--- Comment #6 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 15:25
---
Fixed in commits 161918 (mainline) and 161919 (gcc-4.5 branch).
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 08:23
---
Even better, it actually works! :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41355
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 19:14
---
Hi Honza, my original patch was silly, I'm trying this instead:
@@ -7216,7 +7216,7 @@
if (TREE_CODE (orig_type) != METHOD_TYPE
|| !bitmap_bit_p (args_to_skip, 0))
{
- new_type = copy
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 18:43
---
It turns out that the problem is that when build_function_type_skip_args
creates
the new type, TYPE_POINTER_TO for the new type is still pointing to the old
type.
When gimple_call_set_fndecl is used to change the
--- Comment #6 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 11:14
---
Created an attachment (id=21024)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21024&action=view)
Reduced testcase
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|
--- Comment #5 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 11:13
---
I'm hitting the same thing when building LLVM. It needs -fPIC and -O3 to fire
on
my x86-64 linux box:
$ g++-4.6 -fPIC -O3 DwarfException.ii
DwarfException.ii:56:89: internal compiler erro
imply
No_Task_Hierarchy, but should
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-10 13:17
---
This bug fires when trying to build LLVM using trunk.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44017
d on linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unk
--- Comment #9 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 11:18
---
Yes, that did the trick. Thanks for fixing this!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42253
--- Comment #5 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 17:24
---
I was also surprised, because I couldn't see the relevance. To double check I
rebuilt one commit before (no crash) and at that commit (crash). That seems
pretty conclusive, especially as the testcase see
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 09:47
---
The reason I occasionally use a thin pointer is because they can be stored
atomically. This is sometimes useful.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42253
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-25 19:56
---
The regression was introduced by the following commit (found by bisection):
r133011 | ebotcazou | 2008-03-07 18:12:28 +0100 (Fri, 07 Mar 2008) | 33 lines
* decl.c (MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE): Define if not
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 16:42
---
Sorry, small bug in the testcase, should have been:
extern const char LinkVar;
__attribute__((used)) static const char *const LinkObj = &LinkVar;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
-flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-06 20:13
---
These are the only testcases I found that crash the compiler. If I come across
any more, I won't report them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42987
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42987
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-06 17:50
---
Compiling the GCC testsuite with -flto and -g, it turns out that
g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr41063.C already shows this problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42653
both flags to crash)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-07 14:22
---
I added version.h to the list of installed headers in commit 155692.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 13:36
---
If I unsupress checks in System.Regexp.Compile.Create_Secondary_Table,
then I get
"raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : s-regexp.adb:1161 index check failed"
here:
1160for Column in 0 .. Alphabet
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
http
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-
ersion: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown
--- Comment #55 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 14:18
---
And here's a testcase that was supposed to check that
VRP is not removing checks that array accesses are in
range. Instead it shows that the Ada f-e is failing
to generate checks at all!
function Overfl
--- Comment #54 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 14:14
---
Here's a test that VRP is not eliminating
validity checks. "abort" should be called
if either X or Y is <= 0. With Richard's
latest patch (from the gcc mailing list)
applied, everything
--- Comment #45 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-28 14:58
---
The recent VRP improvements made no difference to this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30911
--- Comment #13 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-28 14:30
---
This has been fixed.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-10 18:25
---
> Your solution seems to be somewhat complex though. Can't we get away with
> an iterative propagation algorithm for the DECL_NO_STATIC_CHAIN flag?
Yes, but it is less efficient: in the worst case th
--- Comment #4 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-08 09:53
---
This is fixed on trunk.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-08 09:42
---
I don't see any valgrind messages or other failure using svn head,
when compiling at -O0 or -O2.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32286
--- Comment #11 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-08 18:46
---
> Thank you both for your explanation to a newbie having no experience with
> valgrind tool. I have come up with a simpler version which similar to
> Laurent's. Here it goes.
