http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #11 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-11 06:07:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> Well, the original code in mdbx.f90 has the interleaving group of 3 (I only
> changed the "decoration" around the loop to keep a valid code).
Sorry, you ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #10 from Ira Rosen 2011-11-11 06:03:14 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> patch fixes the ICE, but then the scalar stmt stays in the tree at the end of
> *.vect pass (and at least in this case is DCEd afterwards).
I wonder if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50372
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-11
04:29:09 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Nov 11 04:29:04 2011
New Revision: 181280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181280
Log:
PR c++/50372
* pt.c (convert_nontype_argume
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50473
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-11
01:38:40 UTC ---
Apparently r181278 doesn't ICE anymore:
50473.C:14:36: error: taking address of temporary [-fpermissive]
50473.C:14:36: error: ‘* & s<0u>()’ is not a constant expression
but the erro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50213
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-11
00:47:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> We don't backport this kind of patches generally, they may expose
> more serious bugs on release branches.
I do get one failure with this patch applied in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50385
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51084
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51090
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-10 23:52:48
UTC ---
Created attachment 25793
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25793
Proposed solution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51090
Bug #: 51090
Summary: libgfortran main.c missing NULL check on return value
from getenv()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50973
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41096
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50871
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47761
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35174
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33803
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50973
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-10
21:14:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 10 21:14:42 2011
New Revision: 181272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181272
Log:
PR c++/50973
* decl2.c (mark_used): Defer s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51082
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
-O1 -fexceptions bug.f90
bug.f90: In function ‘tfw_lda_eval’:
bug.f90:16:0: error: verify_flow_info: Duplicate edge 16->17
bug.f90:16:0: internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed
Please submit a full bug report,
gcc version 4.7.0 2010 (experimental) [trunk revision 181265
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe 2011-11-10 20:52:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> trying to reproduce this on x86_64... the confusing thing is that emultls
> don't
> seem to fiddle with aliases in any special way.
Well, if there's any in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51088
Bug #: 51088
Summary: undefined symbol [local label] (optimization of
indirect goto)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51038
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod 2011-11-10
20:38:46 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Thu Nov 10 20:38:33 2011
New Revision: 181271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181271
Log:
PR middle-end/51038
libstdc++-v3
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-10 20:33:23
UTC ---
Problem also seen on sparc-rtems and patch referenced in URL addresses the
problem. Build proceeding now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51079
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51087
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50983
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51079
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-10
20:28:26 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 10 20:28:16 2011
New Revision: 181270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181270
Log:
PR c++/51079, DR 495
* call.c (joust): Chec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50983
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-10
20:28:14 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 10 20:28:04 2011
New Revision: 181269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181269
Log:
PR debug/50983
* dwarf2out.c (set_cur_line_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51082
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-10 20:04:55 UTC ---
Note: The following variant works.
program ala
implicit none
type process_list
procedure(ala1), pointer, nopass :: process
end type
type(process_list), target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51082
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51087
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-11-10
19:52:30 UTC ---
This looks like a dup of bug http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
. Can you try the patch linked in there?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-10
19:50:32 UTC ---
Oh, yes, if you want, please do that, the patch becomes very small!, but also
add a one line comment before __promote explaining the trick (I don't remember
if we added one for the it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51087
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-10 19:41:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 25792
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25792
Preprocessed source for failure case
Reduced command line.
/home2/joel/build/b-sparc-gcc/./gcc/xgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gnu++0x: resolving |[C++11] [cmplx.over]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51087
Bug #: 51087
Summary: Regression ICE SPARC compiling complex.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17838
Tom St Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tstdenis at elliptictech
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17838
--- Comment #9 from Tom St Denis 2011-11-10
19:28:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Created attachment 25751 [details]
> > Another test case
> >
> > Another example using
> >
> > gcc version 4.6.1 20110908 (Red
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-10
19:13:06 UTC ---
Yes, we should just constrain real and imag with __enable_if, the usual story.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-10
19:07:44 UTC ---
On 11/10/2011 10:53 AM, 3dw4rd at verizon dot net wrote:
> Potentail patch #2a.
> + t = TREE_VALUE (argtype);
> + if (!argtype)
> + return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 19:05:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> But this is not quite true either. genpreds will *omit* generation of
> the explicit test (mode == VOIDmode || mode == GET_MODE (op)) if the
> predicate ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
19:04:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 10 19:04:01 2011
New Revision: 181264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181264
Log:
PR middle-end/51077
* tree-object-size.c (a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-10
19:03:37 UTC ---
slightly further reduced
#include
namespace a
{
template class Mat { };
template
struct Mat2
{
Mat2(Mat) { }
};
template
int
imag(Mat2)
{ ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
19:02:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 10 19:02:30 2011
New Revision: 181263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181263
Log:
PR middle-end/51077
* tree-object-size.c (a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-10
19:01:10 UTC ---
reduced
#include
namespace a
{
template class Mat { };
typedef std::complex cx_double;
typedef Mat cx_mat;
template
struct Mat2
{
Mat2(Mat) { }
};
struct Res { };
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
18:40:05 UTC ---
The problem is that we have several SLP instances referring to the same call
stmt, so vectorizable_call is called on the same stmt several times.
