http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44646
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-08
06:38:17 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Sep 8 06:38:13 2011
New Revision: 178677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178677
Log:
gcc/fortran/
2011-09-08 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.4
Summary|Linker stumbles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-08
06:03:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 8 06:03:01 2011
New Revision: 178675
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178675
Log:
PR c++/50255
* method.c (use_thunk): If em
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-08
06:01:45 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 8 06:01:40 2011
New Revision: 178674
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178674
Log:
PR target/50310
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-08
05:59:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 8 05:58:54 2011
New Revision: 178673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178673
Log:
PR target/50310
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50312
Meador Inge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meadori at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48095
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48095
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 22:20:50 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Sep 7 22:20:47 2011
New Revision: 178665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178665
Log:
2011-09-07 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34228
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2011-09-07
21:42:17 UTC ---
*** Bug 29813 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29813
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50314
--- Comment #6 from NickParker at Eaton dot com 2011-09-07 21:18:59 UTC ---
>> How is TCNT1 defined? Again just attach the preprocessed source.
Sorry, not sure how to get preprocessed source - I need to read the GCC manual.
>From AVR header file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50314
--- Comment #5 from NickParker at Eaton dot com 2011-09-07 21:16:02 UTC ---
So if its not a bug, what is the solution to this problem?
I tried wrapping up the code I wanted to time in a separate C function, but the
compiler still optimised my prob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50314
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-07
21:14:39 UTC ---
How is TCNT1 defined? Again just attach the preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50314
--- Comment #3 from NickParker at Eaton dot com 2011-09-07 21:13:22 UTC ---
#define T1_GET_TIMER_NON_ATOMIC() (TCNT1)
uint16_t BGndTimerReadNowIsr(void)
{
uint16_t period_u2;
period_u2 = T1_GET_TIMER_NON_ATOMIC();
return(period_u2);
}
Host||x86_64-suse-linux
Build||x86_64-suse-linux
--- Comment #1 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2011-09-07 20:23:30 UTC ---
(on x86_64, checking enabled)
gcc-Version 4.7.0 20110907 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50323
Bug #: 50323
Summary: verify_ssa fail: number of operands and imm-links
don't agree in statement
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-07
19:46:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 7 19:46:14 2011
New Revision: 178659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178659
Log:
* config/i386/sse.md (sseinsnmode): Remove 32-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50307
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-09-07
18:33:30 UTC ---
I've confirmed that this is a regression introduced by rev. 178386
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-08/msg01405.html
So it does seem like this is another duplicate of PR 50287 / PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50309
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50309
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-07 17:35:15 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 7 17:35:07 2011
New Revision: 178656
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178656
Log:
/cp
2011-09-07 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48571
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-07
17:31:08 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Sep 7 17:31:01 2011
New Revision: 178655
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178655
Log:
PR middle-end/48571
* gcc.c-torture/execut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50298
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50309
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-07 17:16:30 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 7 17:16:23 2011
New Revision: 178654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178654
Log:
/cp
2011-09-07 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50298
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-07
17:11:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Sep 7 17:11:49 2011
New Revision: 178652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178652
Log:
PR c++/50298
* parser.c (cp_parser_member_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50273
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-07
16:09:18 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Sep 7 16:09:12 2011
New Revision: 178646
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178646
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50322
* gcc.dg/tree-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-07
15:50:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 25224
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25224
ivopts-lt.c.118t.ivopts
as generated with
avr-gcc gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt.c -O2 -fdump-tree-i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
Bug #: 50322
Summary: [avr]: fail: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-07
15:43:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Thanks!
>
> > * testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr49911.C: New test.
>
> I think you forgot to add -fstrict-enums to the command line in the test.
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
15:09:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, sergos.gnu at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > Will it be a good idea to have a twos-complement architecture hook? In case
> > of
>
> All
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50321
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50319
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19831
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
15:04:17 UTC ---
Hm, and for invalid code like
int main()
{
int *p = __builtin_malloc (sizeof (int) * 4);
*p++ = 4;
*p++ = 8;
__builtin_free (p);
return 0;
}
we shouldn't ICE either ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #22 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2011-09-07 14:58:57 UTC ---
Thanks!
> * testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr49911.C: New test.
I think you forgot to add -fstrict-enums to the command line in the test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-07 14:40:07 UTC ---
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, sergos.gnu at gmail dot com wrote:
> Will it be a good idea to have a twos-complement architecture hook? In case of
All architectures supported by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36842
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-09-07 14:32:55 UTC ---
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36842
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-07
> 14:30:11 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-07
14:31:46 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 7 14:31:40 2011
New Revision: 178640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178640
Log:
2011-09-07 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36842
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-07
14:30:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I think the report asks for performing loop versioning in the frontend [...]
