[Bug c++/20949] [4.0/4.1 Regression] misscompilation of konqueror, artsd, STLport, libstdc++, ...

--- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 07:00 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] misscompilation of konqueror, artsd, STLport, libstdc++, ... On 11 Apr 2005 22:38:59 -, "pluto at pld-linux dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What kind of debug info d

[Bug libstdc++/16611] Terrible code generated for vector

--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-04-12 08:07 --- (In reply to comment #3) > This code from stl_bvector.h is the problem: [...] Hmm, right. I don't fully understand why it is done in this complicated manner, does vector::operator[] need to do anything more than my

Re: Mainline build failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu

On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:59:46PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | >-c /home/gdr/redhat/egcs/gcc/crtstuff.c -DCRT_BEGIN \ | > -o crtbegin.o | > make[1]: *** [crtbegin.o] Aborted | > make[1]: L

[Bug target/20126] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Inlined memcmp makes one argument null on entry

--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:19 --- Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail On Apr 12, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They are optimized away, but if I can figure out what the > conditio

[Bug tree-optimization/20962] copyprop dump files have wrong names

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:23 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-12 08:27 --- Created an attachment (id=8603) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8603&action=view) refined patch to config/avr.c required to demonstrate bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug c++/20963] New: ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

compiling dosbox results in this error (enable checking) on i386: g++ -O2 -c xx.ii xx.ii: In function 'void DOS_FreeProcessMemory(short unsigned int)': xx.ii:43: internal compiler error: tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437 -

[Bug c++/20964] New: core issue 478: array parameters of abstract class type are ill-formed

The core working group just discussed core issue 478 and decided that the issue was NAD, i.e. the following code is ill-formed as per 8.3.4p1. struct S { virtual void v() = 0; }; void f(S sa[10]); gcc does not detect that the code is ill-formed. -- Summary: core is

[Bug c++/20963] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-04-12 08:30 --- Created an attachment (id=8604) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8604&action=view) xx.ii mostly minimized extract from dosbox / dos_mem.cpp, compile with: g++ -c -O2 -- http://gcc.

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-12 08:31 --- Created an attachment (id=8605) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8605&action=view) simplied test case showing "static const" blk mode and function bugs. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show

[Bug c++/20964] core issue 478: array parameters of abstract class type are ill-formed

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:32 --- Fixed in 4.0.0 and above. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

-- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Component|c++

[Bug c++/20961] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE on pragma weak/__attribute__((weak))

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:43 --- With checking enabled I get the following error on the mainline: t.cc: In function 'int foo()': t.cc:3: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'declaration', have 'expression' (vec_dl_expr) in

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-12 08:44 --- Created an attachment (id=8606) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8606&action=view) showing "char" function return types being incorrectly converted to "int" -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:46 --- Confirmed. This started to fail after "4.0.0 20050225" which is after the branch. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:49 --- Note if the code was changed to used the normal offsetof, it would work. Why do people try to use the non-normal version is behond me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20963

[Bug libfortran/20749] gfortran - error opening direct access file

-20050412/irun --enable-languages=c,f95 --host=i386-linux Thread model: posix gcc version 4.1.0 20050412 (experimental) $ gfortran direct.f && ./a.out STOP 0 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20163 *** -- What|Removed

[Bug libfortran/20163] [4.0 only] gfortran - error opening direct access file

--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 08:50 --- *** Bug 20749 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20163

Re: Mainline build failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu

Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | And what version of the compiler were you starting with? | If it was 4.1.0 between the following patches: | 2005-04-08 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Merge from tree-cleanup-branch: VRP, store CCP, store | copy-prop, incre

[Bug middle-end/20743] -fweb produces very slow code on gcc 4.0.0

--- Additional Comments From deemkay at gmail dot com 2005-04-12 08:59 --- sorry for bumping this. maybe i should create a new bug, but i don't know if it's an issue or not. if -fweb is disabled by default why does the latest manual (both the dev version online and the 20050409 info pa

[Bug libfortran/19016] maxloc ignores mask

--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 09:02 --- ... finishing the comment here.. fixes the test case, but a mask generated "on the fly" with maxloc(...,dim=...) (i.e. the maxloc1 family of functions) is still broken. I am doing some more digging around.

