Another follow-on bug similar to bug 21485. The profiled optimizer on both
3.4.3 and 4.0.0 makes code worse than without it. Run times go up by 50% or
more.
Relevant flags are: -static -O3 -march=athlon-xp -fomit-frame-pointer
This runs a fixed number of iterations; time from the command line
--- Additional Comments From jbucata at tulsaconnect dot com 2005-05-12
07:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=8869)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8869&action=view)
preprocessed test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21527
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
08:09 ---
This code in do_resolve_class seems bogus to me. Fixing it removes the failure.
Note that java.security is in the package_list because of Dummy.java, but it
absolutely does *not* belong in the search path!
--- Additional Comments From dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-05-12 08:09 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> hmm. code size is actually bigger with -Os.
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 dirtyepic users 15689 May 1 12:02 pr21314-O0
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 dirtyepic users 8333 May 1 12:02 pr21314
--- Additional Comments From tsv at solvo dot ru 2005-05-12 08:25 ---
Your patch works a lot better than mine. Just tested and ant started to work.
Thank you very much.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
08:27 ---
This one currently segfaults.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
08:29 ---
J cannot be used twice in this code. Right now, gfortran has an ICE on this one:
$ gfortran a.f90
In file a.f90:4
ENTRY J()
1
Internal Error at (1):
insert_bbt(): Duplicate key found!
--
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
08:32 ---
Confirmed.
Lahey says "line 11: Interface block which is use associated by this USE
statement containing an interface body for procedure 'my_sub' defined by this
subprogram is not standard-conforming."
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
08:33 ---
Confirmed. Intel says:
line 10: This object must not be used as the pointer-object or target of a
pointer-assignment-stmt in a PURE procedure or an internal procedure contained
in a PURE procedure.
--
The following portion of shared_ptr_test.cpp:
#include
#include
int main()
{
boost::shared_ptr pi(new int);
boost::shared_ptr pv(pi);
boost::shared_ptr pi2 = boost::static_pointer_cast(pv);
BOOST_TEST(pi.get() == pi2.get());
BOOST_TEST(!(pi < pi2 || pi2 < pi));
BOOST_TE
--- Additional Comments From pdimov at gmail dot com 2005-05-12 08:42
---
Created an attachment (id=8871)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8871&action=view)
Preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21528
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21528
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 08:59
---
Using regparm(3) with -fPIC is a really bad idea. i386 has 4 Q_REGS class
registers, 3 of them are used for regparm(3) (%eax, %edx, %ecx) and the last
one for PIC pointer (%ebx), so reload really has hard tim
--- Additional Comments From redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 09:12
---
I can confirm this error for 4.0 on x86 and x86-64 but not with 4.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21528
--- Additional Comments From redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 09:36
---
-O2 -finline-functions shows the errors, -O3 -fno-inline-functions does not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21528
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 09:41
---
Hum, this problem appear to imply that something is not completely ok
with the recent try_mkfifo -> dg-require-mkfifo switch. If I understand
correctly, before the latter we effectively skipped at runtime this test
Compiling this code with -Os is more than 40 % bigger in size with GCC-4.1
compared to GCC-3.4.3.
See also thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00532.html
struct disk_interface_str {
unsignednb_IDE_found;
struct IDE_found_str {
unsigned short ideIOadr;
unsi
--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-12
09:48 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think you used SFINF correctly.
The substitution of the formal parameter with the actual argument fails, thus
it is a form of substitution failure. I do not know,
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 10:02
---
In other terms, we should tell DejaGNU that all the tests involving fifos must
be skipped on such platform, because fifos are available but not completely ok.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215
--- Additional Comments From dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2005-05-12 10:14 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The patch for 21275 failed to take care of C++ class members which "inherit" a
dllimport attribute from the class type definition.
