25
18:57:53 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Aug 25 18:57:48 2011
New Revision: 178084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178084
Log:
PR 50132
PR 49864
* cfgcleanup.c (old_in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50132
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-25
18:57:53 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Aug 25 18:57:48 2011
New Revision: 178084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178084
Log:
PR 50132
PR 49864
* cfgcleanup.c (old_ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50157
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50185
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50188
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-25
18:33:44 UTC ---
IIRC the variables need to be marked as volatile if you want them to be correct
over setjmp/longjmp.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-25 18:30:54
UTC ---
Too many trees to see the forest case ;)
We also have to protect conversion of round, rint and nearbyint with
TARGET_C99.
Obvious patch (also includes non-harmful typo in existing code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
Bug #: 50191
Summary: Strange debug insn produced for TOC compiling
416.gamess with profile-generate
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50157
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-25
18:22:36 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 25 18:22:33 2011
New Revision: 178080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178080
Log:
PR c++/50157
* call.c (convert_like_real):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50157
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-25
18:22:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 25 18:22:46 2011
New Revision: 178081
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178081
Log:
PR c++/50157
* call.c (convert_like_real):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50190
Bug #: 50190
Summary: linkpk bench of polyhedron fails during validation
with gcc trunk when it is compiled with -Ofast on
amd64.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Paul Koning changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #2 from Paul Koning 2011-08
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #1 from Paul Koning 2011-08-25
17:19:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 25106
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25106
gcc -v output (configure options etc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Bug #: 50189
Summary: Wrong code error in -O2 compile, target independent
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50188
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Smolsky 2011-08-25
16:26:05 UTC ---
AFAIK it's a production processor, a couple of years old. From x86info:
Family: 6 Model: 15 Stepping: 4 Type: 0 Brand: 0
CPU Model: Core 2 Duo E6600 Original OEM
Feature flags:
fpu vm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #8 from davidxl 2011-08-25 16:17:10
UTC ---
gcc46 and gcc47 difference can be reproduced using -O2 -m64.
David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-25 15:58:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> The processor is Intel quad core something:
>
> processor: 0
> vendor_id: GenuineIntel
> cpu family: 6
> model: 15
> model name: Genuine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50188
Bug #: 50188
Summary: Optimizer doesn't take into account, that longjmp
could lead to loops, which causes illegal code
transformations.
Classification: Unclassified
Prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46009
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-25 15:29:38 UTC ---
I can now also reproduce the failure on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
cc1 -quiet -O2 -m32 iround.i -muclibc
With the default (-mglibc), it doesn't occur.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Smolsky 2011-08-25
15:25:49 UTC ---
Oh, the settings and things were discussed the mail thread... Here is the
digest:
I have compiled and run a set of C++ benchmarks on a CentOS4/64 box using the
following compilers:
a)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48575
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Smolsky 2011-08-25
15:19:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 25103
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25103
The same test preprocessed with g++ 4.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #9 from SK 2011-08-25 15:01:26
UTC ---
Just for checking i changed the instruction in .s file from "mfcr 27,1" to
"mfcr 27" and used the assembler to generate the binary there was no error
reported. Now i am confused whether it is fau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45859
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-25
14:28:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> is supposed to be valid according the following IR. A modified program which
> uses
>call sub (x(10:))
> is unambiguously valid. However, both programs a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-25 13:58:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Yesterday I sent a patch
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01954.html which most probably
> > solved the problem.
> >
ers/izamyati/gcc_4_6_2_prefix/
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.6.2 20110825 (prerelease) (GCC)
>
> everything is fine, no that spill-fill generated
Can we find which checkin caused this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50166
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-25 13:40:57 UTC ---
I've just checked that it still occurs with current mainline. I'm
running a reghunt to identify the culprit.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2011-08-25
13:39:54 UTC ---
Thanks. -floop-interchange is required to cause the problem, and
graphite_transforms was in the stack at the time of the verify failure. I
believe there was an explicit call to
model: posix
gcc version 4.6.2 20110825 (prerelease) (GCC)
everything is fine, no that spill-fill generated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50187
Bug #: 50187
Summary: Interrupt handler attribute for x86/x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-25
12:10:26 UTC ---
And 476 CPU according to rs6000-cpus.def should support that:
RS6000_CPU ("476", PROCESSOR_PPC476,
POWERPC_BASE_MASK | MASK_SOFT_FLOAT | MASK_PPC_GFXOPT | MASK_MFCRF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-25
12:05:46 UTC ---
That seems like your gcc is assuming -mmfcrf for your CPU, yet your assembler
can't assemble it (or is assembling for a CPU which doesn't have the mfcrf
insn).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #5 from SK 2011-08-25 12:02:09
UTC ---
at line 665 in do_mounts_rd.s "mfcr 27,1" is a wrong instruction generated. As
per Power ISA™ Version 2.05 mfcr take only one argument i.e "mfcr RT". Let me
know if i have to change any component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #4 from SK 2011-08-25 11:59:11
UTC ---
Created attachment 25102
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25102
cross compile script
cross compile script
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #2 from SK 2011-08-25 11:53:17
UTC ---
Created attachment 25100
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25100
intermidate file
intermidate file do_mounts_rd.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #3 from SK 2011-08-25 11:53:59
UTC ---
Created attachment 25101
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25101
do_mounts_rd.s
assembly file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50154
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-25
10:48:59 UTC ---
-fno-elide-constructors prevents the segfault
something goes wrong copying the return value of func() into the CData base
class of B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
--- Comment #1 from SK 2011-08-25 10:33:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 25099
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25099
build errors
build errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50179
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
Summary|wrong "set but n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50179
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50186
Bug #: 50186
Summary: junk at end of line: `1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50185
Bug #: 50185
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx2-vmovmskb-2.c scan-assembler
vmovmskb on x86_64-apple-darwin10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich 2011-08-25
09:31:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yesterday I sent a patch
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01954.html which most probably
> solved the problem.
>
> Now I have code size 419 (g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50174
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50050
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmason at ricardo dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
--- Comment #1 from Eugene 2011-08-25 09:01:52 UTC
---
gcc version 4.4.4 20100726 (Red Hat 4.4.4-13) (GCC)
Build of configuration Debug for project Test
make all
Building file: ../src/Test.cpp
Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler
g++ -O0 -g3 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
Bug #: 50184
Summary: Segmentation fault. Copy Constructor.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45262
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50163
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-25
08:29:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Aug 25 08:29:29 2011
New Revision: 178054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178054
Log:
2011-08-25 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50178
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
68 matches
Mail list logo