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 09:06 --- More reduced testcase: char mem_readb(int pt); struct sMCB { int type, psp_segment; }; int f(); void DOS_FreeProcessMemory(int pt) { int addr1, addr; while (true) { if (f()) { addr = (u

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-12 09:11 --- Created an attachment (id=8608) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8608&action=view) showing problem expanding access to blk move structure move. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

-- What|Removed |Added Attachment #8608|showing problem expanding |showing problem expanding description|access to blk move structure|access to blk move structure

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-12 09:16 --- Created an attachment (id=8609) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8609&action=view) final resulting code showing all problems. (including possibly one with stabs source code line correlation, a

[Bug middle-end/20965] New: [4.1 Regression] GCC can no longer build itself on ppc-darwin

This shows up as the following regression in the testsuite: native gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/20030921-1.c native gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/20040909-1.c See: . -- Summary: [4.1 Regression] GCC can no longer build itsel

[Bug middle-end/20965] [4.1 Regression] GCC can no longer build itself on ppc-darwin

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 09:39 --- I knew there was a reason for these testcases when I added them :). -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/20965] [4.1 Regression] GCC can no longer build itself on ppc-darwin

-- What|Removed |Added GCC target triplet||powerpc-darwin http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20965

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 09:52 --- There is always a bigger fish - an a smaller test case: struct sMCB { unsigned char type; }; extern void foo (void); unsigned char mem_readb(char *pt) __attribute__((nothrow)); void DOS_FreeProc

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 09:56 --- In addition to ICEing, PRE is also being stupid about moving out a loop invariant expression: Found partial redundancy for expression (char *) &0B->type Skipping insertion of phi for partial redundancy:

[Bug c++/20949] [4.0/4.1 Regression] misscompilation of konqueror, artsd, STLport, libstdc++, ...

-- What|Removed |Added CC||mueller at kde dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20949

[Bug c++/19317] [4.1 Regression] removing a temporary return value when we cannot

--- Additional Comments From mueller at kde dot org 2005-04-12 10:27 --- there are two more critical miscompilations in branch, popping up 12 and 10 days ago. I'm currently trying to deduce a testcase, but maybe that information already is sufficient to narrow down the faulty patch

[Bug c++/13744] ICE when using implicit copy constructor for struct defined in template function

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 10:57 --- This was fixed on mainline by Kazu's cleanup: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-04/msg00458.html Mark, although this is not a regression, do you think this would be appropriate for gcc 4.0.1? It's an ICE

[Bug c++/20966] New: [4.0/4.1 regression] cv-qualified function references and overload resolution

Consider the following program: template int ref (T&){ return 0; } template int ref (const T&) { return 1; } template int ref (const volatile T&) { return 2; } template int ref (volatile T&) { r

[Bug c++/20966] [4.0/4.1 regression] cv-qualified function references and overload resolution

-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-04-

[Bug c++/20966] [4.0/4.1 regression] cv-qualified function references and overload resolution

-- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |SUSPENDED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20966

[Bug c++/20966] [4.0/4.1 regression] cv-qualified function references and overload resolution

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-04-12 11:27 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.0/4.1 regression] cv-qualified function references and overload resolution "reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | However, since the situation between p

Re: Mainline build failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 07:30:56AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > This might be due to the bootstrapping compiler -- I was using a > compiler built from yesterday tree to bootstrap > Oh, PR 20933. Yes, the fix you see there should allow you to use 4.1 as a stage0 compiler again. We were misco

[Bug debug/20967] New: g++ generates same DW_AT_ranges info for two different functions

gcc/g++ is generating the same DWARF DW_AT_ranges info for two different functions. This makes translation from a PC address to the function difficult since a given PC can map to two different functions. Using the following test file: // Compile as "g++ -O2 -ggdb --save-temps -o t t.cc"

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-12 12:45 --- (In reply to comment #0) As heads up, I've verified this is a target problem, the block mem-move expansion needs to treat the expansion differently if the source is a READONLY. This only leaves three issues:

[Bug other/20955] Top-level gcc configure/makefile does not handle --with-sysroot

