http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
Bug #: 50346
Summary: Function call foils VRP/jump-threading of redundant
predicate on struct member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-09 22:40:46
UTC ---
It is caused by revision 178728:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-09/msg00343.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-09 22:05:16
UTC ---
The same error on 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2K:
g++ -c -o ggPlane.o -DSPEC_CPU2000_LP64 -DHAS_ERRLIST-I. -DNDEBUG -O3
-funroll-loops -ffast-math -fwhole-program -flto=jobserver -fuse-li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50327
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2011-09-09
21:59:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 25236
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25236
Tentative patch
This one replaces a DO WHILE loop with its equivalent,
DO
IF (.not. ...) EXIT
form
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2011-09-09
20:51:23 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Sep 9 20:51:18 2011
New Revision: 178740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178740
Log:
Branch for bug 50341
Added:
branches/ibm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #8 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-09-09 19:50:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Try CC="gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0" $srcdir/configure
Works. Works better if you say
$srcdir/configure CC="gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0"
(then you do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50344
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-09
19:47:42 UTC ---
both testcases are fixed simply by adding this to the top of make_friend_class
in friend.c
friend_type = cv_unqualified (friend_type);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49966
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #6 from Paul Koning 2011-09-09
19:11:01 UTC ---
I saw the note that PR/49911 is fixed and thought that might mean this one is
fixed also. Unfortunately testing shows that is not the case, at least not in
4_5_branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38306
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-02-20 19:01:16 |2011-09-09 19:01:16
--- Comment #24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-09
18:56:19 UTC ---
> Is there an approved way of getting CFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0" into the
> configure process? (there isn't AFAICT a problem with the actual build). I've
> tried
>
> ../gcc-4.6.1/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #6 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-09-09 18:49:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Should an separate enhancement
> request PR be opened for the addition of these new builtins to FSF gcc? I
> believe this was Mike Stump's recomme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org 2011-09-09 18:46:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Other than only building ada triggers the bug.
>
> Huh? How could Ada have something to do with the toplevel configure?
The problem only happe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50327
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48320
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-09
18:09:00 UTC ---
> Other than only building ada triggers the bug.
Huh? How could Ada have something to do with the toplevel configure?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49030
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-09
17:00:33 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Sep 9 17:00:26 2011
New Revision: 178736
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178736
Log:
PR target/49030
* gcc.dg/torture/pr49030.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19599
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-09-09
16:29:22 UTC ---
>
> --- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2011-09-09
> 14:55:20 UTC ---
> Ping Ramana.
Sigh - yes will look into this .
Ramana
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2011-09-09
16:11:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Nothing to do with Ada per se.
Other than only building ada triggers the bug. Should an separate enhancement
request PR be opened for the addition of these n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50345
Bug #: 50345
Summary: Incomplete GCC Internals sentence on LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50338
--- Comment #3 from James McKelvey
2011-09-09 15:45:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do any of the libraries you link with have LTO information or is it just
> stest0.o?
> If so, can you attach preprocessed source for that?
>
> Honza, does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47591
--- Comment #2 from Michael Haubenwallner 2011-09-09 15:32:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 25235
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25235
output of 'gmake install' for gcc-4.6.1, using xlc v6 on aix5.3
Same here, however with gcc-4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50344
Bug #: 50344
Summary: friend declaration confused by const qualifier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50340
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19599
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-21 14:29:50 |2011-09-09 14:29:50
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-09 14:53:28
UTC ---
spawn -ignore SIGHUP
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64corei7/bld/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64corei7/bld/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
Bug #: 50343
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/id-22.f
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49614
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49614
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2011-09-09 13:51:18
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Fri Sep 9 13:51:12 2011
New Revision: 178730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178730
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
PR target/49614
* gcc.dg/vmx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
Bug #: 50342
Summary: gcc/configure fails on Mac OS X Lion/Xcode 4.1 if
building Ada
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #44 from Joel Sherrill 2011-09-09
13:27:54 UTC ---
Ping.. any chance of getting the proposed 4.6 fix merged? Please.
This is almost a 3 year old bug. It would be nice to get it closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
Bug #: 50341
Summary: calls via function pointer wrongly scheduled giving
invalid TOC pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50328
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50328
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-09
12:35:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 9 12:35:11 2011
New Revision: 178728
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178728
Log:
2011-09-09 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50340
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50340
Bug #: 50340
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Fails to build SPEC 2000 176.gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50339
Bug #: 50339
Summary: suboptimal register allocation for abs(__int128_t)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-09
11:35:28 UTC ---
It's indeed a very unlikely candidate (unless cc1[plus] is miscompiled of
course).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-09-09
11:22:00 UTC ---
Hmm, are you sure you bisected that correctly? I did a build on gcc60 with the
patch reverted, and it failed with the same error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2011-09-09 10:09:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It is not known bug, register allocator assigns x87 stack register to SImode
> (integer) move. This bug can't be solved without (minimized) testcase.
Please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-09-09 09:58:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Hi Tobias, I have upgraded to version 4.7.0 and the cse bug is gone.
> However, when I tried to compile shelxl (crystal structure refinement
> program) with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50333
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50333
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-09
09:06:55 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 9 09:06:49 2011
New Revision: 178720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178720
Log:
2011-09-09 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50328
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-09
09:05:39 UTC ---
Ah, we fail outer loop vectorization because of a bug (versioning for alias
required) and then drop into vectorizable_reduction with a
statement with a operand def that is a PHI wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49997
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-09 08:43:16 UTC
---
> Or finally drop the key dependence on the number of callers.
Possibly. Last time I tried it it however lead to bigger and slower binaries.
Well, I will patch frescobaldi today and let
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50338
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-09 08:34:48 UTC
---
> Honza, does the ICE ring any bell?
I don't recall seeing it previously. The check tests that partition contains
only analyzed nodes,
so it should not be that hard to track down who add
> Honza, does the ICE ring any bell?
I don't recall seeing it previously. The check tests that partition contains
only analyzed nodes,
so it should not be that hard to track down who adds the unanalyzed one. I
will try to do bit
of proofreading today in bus.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50316
--- Comment #4 from ygepes at gmail dot com 2011-09-09 08:18:11 UTC ---
Hi Tobias, I have upgraded to version 4.7.0 and the cse bug is gone.
However, when I tried to compile shelxl (crystal structure refinement
program) with this version, throwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50333
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-09
07:41:50 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
static inline void
unext(unsigned int *_ui, unsigned _len, unsigned int _ui0)
{
unsigned j = 1;
while (++j<_len)
;
_ui[j-1]=_ui0;
}
unsigned in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50333
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50338
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Version|lto
61 matches
Mail list logo
