http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Kreb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus ---
Janus' submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00026.html
Looks great and fixes also comment 10's test case.
* * *
I tried to test for the "intrinsic elemental" of comment 2's standard q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58467
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58467
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Sep 20 06:08:44 2013
New Revision: 202764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-20 Marek Polacek
PR other/58467
* doc/extend.texi: Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58454
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58442
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann ---
I stared at the assembly a bit more (but my vax fu is weak):
we are in the last line of
216 #line 781 "../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/vax/vax.md"
217 ((INTVAL (operands[1]) == 8 || INTVAL (operands[1])
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|slow compilation on |[4.9 Regression] slow
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58478
Bug ID: 58478
Summary: very slow compilation at -O1 and above on a nested
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58318
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
> A quick check with a non-bootstrapped cc1 but release checking makes the
> slowdown go away.
Richard, there is related testcase that I have just reported (58479). It
manifests also under release checking. Tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58478
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Confirmed.
That's quick; thanks Marek!
Please also take a look at 58479 when you get a chance.
It's related (as well as 58318).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58478
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Bug ID: 58479
Summary: slow compilation on x86_64-linux at -O1 (and above)
with -g, but checking disabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What's the difference between defined_assignment_11_db.f90 and
> defined_assignment_11.f90?
In defined_assignment_11_db.f90 the print statements have been uncommented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58435
--- Comment #6 from iavr at image dot ntua.gr ---
(In reply to pa...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
> Author: paolo
> Date: Tue Sep 17 17:46:03 2013
> New Revision: 202662
>
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your immediate response. However, I have to report t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Bug ID: 58477
Summary: ice in cgraph_speculative_call_info
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot de
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58461
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58465
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Also, I've just extracted the regex call into a tiny test app and there is no
deadlock... so, it is a bit puzzling...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #25 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that naively doing what I am proposing in comment #14 (it's just an
iter_swap and a +-1) also makes reverse-sorted arrays a bad case, because of
the way we do partitioning, so it isn't an alternative to Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58435
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Of course. Just look at the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #22 from Tammy Hsu ---
Thanks a lot. We will test it out with our real application.
Just want to do things right, the patch is the one described in Attachment
30861. And I just need to patch the
/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_algo.h, don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> The test gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_11.f90 fails on
> x86_64-apple-darwin10:
> ==30916== Invalid read of size 4
> ==30916==at 0x121EF: MAIN__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 19 17:03:51 2013
New Revision: 202750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202750&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58472
* c-c++-common/gomp/pr58472.c: New test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini ---
If this is a question, the answer is YES.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 19 16:56:40 2013
New Revision: 202748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202748&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58472
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_store,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #24 from Tammy Hsu ---
Yes, it is a question. And thank you for the answer... :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58464
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58463
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58476
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58465
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Hey Kostya, unfortunately I have no way to check that. This happens in
our product code I cannot built it with Clang.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58464
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey M. Birnbaum ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #19)
> I ran some quick tests and indeed the performance seems equal of better of
> those of the old C++03 code. Note that the patch is very small and can be
> in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #20 from Chris Jefferson ---
Created attachment 30867
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30867&action=edit
Performance tests for sort
This is some performance tests for performance checking. Sorry for tar rather
than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58467
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente ---
w/o opening another bug report
c++ -O2 -S omp4red.cc -fopenmp -Wall
omp4red.cc: In function ‘float sumO1()’:
omp4red.cc:6:9: warning: ‘simduid.0’ is used uninitialized in this function
[-Wuninitialized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58467
--- Comment #1 from Paul Smith ---
Housekeeping: it would be very nice to have a "Doc" component in bugzilla. As
it was I picked "c" because it was that part of the docs. Thx!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58446
Gregor Richards changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30835|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58446
Gregor Richards changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30834|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58446
Gregor Richards changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30831|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58476
Bug ID: 58476
Summary: bootstrap failure with Go enabled
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is that
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "arith_reg_dest" "=r")
(ior:SI (and:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "arith_reg_operand" "r")
accepts fpul registers in the predicate, but not in the const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
Bug ID: 58475
Summary: SH4 insn swapb does not satisfy its constraints:
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58465
--- Comment #2 from Kostya Serebryany ---
does this happen with clang trunk?
BTW, I hope to do a fresh merge in the nearest 2-3 weeks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente ---
Yes I compile gcc with -O2 -ftree-vectorize
on linux I also do bootstrap-lto
strange that the compiler does not warn about this uninitialized variable:
it does for a couple of others that force me to com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I bet the difference is probably that your tree-vect-stmts.o has been compiled
with -O2, while mine with -O0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente ---
seems so
gcc -O2 libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-4.c -fopenmp
c++ -O2 -S omp4red.cc -fopenmp| cat omp4red.s
.text
.align 4,0x90
.globl __Z5sumO1v
__Z5sumO1v:
LFB0:
etc
could you please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Sep 19 11:40:29 2013
New Revision: 202737
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-19 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/58338
* include/bits/stl_tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse ---
[Ugh, bugzilla seems half broken at the moment]
> I would suggest my current patch (which is simpler than it looks from the
> diff) for previous versions, then investigate pivot.
Well, you're the one doing a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Another example where addv could be used:
int test (int a)
{
if (a == 0x7FFF)
return a;
return a + 1;
}
currently compiles to:
-O2 -m2a:
mov.l .L6,r1
cmp/eq r1,r4
bt.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358
--- Comment #26 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 19 10:19:58 2013
New Revision: 202736
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-19 Mitsuru Kariya
Chris Jefferson
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini ---
Can I ask you also a rather simple test for
testsuite/performance/25_algorithms?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #16 from Chris Jefferson ---
Indeed, if std::sort had never used lower-level partitioning to get the pivot
in the correct location, we would never have had this problem in the first
place!
This is not too serious a problem performance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente ---
gcc -O2 libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-3.c -fopenmp
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-3.c: In function ‘foo’:
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-3.c:14:1: internal compiler error: in
vectorizable_store, a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks a lot guys, I appreciate all the help you are providing. While fixing
this, let's remember that this regressed even in the old 4.7.x branch. Thus, if
we are sure we are minimally restoring the performa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente ---
on linux
c++ -O2 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1 -S omp4red.cc -fopenmp
omp4red.cc:8:13: note: loop vectorized
omp4red.cc: In function 'float sumO1()':
omp4red.cc:4:7: internal compiler error: in vectori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente ---
yes
cat omp4red.cc
float a[1024];
float b[1024];
float sumO1() {
float s = 0.f;
#pragma omp simd reduction(+:s)
for (int i=0;i<1024;++i) {
s += a[i]*b[i];
}
return s;
}
pb-d-128-141-131-26:ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #39 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #37)
> In order to use movmisalign_optab
> instructions when we can, we should probably only do it if tem is a
> structure with a zero sized array.
I do also see poss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58394
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58473
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58473
Bug ID: 58473
Summary: [4.9 regression] FAIL:
ext/random/normal_mv_distribution/cons/default.cc
(test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_11.f90 fails on x86_64-apple-darwin10:
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
Valgrind reports
==30916== Invalid read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
Hi Chris,
(detail: could you pass -u10, or at least -p, to diff to make the patches
easier to read? It isn't required so you don't have to)
I don't really understand why the pivot is still considered in lower
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #13 from Chris Jefferson ---
Created attachment 30861
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30861&action=edit
Sort patch
Wow, this an embarrassing bug to get through testing. Obviously not enough
profiling done!
This pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
Bug ID: 58472
Summary: gomp4: ICE in in vectorizable_store, at
tree-vect-stmts.c:4192
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
74 matches
Mail list logo
