http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-12
05:54:29 UTC ---
If there is a death point of the pseudo that dominates bbs with uses in some
debug insns, then I think best is to insert the debug temporary immediately
before the death point. If the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54482
--- Comment #3 from Ollie Wild 2012-09-12 04:58:29 UTC
---
Note, however, that simply changing pic_flag to
pic_flag="-D_GLIBCXX_SHARED -fPIC -DPIC"
is insufficient. It suffers from the same issue as the original problem,
namely that, when c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #6 from Veiokej 2012-09-12 04:14:52 UTC
---
In the process of trying to create a demo, I think I found the problem.
Indeed, no math is taking place between when the value X is first computed and
stored to the list, and when it's comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #5 from Veiokej 2012-09-12 03:28:43 UTC
---
Johnathan,
Yes, I've read the floating point nonbug stuff. This isn't a nonbug.
Michael,
I understand your point, and thanks for the command line option. However, this
is a subtly differe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54482
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44191
Israel Pinkas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ipinkas at nds dot com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
Larry Baker changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28165|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-09-11
21:20:11 UTC ---
I guess we have to somehow local all death points of the pseudo in paths
towards the debug use, and insert debug insns binding the same debug temp to
the pseudo before all of the dea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54544
--- Comment #4 from Zakhar 2012-09-11 21:09:28 UTC
---
MORE
Unfortunately, I don't think the hypothesis of the uninitialized pointed memory
hold. That should prove it if we add:
/*01*/ int fct(volatile int *p);
/*02*/
/*03*/ static int
/*0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40836
--- Comment #31 from Daniel Drake 2012-09-11 19:11:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 28173
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28173
preprocessed source that crashes
Another preprocessed source example that shows this crasher, from g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #27 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
19:08:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the pointers, Jakub. I'll work on adding this check.
Teresa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-11
18:58:59 UTC ---
Indeed, seems http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-05/msg00571.html
has introduced use of that macro, but didn't bother to actually define it
anywhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #24 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
18:57:05 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2012-09-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|32-bit X86 on Linux |i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-11
18:19:29 UTC ---
This PR seems to be a duplicate of pr53306.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53306
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-11
18:16:59 UTC ---
This PR is fixed by the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-09/msg00035.html for pr54225. Isn't it a
duplicate?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-09-11 18:14:52 UTC ---
gcc/gcov-io.h has:
#if defined (HOST_HAS_F_SETLKW)
#define GCOV_LOCKED 1
#else
#define GCOV_LOCKED 0
#endif
But HOST_HAS_F_SETLKW isn't defined anywhere else AFAICS:
gcc % git
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-11 18:10:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
>
> Obviously the best solution would be to figure out how the lock is
> being lost/ignored and fix that, but that may take some time.
>
Can we use a lockfile to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #21 from davidxl at google dot com 2012-09-11 18:08:26 UTC ---
Assuming the size of histogram for the same file does not vary that
much, is it better to round the size to the next power of 2 -- 60
entries will need print out 64 etc?
Da
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
18:05:13 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> How much saving do we get by not writing out the 0 entries? With the
> proposed change, how less frequent is the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #19 from davidxl at google dot com 2012-09-11 17:44:29 UTC ---
How much saving do we get by not writing out the 0 entries? With the
proposed change, how less frequent is the problem occuring?
David
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
17:39:00 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-11 17:29:15
> UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-11 17:29:15
UTC ---
Thanks for looking into it. This is a long standing problem.
I have seen random profiledbootstrap failures for a long time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
17:24:58 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54544
Zakhar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54552
--- Comment #1 from Jens Gustedt 2012-09-11
16:11:59 UTC ---
The compiler error is
test-p99-gcc-bug.c:9:6: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:7584
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54552
Bug #: 54552
Summary: Cast to pointer to VLA crash the compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54492
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11 15:57:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> My suspicious is that one of Richard's commits in May fixed the issue. In turn
> that probably means that backing out the patch for PR50640 only w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz 2012-09-11 15:48:10
UTC ---
Or with the more recent -fexcess-precision=standard option.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-09-11
15:34:59 UTC ---
Have you read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general and PR 323?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-11
15:24:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 11 15:24:06 2012
New Revision: 191191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191191
Log:
PR libstdc++/54172
* libsupc++/guard.cc (_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-11
15:23:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 11 15:22:54 2012
New Revision: 191190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191190
Log:
PR libstdc++/54172
* libsupc++/guard.cc (_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-11
15:23:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 11 15:22:54 2012
New Revision: 191190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191190
Log:
PR libstdc++/54172
* libsupc++/guard.cc (_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-11
15:02:00 UTC ---
There are a lot more reasons why we do not vectorize this loop :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
Bug #: 54551
Summary: DF resets some DEBUG_INSNs unnecessarily
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Bug #: 54550
Summary: GCC -O3 breaks floating point equality comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-11
13:47:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > > Could it be revision 181505?
> > Very likely. If it is, I'm betting on the PR50640 part of that commit.
>
> Indeed the follo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #26 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-11
13:44:44 UTC ---
The solution of comment 3, fixed by comment 24 seems to break the test case of
PR fortran/53718.
Reverting the patch (comment 24, except for unrelated class.c part) fixes the
issue o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54549
Bug #: 54549
Summary: Compilation Error : Assertion Failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-09-11
12:28:11 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Sep 11 12:28:02 2012
New Revision: 191179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191179
Log:
PR middle-end/54149
* tree-ssa-loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54312
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-11
11:03:52 UTC ---
Patch pre-approved (also for 4.7) if it passes your testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54548
Bug #: 54548
Summary: unclear error message for ambiguous type lookup.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
--- Comment #7 from ramrad01 at arm dot com 2012-09-11 10:44:30 UTC ---
On 09/11/12 07:09, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-11
10:43:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 11 10:43:13 2012
New Revision: 191176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191176
Log:
2012-09-11 Richard Guenther
PR debug/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-11 10:38:32 UTC ---
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2012-09-11
> 10:19:04 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54403
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2012-09-11
10:19:04 UTC ---
Well, the patch really is quite symptomatic - i.e. dwarf2out should not forget
about the decl when it is removed from varpool.
The way things are supposed to work (I believe) is to call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-11
09:49:27 UTC ---
I am testing
Index: gcc/cgraph.h
===
--- gcc/cgraph.h(revision 191174)
+++ gcc/cgraph.h(working copy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54545
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
Bug #: 54546
Summary: SH: Enable -fshrink-wrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54515
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54515
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54515
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-11
08:32:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 11 08:32:29 2012
New Revision: 191174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191174
Log:
2012-09-11 Richard Guenther
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54528
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
64 matches
Mail list logo