Thanks - but how is
--- Comment #9 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-07 20:12
---
> Here is a test case that's likely to fail: I just allocate a non zero filled
> record of the right size before filling the map.
Good idea - thanks for doing this!
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #7 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-07 07:07
---
> Valgrind is helful only if there is a crash (segmentation fault).
This is completely wrong. Valgrind detects problems that *may*
cause a crash. The fact that crashes occur rarely doesn't mean
the
--- Comment #4 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 20:59
---
You have to run it under valgrind to see the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32234
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 18:35
---
> Why shouldn't it happen in a small program?
It can cause a segfault also in small programs.
However, memory areas often start out containing
all zeros, so until the program has dirtied a bunch
o
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target
--- Comment #4 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-10 10:11
---
I'm reopening this as an enhancement request. I agree that the
code currently produced is correct, i.e. executes as required
by the RM. However it is suboptimal and in my opinion (and
apparently in E
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 14:42
---
> The code is as intended here, and GCC notion of aliasing is not sufficient
> to fullfill Ada needs in this case.
Are you sure? gcc got more sophisticated wrt aliasing in the gcc 4 series.
What exactly do
: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31877
--- Comment #6 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-02 10:14
---
The problem still occurs. I tested with gcc version 4.3.0 20070425
(experimental), i.e. after all your patches went in.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-15 19:45
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Try this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01201.html
I don't think you need to consider FDESC_EXPR when constructing
the callgraph. It seems only to be used for
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-15 14:49
---
Created an attachment (id=13208)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13208&action=view)
Proposed fix
Bootstraps with all languages including Ada. Does not introduce any new
testsuite f
--- Comment #25 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 09:56
---
I can't help feeling that VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is not the right tool
for implementing 'Valid. I think an intrinsic would be better,
eg "int __builtin_nop(int)" which is defined to return it
--- Comment #11 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 22:54
---
> Please do not overwrite changes, thanks.
Sorry about that - it wasn't on purpose: your comment
and mine collided. I actually checked the two bugs
after getting the message that I'd manage to
--- Comment #9 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 18:18
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Do not work too hard on this, there is code in the AdaCore tree to disable
> > VRP in more cases, lest language-mandated checks are erroneously removed.
>
> For ex
--- Comment #8 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 18:14
---
> Can you walk me through some of the checks and why they can be removed? I see
> (.004.gimple dump):
...
> I assume all of the above is gimplified from just
>
>if Source_Last < Source_Fir
--- Comment #6 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-22 17:41
---
> Bonus points if you can reduce this to a C test case ;-)
> Starting with the gimple dumps, this is usually not hard to do.
It can't be reduced because it relies on integer types with restricted
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30927
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-21 15:17
---
I've tried and failed to attach the source code (bugzilla problem), so here it
is inline (you can extract it using gnatchop):
with Join_Equal;
with JS;
procedure J is new Join_Equal (
Source_Type =&
Summary: VRP fails to eliminate range checks in Ada code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reported
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 15:24
---
The uninitialized bytes are normal: the Unit_Type structure is 16 bytes long:
type Unit_Type is
record
Position : Natural := 19;
String_Value : String (1..9) := (others
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 09:07
---
While this doesn't happen with GNAT-GPL 2006 or GNAT Pro 5.05w (20060118),
that's not surprising because they are compiled with --disable-checking.
Here are the details of the compiler for which I ge
--- Comment #1 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 08:43
---
Does not happen with current gcc.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 08:38
---
Does not occur with current gcc.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 08:31
---
None of the examples provided in this bug report generate
an overlapping memcpy with current gcc.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 08:08
---
Fixed in current version. FI: this was ACT bug E103-008.
--
baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
sem_util.adb:1033
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686
--- Comment #7 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-29 16:00
---
Subject: Bug 23744
Author: baldrick
Date: Wed Nov 29 16:00:07 2006
New Revision: 119320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119320
Log:
PR tree-optimization/23744
* tr
61 matches
Mail list logo