Here is a C++ testcase:
struct __at
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
10:23 ---
The failure I mentioned in comment #7 is caused by remove_dead_inserted_code,
which removes the statement setting that SSA name:
In the .pre dump file:
Removing unnecessary insertion:pretmp.308_35 = (uns
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
10:36 ---
Subject: Bug 21501
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 10:36:15
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/arm : a
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
10:39 ---
Yada yada yada, you know the drill. SRA, out-of-ssa, and register
allocation all working against each other:
:;
D.1605 = DI.IDE_found + (struct IDE_found_str *) ((long unsigned int) i *
8);
tmp$re
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
10:40 ---
Now fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
libstdc++ is not supported on h8300-hitachi-hms, so main configure should
skip it (as it does for h8500-*-*), otherwise sub-configure will bail out later.
Suggested patch:
--- gcc-3.4.3/configure
+++ gcc-3.4.3/configure
@@ -1232,7 +1232,7 @@
noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs ${libgcj}"
;;
GNU C - maybe related to my bugreport 21513 but different.
Error:
src/aie_sql_meta.c: In Funktion aie_sql_meta_create_index:
src/aie_sql_meta.c:258: Warnung: tableid koennte in dieser Funktion
uninitialisiert verwendet werden
src/aie_sql_meta.c:259: Warnung: index_typ koennte in dieser Funktion
un
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
10:59 ---
Andrew's test case shows that it is easy to make this fail with other
GCC releases, and Jakub's comment #3 it seems that when constructs like
this work, it only does so by luck.
So, this is not really a
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
11:36 ---
The ARM ARM says that
STR Rd, [Rn], #4
and
STR Rd, [Rn, #4]!
are unpredictable if Rd == Rn. That is, the auto-inc side effect is permitted
to take place before Rd is read.
There's currently no w
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-12
11:48 ---
Maybe SRA could be tuned differently for -Os. RTH, do you think it is feasable,
or is it only a register allocator problem and should not be handled at the
tree level at all?
--
What|Remove
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Component|libgcj |libffi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212
--- Additional Comments From redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 11:56
---
Using 4.0.1 20050509 on x86-64 Linux
-O2 -finline-functions -finline-limit=79 is OK
-O2 -finline-functions -finline-limit=80 is not
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21528
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
12:00 ---
But the orginal code did not have regparm so we should not be changing the
function to regparm 3
then.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
12:02 ---
The code around:
/* We can't use regparm(3) for nested functions as these use
static chain pointer in third argument. */
if (DECL_CONTEXT (decl) && !DECL_NO_STAT
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
12:12 ---
Can you attached the preprocessed source code (The only reason why I did not
ask for PR 21513 is
because I figured out to compile it and reproduce it without it).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
12:22 ---
Subject: Bug 21230
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 12:22:09
Modified files:
config : ChangeLog warnings.m4
libcpp
--- Additional Comments From redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 12:22
---
Also, I *do* still see the failure if I replace BOOST_TEST() with assert().
This still fails with -finline-functions -finline-limit=80
#include
#include
int main()
{
boost::shared_ptr pi(new int);
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
12:24 ---
Subject: Bug 21230
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 12:24:15
Modified files:
config : Change
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
12:27 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01116.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
13:17 ---
Hmm, -fno-sra works around the issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21528
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
13:28 ---
Hmm, I am starting to think there is an alias bug in 4.0.0 somewhere.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
13:35 ---
The difference between the mainline and the 4.0.0 branch is the following
additional SRA in 4.0.x:
+Initial instantiation for pv
+ pv.pn.pi_ -> pv$pn$pi_
+ pv.px -> pv$px
+Initial instantiation for pi2
+
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
13:38 ---
Also the other major difference is:
mainline:
- # pi_503 = V_MAY_DEF ;
- pi.pn.pi_ = this_45;
4.0.0:
+ # TMT.242_3 = V_MAY_DEF ;
+ pi.pn.pi_ = this_99;
See how we used a TMT in 4.0.0 case and pi on
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.0 4.1.0
Known to work||3.4.3
Summary|code size regression (+40
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
14:10 ---
Not fixing the hunk -- removing it actually!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17845
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
14:54 ---
If you used the non throw new, it would become faster.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
--- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2005-05-12 15:08 ---
I think it is reasonable to assume the address of an auto variable is non-NULL,
and so the address of anything in the local "int x[10];" is non-NULL.