But vectorizable_call wants to replace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51080
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #21 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-11-10
18:22:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
>
> The documentation is wrong, so following patch removes all the blurb about
> handling of constants.
>
> Index: doc/md.texi
> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-10
18:20:03 UTC ---
As a general observation about this kind of road to performance improvement:
before manually unrolling loops, I think we should **carefully** analyze why
the loop unrolling optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51037
bin2008.gcc.bugzilla at undecidable dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25756|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #20 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 18:10:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > However, it is rejected by the lea_address_operand predicate check
> > due to its mode (VOIDmode != SImode). This is a bit odd because most
> > standard p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51080
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #9 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 18:08:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I can't seem to find a mention of the compiler flags you used for your
> benchmarks, what are they? -Ofast -funroll-loops?
-march=native -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #4 from jochenzimmermann at gmx dot de 2011-11-10 18:06:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 25790
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25790
compressed preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-11-10 18:02:02 UTC
---
Created attachment 25789
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25789
preprocessed input
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
Bug #: 51086
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE in move_insn, at
haifa-sched.c:3437
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-10 17:49:19
UTC ---
Patch doesn't compile.
/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c: In function
‘generate_coarray_sym_init’:
/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:4240:59: e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #2 from jochenzimmermann at gmx dot de 2011-11-10 17:43:40 UTC ---
It appears the attachment was too large... Also I failed a reproducing the
problem with a minimal testcase.
Please see URL for the source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-11-10 17:43:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Shouldn't libitm be built with the "stage1" g++ as it is a target library,
> even with --disable-bootstrap?
Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
jochenzimmermann at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://www.freefilehosting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51085
Bug #: 51085
Summary: "volatile const" structures (in C) go in the .data
section, not .rodata as expected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51084
Bug #: 51084
Summary: bounds checking not optimized to a single comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse 2011-11-10
17:28:46 UTC ---
Hello,
I can't seem to find a mention of the compiler flags you used for your
benchmarks, what are they? -Ofast -funroll-loops?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Bug #: 51083
Summary: gnu++0x: resolving overloaded functions belonging to
different namespaces
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
--- Comment #4 from gee 2011-11-10 17:04:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25787
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25787
preprocessed source
$ g++ Engine.ii -c -O2
src/Engine.cpp: In member function 'void boost::python::class_::def_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51040
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod 2011-11-10
16:39:36 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Thu Nov 10 16:39:32 2011
New Revision: 181259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181259
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51040
* optabs.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51038
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
hariharans at picochip dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Component|rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ubizjak at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #17 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-10
15:53:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 25785
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25785
Potentail patch #2a.
Here's a version of the second patch that actual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51023
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
15:36:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 10 15:36:48 2011
New Revision: 181257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181257
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51023
* combine.c (simp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
15:29:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 10 15:28:57 2011
New Revision: 181256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181256
Log:
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-10
15:06:40 UTC ---
> However, it is rejected by the lea_address_operand predicate check
> due to its mode (VOIDmode != SImode). This is a bit odd because most
> standard predicates accept a CONST_INT n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-11-10
15:01:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Similar ICE happens when building libstdc++-v3 for
> > arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi.
>
> Can you please test the referred patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51082
Bug #: 51082
Summary: Proc-pointer: Wrong result for a pointer to a
proc-pointer component
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
14:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> subroutine int2()
> 1
> Error: FUNCTION attribute conflicts with SUBROUTINE attribute in 'int2' at (1)
Seemingly both INT and INT2 have s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|-std=f20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51031
--- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth 2011-11-10
14:39:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> On x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 181249, the link error is
>
>
> ld: codegen problem, can't use rel32 to external symbol
> ___emutls_v._ZN3GTM12_gtm_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
Bug #: 51081
Summary: -std=f2003: Internal procedure in proc-pointer
assignment: Mention that it is valid in F2008
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-11-10
14:22:48 UTC ---
Revision 181251 fixes the ICEs for the codes in comment #0 and #1 (thanks).
However at revision 181255 compiling the original mdbx.f90, the extracted
subroutine, or the reduced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #7 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 14:06:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Before looking at your patch, do you have a copyright assignment in place for
> contributing to GCC?
No, but I'm ready to sign it. What should I do now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #16 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-11-10
14:04:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > Is this with your patch from comment 6? You really can't have a CONST_INT
> > inside a zero_extend; the abort is justified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
13:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 25784 [details]
> gcc47-pr51074.patch
>
> Folding patch. For __builtin_shuffle it works well.
Looks good.
> For the interleaved sto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
13:47:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 25784
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25784
gcc47-pr51074.patch
Folding patch. For __builtin_shuffle it works well.
For the interleaved stores
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51070
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=51070
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
13:46:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 10 13:46:27 2011
New Revision: 181255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181255
Log:
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 13:38:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Is this with your patch from comment 6? You really can't have a CONST_INT
> inside a zero_extend; the abort is justified.
No, this is with the patch from co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-11-10
13:34:02 UTC ---
Is this with your patch from comment 6? You really can't have a CONST_INT
inside a zero_extend; the abort is justified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
13:33:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Do I need to test your patch locally? Or are you committing it?
I plan to commit it - but I am not sure how soon; it might take some days.
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
