http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-09
04:05:52 UTC ---
i changed the code now to save ret_val in a volatile global.
This is a bit better
(gdb) p saved_ret_val
$5 = (volatile tree) 0x2afc557b68c0
(gdb) p result
$6 = (tree_node *) 0x2afbfb754
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-09
02:31:38 UTC ---
Looked at this now again
debug_function doesn't work. TDF_UID was also not available, but i hardcoded
it.
(gdb) call debug_function (cfun->decl, 1<<8)
(gdb)
neither the other call
(g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34927
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34927
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-09 00:21:41 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Oct 9 00:21:37 2011
New Revision: 179718
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179718
Log:
2011-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25957
--- Comment #11 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-08
23:27:02 UTC ---
I just checked and the problem is still there with
4.7.0 20111002
xorq%fs:40, %rax
jne .L4
addq$120, %rsp
.cfi_remember_state
.cfi_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50668
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #2 from An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from H.J.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50670
Bug #: 50670
Summary: GCC testsuite try to execute sse2 code on non-sse2
machines
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50669
Bug #: 50669
Summary: no warning for unused globals
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50668
Bug #: 50668
Summary: gcc gives warnings for code with #if 0 #endif
code block
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50667
Bug #: 50667
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/vshuf-*
on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-08
21:50:37 UTC ---
Reverting the change for gcc/cgraphunit.c in revision 179429 fixes the pr.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2011-10-08
21:41:11 UTC ---
FORALL sucks rocks through a straw.
We cannot use the usual front-end optimization within forall, because
forall(iTime=1:2)
tmp = dble(iTime)
timeSteps(iTime)=ratio**(tmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50636
--- Comment #14 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-08
21:10:13 UTC ---
Thanks for the review. Fixed the accounting
I'll leave the xmalloc_failed hook out for now: it would need a retry
path which is somewhat complicated. If it's needed would probably just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jh at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50636
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-08
20:14:14 UTC ---
In the 0001-initial-madvise.patch patch I think if you subtract the size
MADV_DONTNEEDed from G.bytes_mapped, then you should add it again in
alloc_page (i.e. replace
+ p->unmapp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-08 20:12:37
UTC ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
df_ref_create_structure (cl=DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL, collection_rec=0xd110,
reg=0xafafafaf, loc=0x0, bb=0xf7dae000, info=0x0, ref_type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50636
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25445|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50666
Bug #: 50666
Summary: bad error reporting for TMPDIR full
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-08 19:23:54
UTC ---
This may be another target optimization bug:
[hjl@gnu-1 prev-gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.i
const char *
__attribute__((__target__("ssse3")))
foo (const char *s)
{
return s;
}
[hjl@gnu-1 prev-gcc]$ .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #43 from Mikael Morin 2011-10-08
17:57:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Thanks. One comment: I think you will increase the binary size by inlining the
> reduction. Could you consider keeping the current libgfortran version and
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50428
Nicola Pero changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50428
--- Comment #2 from Nicola Pero 2011-10-08 17:52:11
UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Sat Oct 8 17:52:06 2011
New Revision: 179711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179711
Log:
In libobjc/:
2011-10-08 Richard Frith-Macdonald
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665
Bug #: 50665
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50636
--- Comment #11 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-08
16:47:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 25445
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25445
patchkit
I tested this patchkit which implements most of the ideas from this bug,
unfortunately still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23267|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25409|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50662
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08 15:08:25 UTC ---
Here is an alternative patch to the one in comment #4:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50664
Bug #: 50664
Summary: GDB rebuilt by i686-w64-mingw32-gcc4.6.2's "-Os"
crahed when debuging, but "-O2" is OK.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #14 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-08 13:48:22 UTC ---
Thanks for adding me in the loop.
I wonder if we can reuse
-funsafe-loop-optimizations
to force loop vectorization.
I know that INTEL has introduced a specific pragma to force v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-08
13:08:21 UTC ---
So far I've been mostly looking at C loops (e.g. the ones reported by Vincenzo
or derived from those), or, e.g. with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00135.html for std::v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-08
12:57:55 UTC ---
Did you recently check even simpler loops, single range, like std::accumulate?
I'm trying to figure out if we can deal in a light way with the simpler cases,
like provide hints, and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-08
12:20:34 UTC ---
One possibility would be some fallthru hint to the compiler similar to
__builtin_assume_aligned that would tell the compiler that certain range of
bytes will not trap/fault on reading
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-08
11:34:51 UTC ---
I guess the problem with autovectorization of loop like:
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (array1[i] != array2[i])
break;
return i == n;
is the control flow in the loop and tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08 11:19:07 UTC ---
One more side note: The following variant segfaults with 4.3:
module Test_Mod
implicit none
contains
subroutine Init
procedure(Proc1) :: Proc_Get
end subroutine
f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-08
11:19:04 UTC ---
I see, in principle 256 bits too at a time, with avx or something, I guess.
That reminds me, i dont's why appropriate command line switches should not
trigger the use of the same instr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression]|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2011-10-08
10:59:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The analogy with copying and traits is enticing, but before reading Marc's
> message, I wondered: for pointers, which kind of improvement are we talking
> abou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-08
10:55:10 UTC ---
Compiling the code in comment #7 with 4.4.6 gives an ICE:
[macbook] f90/bug% gfortran-fsf-4.4 pr50659_3.f90
pr50659_3.f90:8: internal compiler error: in replace_symbol, at
fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50663
--- Comment #1 from amker.cheng 2011-10-08
10:25:04 UTC ---
Here comes the cause:
Though the cprop.c pass collected the implicit_set information, it is recorded
as local info of basic block, and cprop only does global propagation.
The result is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50663
Bug #: 50663
Summary: conditional propagation missed in cprop.c pass
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-10-08 10:22:30 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00597.html fixes the tls failures
(over a thousand in my tests;-).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas 2011-10-08 10:18:56
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Oct 8 10:18:51 2011
New Revision: 179710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179710
Log:
2011-10-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/47844
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-08
09:28:10 UTC ---
The analogy with copying and traits is enticing, but before reading Marc's
message, I wondered: for pointers, which kind of improvement are we talking
about? Comparing 64 bits at a tim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-08
07:35:25 UTC ---
Depends if pointer comparison on the architecture is the same as comparing
integer of the same size and if the alignment of the pointer is the same as its
size and all bits are signifi
53 matches
Mail list logo