So gcc can (and does) fold "if (x) ..." and "if (&x[0]) ..."
gcc doe
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-12 15:15
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++-v3 testsuite hangs on cygwin
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 10:02
> ---
> In other terms, we should tell Dej
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 15:23
---
Thanks a lot Mark. At this point, since your suggestion is complete as-is,
I would ask David to try it himself. Then, if everything goes well on
cygwin (which I don't have) I will take care of regtesting it on x86-
The attached unreduced testcase from glibc generates an ICE using today's CVS.
The only necessary option is -O2.
regcomp.c: In function 'build_equiv_class':
regcomp.c:3462: error: Missing definition
for SSA_NAME: pretmp.2916_545 in statement:
D.26795_433 = () pretmp.2916_545;
regcomp.c:3462: inte
--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 15:31
---
Created an attachment (id=8873)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8873&action=view)
Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-12 15:32
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++-v3 testsuite hangs on cygwin
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-12 15:23
> ---
> Thanks a lot Mark. At this point,
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||21520
nThis||
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
Command:
gcc bug.cpp
Output (indented):
bug.cpp: In function `int _ ()':
bug.cpp:1: parse error before `0'
bug.cpp:1: Internal error #122.
bug.cpp:1: Internal compiler error in finish_function, at
../gcc/cp/decl.c:14422
Please submit a full bug report.
See http://www.gnu.org/so
Mark Weyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Command:
>
> gcc bug.cpp
>
> Output (indented):
>
> bug.cpp: In function `int _ ()':
> bug.cpp:1: parse error before `0'
> bug.cpp:1: Internal error #122.
> bug.cpp:1: Internal compiler error in finish_function, at
> ../gcc/cp/decl.c:14422
> Pl
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:11 ---
Subject: Bug 21532
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 17:11:20
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-pre.c
Log messag
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:36 ---
Actually this is a dup of bug 10624.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10624 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:36 ---
*** Bug 15513 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:40 ---
Looks like a register allocation issue.
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
Platform: Linux GCC x86. I have generated a test case where the code I have
using a C99 array with variable length causes a segmentation fault. The thing
is, if I comment out an unrelated line of code that is impossible to be
executed and not in the execution pathway (it's in the body of an if
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:43 ---
I mean on the setting side of the inline-asm.
Otherwise we have a ra issue.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|problem with tempalte and |problem with template and
|tempalte function |template function
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-05-12 17:49
---
You can't do this:
template
std::ostream & std::operator<< (std::ostream &, a::A const &);
If you want to overload something in namespace std, you have to open that
namespace, put the declaration in it,
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:50 ---
Subject: Bug 21324
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 17:50:35
Modified files:
libgfortran: ChangeLog
libgfortran/io : o
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:50 ---
Subject: Bug 21412
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 17:50:26
Modified files:
gcc: Change
This code isn't rejected, though it should be:
namespace NS
{
template void f();
}
template void NS::f (int);
---
It _is_ rejected if NS::f is not a template.
FWIW, icc says this to the snippet:
tmp/y> icc -Xc -ansi -c x.cc
x.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:52 ---
With the patch for PR 21520, we will get better code.
Right now on the mainline we get:
bar:
movl4(%esp), %eax
testb $1, (%eax)
jne .L7
movl8(%esp), %eax
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21523
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
17:55 ---
Confirmed, I thought I saw something like this before (and not in PR 21515).
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Two C file (p.c and q.c) attached bellows. With an inline assembly
line (even just a comment), the code sequence is different. As a
result, the function foo() in q.c is working OK but not the foo()
in p.c.
*** Command line ***
$ /utils/gcc/3.4.3/mipsel-linux-uclibc/i386/bin/mipsel-linux-gcc -v
Rea
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 17:56
---
ia64 fixed; sparc still broken. But I'm not planning to work on that.