--- Additional Comments From prothonotar at tarnation dot dyndns dot org 2005-04-12 12:50 --- Let me see if I understand your advice: I should try moving the sysroot to something like $prefix/solaris-x86 instead of $prefix/i586-sun-solaris2.10, because gcc is getting confused between the

[Bug other/20955] Top-level gcc configure/makefile does not handle --with-sysroot

--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 12:53 --- Subject: Re: Top-level gcc configure/makefile does not handle --with-sysroot On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:50:29PM -, prothonotar at tarnation dot dyndns dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From

[Bug fortran/20006] $ format extension doesn't work

--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 13:04 --- OK. I have a patch to make $ work, I'll add a warning when this is possible at compile-time (I don't think we want to have a warning at runtime, especially since there is general agreement on this extensio

[Bug debug/20967] g++ generates same DW_AT_ranges info for two different functions

--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 13:14 --- No version information. Is this HEAD, with Jim's earlier DW_AT_ranges patch? I don't think your understanding is correct, but you didn't show enough of the DIE tree to be sure. Ignore inlined functions for a

[Bug fortran/20006] $ format extension doesn't work

--- Additional Comments From tow21 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-04-12 13:18 --- (In reply to comment #4) > OK. I have a patch to make $ work, I'll add a warning when this is possible at > compile-time (I don't think we want to have a warning at runtime, especially > since there is g

[Bug c++/20949] [4.0/4.1 Regression] misscompilation of konqueror, artsd, STLport, libstdc++, ...

-- What|Removed |Added CC||matz at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20949

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 13:26 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437 On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 09:56 +, steven at gc

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 13:38 --- FWIW, I think the problem might be that there are cases where force_gimple_operand generates more sub-expressions, but we do not add value handles for them: (gdb) 1369 folded = fold (build (TREE_C

[Bug fortran/20956] gfortran - internal compiler error with -fdefault-real-8

--- Additional Comments From dir at lanl dot gov 2005-04-12 13:57 --- Subject: Re: gfortran - internal compiler error with -fdefault-real-8 Macintosh 10.3.8 > --- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 > 00:04 --- > (In reply to comment #0)

[Bug debug/20967] g++ generates same DW_AT_ranges info for two different functions

--- Additional Comments From fnf at specifixinc dot com 2005-04-12 14:00 --- > No version information. Is this HEAD, with Jim's earlier DW_AT_ranges patch? Yes, sorry I didn't mention it. Originally I tried to report this bug with "gccbug" but the report seems to have gone into a blac

[Bug c/20968] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning

struct {int count;} *v1; int c; int k; extern void baz(int); static int bar(int *j) { if (k == 4) { *j = 1; return 1; } return 0; } void foo(void) { int i; if (!bar(&i)) { if (!c) return; v1->count++; } if (!c)

[Bug c/20968] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning

--- Additional Comments From James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2005-04-12 14:07 --- This bug appears to be related to, but not duplicates of, the following bugs: PR 20644 -- is unreachable code. This test case is all reachable. PR 5035 -- is not a regression. This test case is a r

[Bug debug/20967] g++ generates same DW_AT_ranges info for two different functions

--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 14:08 --- Subject: Re: g++ generates same DW_AT_ranges info for two different functions It's a question of what "associated machine code" means. I think that the machine code is in fact associated with more than one D

[Bug libstdc++/16611] Terrible code generated for vector

--- Additional Comments From sabre at nondot dot org 2005-04-12 14:31 --- This is definately a libstdc++ issue. -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16611

[Bug fortran/20006] $ format extension doesn't work

--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 14:31 --- Fatal I/O error for an extension that everybody agrees on? Wahoo! I'm not sure any compiler does that... In my mind, being pedantic (that is, issuing fatal errors) makes sense at compile-time, but it is v

[Bug middle-end/20371] Some corner cases of MS bitfields don't work

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 14:32 --- Subject: Bug 20371 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-12 14:32:06 Modified files: gcc: Cha

[Bug target/20126] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Inlined memcmp makes one argument null on entry

--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-12 14:38 --- Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail Hi Alexandre, On 12 Apr 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Does any expert in rtl loop care to chime in? I'm not sure I qualify for the