> where of course the tricky part is creating the appropriate condition
> and de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-07
14:25:45 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 7 14:25:39 2011
New Revision: 178639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178639
Log:
2011-09-07 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50321
Bug #: 50321
Summary: Erroneous unreachable code warning.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-07
14:21:51 UTC ---
The first difference is in fre1, just a better optimization:
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ foo (int i)
p$1_9 = &j;
# DEBUG p$1 => p$1_9
D.2704_2 = p$0_10;
- D.2705_3 = *D.2704_2;
+ D.27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50319
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
14:19:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 7 14:19:33 2011
New Revision: 178638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178638
Log:
2011-09-07 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19831
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48415
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-suse-linux|powerpc64-suse-linux,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
Sergey Ostanevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergos.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36842
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Fortran: Minimize heap |Fortran: Minimize heap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49030
--- Comment #10 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-09-07
13:50:49 UTC ---
I am out of the office until September 19th. For emergencies please contact
Fred Plante.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49030
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-07 13:48:08 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Sep 7 13:48:03 2011
New Revision: 178636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178636
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49030
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 13:31:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Sep 7 13:31:04 2011
New Revision: 178635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178635
Log:
2011-09-07 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
--- Comment #3 from Anton Shterenlikht 2011-09-07
13:18:04 UTC ---
This issue reappeared again.
On FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT ia64: gcc-4.7.0.20110730 builds fine.
Updating to 4.7.0.20110827 gives this error again:
gmake[3]: Leaving directory `/usr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-07
13:00:34 UTC ---
It looks like a duplicate of pr39856 fixed at revisions 147803/147804. You
should update your gfortran 4.5.3 or better 4.6.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35569
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martinhaefner at web dot de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50320
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50320
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-07
12:49:54 UTC ---
see PR 35569 and its duplicates such as PR 38238
I can't remember if this is even meant to work according to the TR1 spec -
we've fixed it for std::bind, but not tr1::bind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25219|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50319
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50320
Bug #: 50320
Summary: Calling tr1 binder with constant expression fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49464
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
--- Comment #8 from Stephan Bergmann 2011-09-07 12:14:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 25221
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25221
script compiling test case and showing broken result
I finally have a stripped down test case now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50255
--- Comment #7 from Stephan Bergmann 2011-09-07 12:12:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 25220
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25220
reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50319
Bug #: 50319
Summary: if-conversion produces unvectorizable conditions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50213
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50213
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
11:28:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 7 11:28:39 2011
New Revision: 178633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178633
Log:
2011-09-07 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-07
11:08:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 25219
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25219
gcc47-pr50310-avx.patch
For -mavx apparently we have CPU support for LTGT and UNEQ (and loads of ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50318
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50318
Bug #: 50318
Summary: ICE optimizing widening multiply-and-accumulate
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil
2011-09-07 10:57:36 UTC ---
<2><7d>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter)
<7e> DW_AT_name: s
<86> DW_AT_location: 2 byte block: 91 60 (DW_OP_fbreg: -32)
vs.
24: bf 01 00 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 10:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Thus, the patch seems to work.
Ok, thanks for checking. I'll commit as obvious the change to "dg-do link" for
class_45 and class_4.
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
Target: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
PASS: gcc (GCC) 4.6.2 20110907 (prerelease)
<2><5e>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_variable)
<5f> DW_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50309
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
--- Comment #1 from ygepes at gmail dot com 2011-09-07 10:09:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 25218
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25218
the offending source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
Bug #: 50316
Summary: ICE on fortran code with -O2 and -march=core2 options
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2011-09-07
09:33:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 25217
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25217
Dump after fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2011-09-07
09:32:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25216
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25216
Dump before fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50213
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
09:31:02 UTC ---
Other simple heuristic would be to not propagate the IV increment (see what
DOM does in simple_iv_increment_p). I'm going to test a patch like that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
Bug #: 50315
Summary: Regreesion on Atom after fix #49958
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36842
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50213
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
09:08:16 UTC ---
It will of course no longer combine offsets that way, like for
p_2 = p_1 + 4;
loop
p_4 = MEM[p_2 - 4];
so it's clearly not a win-win situation to base the decision on loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50213
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
08:59:01 UTC ---
With
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c (revision 178628)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49930
--- Comment #4 from Mike Hommey 2011-09-07
08:54:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So just the getpagesize remains?
getpagesize is in libiberty, it shouldn't matter anymore
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note that sincos() was introduced with A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49930
Loïc Minier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lool at dooz dot org
--- Comment #3 from Lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-07
08:29:25 UTC ---
You are right, with -O3 -fno-trapping-math already r151206 ICEs (haven't
bisected it down though).
If the vcond* condition on all targets just returned 0 for codes it doesn't
support,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50307
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
08:25:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> While this exact testcase is a recent regression, caused by
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178480
>
> double s1[4], s2[4], s3[4];
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50309
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021
--- Comment #9 from xuepeng guo 2011-09-07 08:25:45
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Wed Sep 7 08:25:38 2011
New Revision: 178628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178628
Log:
2011-09-07 Jiangning Liu
PR tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50310
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-07
08:19:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> On this second testcase it started with
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171236
Still a latent issue - the above hid it probably as wel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50314
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-07
07:56:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> +++ class_45b.f03 (working copy)
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -! { dg-do run }
> +! { dg-do link }
With that change, I get:
... gcc-build/gcc> make check-gfo
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