--
What|Removed |Added
Platform: Linux GCC x86. I have generated a test case where the code I have
using a C99 array with variable length causes a segmentation fault. The thing
is, if I comment out an unrelated line of code that is impossible to be
executed and not in the execution pathway (it's in the body of an if
--- Additional Comments From shane256 at hotmail dot com 2005-05-12 18:05
---
Created an attachment (id=8874)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8874&action=view)
Contains test case code, intermediate files, etc. demonstrating the issue
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
18:06 ---
*** Bug 21533 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21536
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
18:06 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21536 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-12 18:06
---
Subject: Re: New: 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install
on powerpc64-linux
Janis --
Would you please try the attached patch for 3.4? I have a similar patch
for 4.0 which I will attach soon.
If this doesn't
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
18:07 ---
Confirmed, I really thought I saw this before. Anyways this is a regression
from 2.95.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21535
--- Additional Comments From jradel at 2wire dot com 2005-05-12 18:32
---
(From update of attachment 8868)
Ignore this first proposed fix... it's buggy. Working on a new version.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
18:59 ---
The only change is the following:
before:
bzip2-1.0.2,compress,9408
bzip2-1.0.2,decompress,10604
after:
bzip2-1.0.2,compress,9428
bzip2-1.0.2,decompress,10640
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
19:11 ---
Subject: Bug 21324
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 19:10:59
Modified files:
libgfortran: Change
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
19:12 ---
Fixed in mainline and 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-05-12
19:25 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install on
powerpc64-linux
> Would you please try the attached patch for 3.4? I have a similar patch
> for 4.0 which I will attach soon.
With
In the following code, one templatized struct's member function calls another
templatized struct's templatized member function. GCC 3.3.3 reports a parse
error in the line labeled "This doesn't work!". I've found that if I change the
instantiation of struct inner to use an 'int' rather than 'T',
--- Additional Comments From joern dot rennecke at st dot com 2005-05-12
19:30 ---
Subject: Re: autoincrement generation is poor
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
>18:59 ---
>The only change is the f
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
19:32 ---
This is correct.
You need:
inner ().template test();
--
What|Removed |Added
FAIL: g++.dg/opt/temp1.C execution test
has appeared on mainline between 20050511 and 20050512 on multiple targets.
In <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01158.html>
Jakub Jelinek notes it appears on 4.0 branch as well and blames
> 2005-04-28 Richard Guenther <[EMA
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
19:57 ---
CCing Mark as he wrote the code to fix this testcase in the first place.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ltrans-5.c scan-tree-dump-times Linear expression:
constant: 1 invariants: denominator: 1 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ltrans-5.c scan-tree-dump-times transformed loop 1
have appeared on mainline between 20050511 and 20050512 on platforms including
at least i686-pc-linux-gnu
Compiling the attached results in:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcj -C bug.java
bug.java: In class 'bug':
bug.java: In method 'bug.fn(int)':
bug.java:9: error: Constant expression required.
case ((int) xxx >>> 32):
^
1 error
--
Summary: switch stmt problem
--- Additional Comments From green at redhat dot com 2005-05-12 20:03
---
Created an attachment (id=8880)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8880&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21540
20050512 on platforms including
at least i686-pc-linux-gnu and hppa{2.0w,64}-hp-hpux11.{11,23}. gcc-testresults
shows other platforms as well.
/home/gcc/nightlies/src-mainline-2005-05-12/gcc-mainline-2005-05-12/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215-1.c:
In function 'test1':
/home/gcc
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
20:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=8881)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8881&action=view)
Emit DW_AT_call_file and DW_AT_call_line for inlined subroutines.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
21:49 ---
Confirmed, here is another example:
public class bug
{
public static final long xxx = 555;
public static final int xxx1 = (int)(xxx >>> 32);
public int fn (int v)
{
switch (v)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
21:51 ---
The testcase is wrong and should be removed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
21:57 ---
This is why I hate the type system of GCC and what is consider compatible and
such for the tree
optimizers
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
21:59 ---
Confirmed, though I think the testcase is wrong though if we use memcpy before
main.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
22:13 ---
Subject: Bug 21520
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-12 22:13:00
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-pre.c
Added files
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