[Bug fortran/20006] $ format extension doesn't work

--- Additional Comments From tow21 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-04-12 14:46 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Fatal I/O error for an extension that everybody agrees on? Wahoo! I'm not > > sure any compiler does that... But "everyone" doesn't agree on it. Otherwise it would be standard, no

[Bug middle-end/20968] Spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 14:49 --- Note this is not fully a regression but really a progression. What is happening now is only partial optimizations is happen before the warning to happen. >I was unable to reduce the test case further witho

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 15:10 --- That's not where the real problem lies, unfortunately, Steven. I'm working on fixing this. This is only a 4.1 regression, not a 4.0 regression. It doesn't fail on the 4.0 branch (try it!) -- W

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-04-12 15:19 --- but it failed for me on a 4.0 branch based compiler (only some patches added) (current SUSE snapshot of gcc 4.0) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20963

[Bug other/17652] [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||20969 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17652

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] New: unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

When a loop contains multiple labels inside, unrolling it increases the target register pressure on targets that need target registers to do branches. This gets quickly so bad that the unrolled loop performs worse than a non-unrolled loop, because of the number of target register spills. --

[Bug libfortran/20970] New: gfortran - bus error -fdefault-integer-8

This program generates a bus error on the Macintosh - [dranta:~/tests/gfortran] dir% gfortran -fdefault-integer-8 -o adini adini.f [dranta:~/tests/gfortran] dir% adini Bus error [dranta:~/tests/gfortran] dir% cat adini.f program main common /junkc/ hed(12) character*6 hed c

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 15:48 --- Subject: Bug 20969 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-12 15:48:47 Modified files: gcc/doc: tm.

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 15:50 --- Subject: Bug 20969 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: sh-elf-4_1-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-12 15:49:53 Modified files: gcc: Cha

[Bug fortran/20971] New: gfortran - internal compiler error on bad program -fdefault-integer-8

I was trying to reduce a test case and I hit another error in the process - [dranta:~/tests/gfortran] dir% gfortran -fdefault-integer-8 -o adini adini.f adini.f: In function 'MAIN__': adini.f:5: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_string_tmp, at fortran/trans-expr.c:736 Please submit a full bug r

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:02 --- Huh? no optimization should take register pressure into account. What we should have is a reroller in the register allocator. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20969

[Bug fortran/20971] gfortran - internal compiler error on bad program -fdefault-integer-8

--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:09 --- (In reply to comment #0) > program main > character*6 hed > character*6 final > data final /'stop' / > if (hed(1).eq.final) stop if(hed(1:1).eq.final) stop > stop

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:10 --- The patch has been posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg01286.html -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:14 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Huh? no optimization should take register pressure into account. What we should have is a reroller in > the register allocator. Do you have a set of patches to try out? --

Re: [Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:14 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:14 --- (In reply to comment #3) Huh? no optimization should take register pressure into account. What we should have is a reroller in the registe

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-04-12 16:19 --- Subject: Re: unrolling does not take target register pressure into account. On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:14 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/20968] Spurious "may be used uninitialized" warning

--- Additional Comments From James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2005-04-12 16:21 --- Thanks for the info. Your testcase does warn in all versions I tested. We can certainly initialize the variable in our code to get around this issue, but it would be nice to not have to do this sinc

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:26 --- (In reply to comment #6) > No but if we go your route, then every place where we do an > optimization, we > will then need to teach it about register pressure which is wrong. Only > the register allocator

[Bug other/17652] [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:33 --- Not really interesting any more since 4.0 has branched. -- What|Removed |Added S

[Bug other/19266] [mudflap] ICE when compiling with -fmudflap -O

--- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 16:50 --- I can no longer reproduce this failure with mainline on x86 nor x86-64. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19266

[Bug c/20972] New: Compiler-generated code produces an assembler warning

Test gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c, when compiled with: -O2 -c produces the warning: /var/tmp//ccSVOi5X.s: Assembler messages: /var/tmp//ccSVOi5X.s:23: Warning: source register same as write-back base Because of the following instruction generated in the assembly: strbr2

