http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> I think we just want to copy the following from
> nonoverlapping_component_refs_p:
>
> /* If we're left with accessing different fields of a structure, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58641
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58630
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #28 from vincenzo Innocente ---
updated to the new revision
gcc version 4.9.0 20131007 (experimental) [gomp-4_0-branch revision 203250]
(GCC)
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ setenv OMP_PROC_BIND 'spread,master,close
-checking=release --with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131007 (experimental) [trunk revision 203235] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c; a.out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58661
Bug ID: 58661
Summary: Definition of inherited nested class should be invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993
--- Comment #3 from Carrot ---
I don't have a reduced test case. But I have a reduced config file.
###
ext = Linux64
backup_config = 0
makeflags = -j64
default=default=defau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58357
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57641
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57641
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 7 23:21:58 2013
New Revision: 203256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57641
* include/std/mutex (timed_mutex, recursive_time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58660
Bug ID: 58660
Summary: ARM/Thumb non-interworking code broken in libgcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
Bug ID: 58659
Summary: Construction of shared_ptr from unique_ptr mismatches
new/delete and std::allocator for __shared_ptr_count
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de |
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> Confirmed. Untested patch:
Which of course doesn't work. What helps is the following patch (not
regtested). I wonder why there is the unlimited check. - It looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #26)
> [innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ ./affinity-1.exe | grep veri
>
> libgomp: Number of places reduced from 5 to 1 because some places didn't
> contain any usabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #11 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #13 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #4 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #17 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58509
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
This bootstrap error still occurs with gcc-4.9-20131006. I've now decided to
stop testing Ada on SPARC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
Bug ID: 58658
Summary: Pointer assignment to allocatable unlimited
polymorphic accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56313
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58635
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58657
--- Comment #1 from Elad Nachman ---
Created attachment 30965
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30965&action=edit
proposed patch for sh4eb target under gcc 4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58657
Bug ID: 58657
Summary: bootstrapping cross compiler for sh4eb-*.* target
wrongly creates a compiler with emulated TLS support
instead of native TLS support
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #26 from vincenzo Innocente ---
On 7 Oct, 2013, at 3:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
>
> --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> It is fine if the testcase doesn't fork an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is fine if the testcase doesn't fork and doesn't verify for taskset -c
24-31, that would be too hard to support, the testcase doesn't fail because of
that.
But, do you get the ", verified" strings in the l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #24 from vincenzo Innocente ---
ok, modified to ">="
taskset -c 0-31 gdb ./affinity-1.exe
GNU gdb (GDB) Red Hat Enterprise Linux (7.2-60.el6_4.1)
(gdb) b
/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:179
Breakp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58635
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57226
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, right, obviously I meant
--- libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c2013-10-07 09:31:53.884695701
+0200
+++ libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c2013-10-07 14:09:52.475331358
+0200
@@ -178,7 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #22 from vincenzo Innocente ---
on the XEON
setenv OMP_PROC_BIND false
reakpoint 1, main () at
/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/affinity-1.c:181
181/home/data/newsoft/gcc-gomp4/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 7 11:39:39 2013
New Revision: 203243
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203243&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/58642
* config/linux/proc.c: Include errno.h.
(gomp_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll commit the patch anyway, it is a step forward.
Anyway, the way the testcase is written is that if you run it with
OMP_PROC_BIND=false in the environment and OMP_PLACES unset, then it should
fork and exe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58656
Bug ID: 58656
Summary: rnflow regressing after r202826
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58655
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58655
Bug ID: 58655
Summary: [avr] -mfract-convert-truncate not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: minor
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #19 from vincenzo Innocente ---
On 7 Oct, 2013, at 12:27 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> or config.h doesn't defined HAVE_PTHREAD_AFFINITY_NP, then that's
> expected.
innocent@vinavx0 testsuite]$ cat ../config.h
/* config.h.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #18 from vincenzo Innocente ---
On 7 Oct, 2013, at 12:27 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #16)
> [innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ setenv OMP_PROC_BIND false
> [innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ ./affinity-1.exe
> OMP_PROC_BIND='false'
> Initial thread
> #1 thre
:HI 18 r18)
; (nil
rcall __mulhisi3 ; 26*mulhisi3_call[length = 1]
; (jump_insn 31 21 30 (return) pr57503.c:6 451 {return}
; (nil)
; -> return)
ret ; 31return[length = 1]
.sizefunc1, .-func1
.ident"GCC: (GNU)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #16 from vincenzo Innocente ---
./affinity-1.exe
Initial thread
#1 thread 1
#1 thread 0
#1 thread 3
#1 thread 2
#1,#1 thread 3,1
#1,#1 thread 3,0
#1,#1 thread 3,2
#1,#2 thread 3,4
#1,#2 thread 3,0
#1,#2 thread 3,1
#1,#2 thread 3,3
#1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58654
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xur at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55653
--- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw ---
On the secondary issue of initializing FP vectors to zero, we now generate for
typedef double f __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
f g()
{
f a = {0.0, 0.0};
return a;
}
g:
moviv0.2d, 0
return) pr57503.c:6 451 {return}
; (nil)
; -> return)
ret ; 31return[length = 1]
Insn 26 sign-extends both inputs but R18 (unsigned ab) should be zero-extended.
Tested with SVN 203240
gcc version 4.9.0 20131007 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55653
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58626
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55743
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
It's the loop unswitching.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58617
--- Comment #2 from Heiko.Abraham ---
I can confirm, r202652 resolve this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58653
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #14)
> for "historical reason" I build gcc on my local workstation not on the XEON.
> Also I do not have the gcc test infrastructure…
>
> can I copy any of those
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #14 from vincenzo Innocente ---
On 7 Oct, 2013, at 10:06 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Ah, and can you also do make check RUNTES
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #13 from vincenzo Innocente ---
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ setenv OMP_PROC_BIND true; setenv OMP_PLACES
'threads'
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ gcc -fopenmp trivialOMP.cpp
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ ./a.out
[innocent@olsnba04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, and can you also do make check RUNTESTFLAGS=c.exp=affinity-1.c
in the libgomp build directory and see whether it was PASS and, if
testsuite/libgomp.log contains any lines ending with verified and none mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #10)
> seems working
Thanks. Can you please also try some simple (with -fopenmp):
int
main (void)
{
#pragma omp parallel num_threads (32)
asm volatile ("" :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente ---
seems working
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ c++ -std=c++11 -Ofast -fopenmp simpleOMP.cpp
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ ./a.out
max thread 32
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ taskset -c 0-3 ./a.out
max th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58652
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
64 matches
Mail list logo