[Bug target/20972] Compiler-generated code produces an assembler warning

-- What|Removed |Added Component|c |target Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug tree-optimization/15524] [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases

--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-04-12 16:55 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] jump threading on trees is slow with switch statements with large # of cases On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 21:49 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 16:55 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437 On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 15:19 +, marcus at jet dot

[Bug fortran/20971] gfortran - internal compiler error on bad program -fdefault-integer-8

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20971

[Bug tree-optimization/20963] [4.1 Regression] ICE tree check: expected value_handle, have addr_expr in value_exists_in_set_bitmap, at tree-ssa-pre.c:437

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:00 --- (In reply to comment #11) > I have tried this on a clean gcc 4.0 branch compiler and it does not > crash. And I just did the same too, it does not crash on a 4.0 compiler even with --enable-checking=all.

[Bug target/20972] Compiler-generated code produces an assembler warning

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:08 --- Patch here: . Do you know if this is a regression from say 3.4.x? -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/20756] Clobbers of deleted insns are processed, but left out

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||20695 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20756

[Bug target/20695] sh64-*-* port deos not handle 32 / 64 bit conversions properly

-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||20756 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20695

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:21 --- (In reply to comment #6) > > Do you have a set of patches to try out? > > No but if we go your route, then every place where we do an > optimization, we > will then need to teach it about register pressure

[Bug target/20808] Unrecognizable insn

-- What|Removed |Added CC||ericw at evcohs dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20808

[Bug other/17652] [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches

--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:23 --- > Not really interesting any more since 4.0 has branched That is nonsense. This is the meta-bug used to track stuff that didn't make it into 4.0 but shouldn't miss 4.1 too. -- What|Removed

[Bug target/20972] Compiler-generated code produces an assembler warning

--- Additional Comments From jconner at apple dot com 2005-04-12 17:24 --- Subject: Re: Compiler-generated code produces an assembler warning I don't see this same behavior on 3.4.3. - Josh On Apr 12, 2005, at 10:08 AM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Co

[Bug rtl-optimization/20969] unrolling does not take target register pressure into account.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:24 --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Do you have a set of patches to try out? > > > > No but if we go your route, then every place where we do an > > optimization, we > > will then nee

[Bug other/17652] [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:25 --- (In reply to comment #2) > > Not really interesting any more since 4.0 has branched > > That is nonsense. This is the meta-bug used to track stuff that didn't make > it into 4.0 but shouldn't miss 4.1 too.

[Bug target/20972] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Compiler-generated code produces an assembler warning

-- What|Removed |Added Summary|Compiler-generated code |[4.0/4.1 Regression] |produces an assembler |Compiler-generated code

[Bug middle-end/20937] BLK ptr's losing original ptr's static-constant readonly attribute.

-- What|Removed |Added CC||ericw at evcohs dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20937

[Bug regression/20973] New: kdelibs (khtml) miscompiled by reload

gcc 4 (about RC1) miscompiles khtml, in fact something in CSS, which basically leads to all websites being misrendered. I can't easily reduce the testcase, but have applied the whole preprocessed source of css/cssstyleselector.ii. It is to be compiled with g++ -O2 -fPIC -march=i586 -mtune=i68

[Bug regression/20973] kdelibs (khtml) miscompiled by reload

--- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-04-12 17:30 --- Created an attachment (id=8610) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8610&action=view) the preprocessed source showing the problem -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20973

[Bug regression/20973] [4.0/4.1 Regression] kdelibs (khtml) miscompiled by reload

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:33 --- Reload, wow, not that unexcepted really. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug other/17652] [meta-bug] GCC 4.1 pending patches

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-04-12 17:34 --- I agree with Joerne. This bug was opened to track things that had to be revaluated when 4.1 stage 1 opens, so it has to be kept open until its list of dependencies is finished. It remembers us that there a

[Bug regression/20973] [4.0/4.1 Regression] kdelibs (khtml) miscompiled by reload

-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||20949 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20973

[Bug c++/20949] [4.0/4.1 Regression] misscompilation of konqueror, artsd, STLport, libstdc++, ...

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-12 17:34 --- 20973 is the bug for konqueror. -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|

  1   2   >