--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 08:38 ---
Subject: Bug 25864
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 11 08:38:51 2006
New Revision: 110872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110872
Log:
PR target/25864
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 08:44 ---
I think the agreement is that the currently committed patches to gcc-4_1-branch
is all we want on that branch. GCC 4.1 will be able to build GLIBC 2.4 on
all architectures, for code not using libstdc++-v3 at all will
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 08:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=10821)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10821&action=view)
gcc41-ldbl-default-libstdc++.patch
Just for completeness, I'm attaching backport of the libstdc++-v3 changes
tha
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 08:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=10822)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10822&action=view)
gcc41-ldbl-default.patch
And this patch to enable long double by default when configured with
--with-long-double
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-02-11 09:27 ---
This is a known issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-12/msg00181.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26217
gcc version 4.1. 20060120
Configured with: ../configure --target=h8300-elf --prefix=/usr/local
--enable-languages=c,c++ --with-newlib
--with-headers=/usr/src/newlib-1.14.0/newlib/libc/include
/
#include
jmp_buf jb_error;
void jump(void){
longjmp(jb_er
No testcase so far but here is the ICE:
/Users/regress/tbox/native/build/gcc/gcj
-B/Users/regress/tbox/native/build/powerpc-apple-darwin8.3.0/ppc64/libjava/
-B/Users/regress/tbox/native/build/gcc/ -fclasspath=
-fbootclasspath=/Users/regress/tbox/native/build/powerpc-apple-darwin8.3.0/ppc64/libjava/
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 11:06 ---
This was caused by:
2006-02-10 Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/invoke.texi (-floop-optimize2): Removed.
* toplev.c (process_options): Remove handling of flag_loop_optimize2.
* loop-i
#include
using namespace std;
template
complex add(complex a, complex b) { return a + b; }
template complex add(complex, complex);
$ g++ -Wall tmp.cpp -mno-80387 -O2
tmp.cpp: In function ‘std::complex<_Tp> add(std::complex<_Tp>,
std::complex<_Tp>) [with T = long double]’:
tmp.cpp:5: error: in
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 11:22 ---
This is a meta-bug, which should never have a target milestone or a regression
marker. A meta-bug is just a bug-bundler. The individual bugs can be
regressions but a meta-bug can't. So, removing the regression mark
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 11:27 ---
GCC 4.2 gives me the code with eax again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23523
--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 11:36 ---
And so does GCC 4.1.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 11:40 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.2 now that -fmove-loop-invariants is enabled by default.
Closing as WONTFIX because this is really not fixable for GCC 4.1. without
major surgery or ugly and unsafe hacks.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #8 from michaelni at gmx dot at 2006-02-11 11:40 ---
I really think this should be fixed, otherwise gcc wont be able to follow its
exponential decaying performance which it has so accurately followed since 2.95
at least, to show clearer how much speed we could loose by fixing
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 13:02 ---
Re. comment #8:
"exponential decaying performance which it has so accurately followed since
2.95"
Can you back this up with numbers, or are you just trolling? If the latter,
please don't do that, you are insulting t
This can perhaps be treated as a suggestion for improvement. There are also
some similarities with the 25952 report (which is also for OpenMP SINGLE).
On this code the GOMP branch sometimes reports ICE without any useful
information, sometimes ICE with something helpful to the programmer.
gfortra
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 13:14 ---
This is, in fact, a rare case where RTL store motion does something useful.
With "-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=pentium4" we produce:
movla, %eax
addl$1, %eax
movl%eax, a
--- Comment #4 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2006-02-11
13:27 ---
Subject: Re: Gratuitous warning about Fortran 2003 features w/o -std=...
> We don't warn for other Fortran 2003 features we support without a -std=f95,
> so
> I'll look into it and fix it.
Well, that's
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 13:33 ---
You need to provide a more sensible test or a description of what "works" and
"does not work" for this testcase is supposed to be.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26219
--- Comment #11 from michaelni at gmx dot at 2006-02-11 13:54 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Re. comment #8:
> "exponential decaying performance which it has so accurately followed since
> 2.95"
>
> Can you back this up with numbers, or are you just trolling? If the latter,
> please do
--- Comment #62 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 15:46 ---
Compile times for generate-3.4.ii
All compilers bootstrapped, with checking disabled.
Flags: -O2
GCC 4.0 (release branch today):
real0m22.795s 0m22.727s 0m22.760s
user0m22.481s 0m22.297s
> Flags: -O3
>
> GCC 4.0 (release branch today):
> real0m24.412s 0m25.000s 0m24.771s
> user0m23.921s 0m24.430s 0m24.210s
> sys 0m0.368s0m0.408s0m0.420s
>
> GCC 4.1 (release branch today):
> real0m33.260s 0m33.140s 0m33.188s
> us
--- Comment #63 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:02
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] C++
compile-time performance regression
> Flags: -O3
>
> GCC 4.0 (release branch today):
> real0m24.412s 0m25.000s 0m24.771s
> user0m23.921s 0
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:07 ---
IIRC long double on x86 and x86_64 is done with x87 and not the SSE unit so
this is bug is semi invalid.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:43 ---
Reduced Java source:
class A
{
{
int clutOffset = 52 + 256 * 3 * 2;
for (int x = 0; x < 16; x++)
for (int y = 0; y < 16; y++)
for (int z = 0; z < 16; z++)
{
int offset =
../../xgcc -B../../ -c -O2 -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -fno-common -gnatpg -gnata -I- -I../rts -I.
-I/home/da
ve/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/ada /home/dave/gcc-4.2/gcc/gcc/ada/make.adb -o make.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED
--- Comment #10 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:50 ---
Subject: Bug 16787
Author: sayle
Date: Sat Feb 11 16:50:41 2006
New Revision: 110873
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110873
Log:
2006-02-11 Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
R. Scot
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:59 ---
The problem is that we are splitting up the following RTL:
(insn 94 93 95 12 (parallel [
(set (mem/c/i:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 113 sfp)
(const_int 64 [0x40])) [9 S4 A32])
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 16:59 ---
Breakpoint 1, emit_move_multi_word (mode=BLKmode, x=0x42461170, y=0x423a81c0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/expr.c:3053
3053 gcc_assert (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) >= UNITS_PER_WORD);
(gdb) bt
#0 emit_move_multi_word (mode=BL
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 17:01 ---
Also happens on PPC-linux-gnu.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 17:14 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19664 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #89 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 17:14
---
*** Bug 26217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 17:45 ---
The reason why this fails on powerpc-darwin and not powerpc-linux but also on
powerpc64-linux is because the gfxopt option instructions are enabled by
default on powerpc-darwin and on powerpc64-linux.
--
pinskia
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 17:56 ---
The C testcase (compile with -O2 -fno-tree-pre -fno-tree-loop-im):
void putShort (int, int);
int t2;
void f(int t1)
{
int clutOffset = 52 + 256 * 3 * 2;
for (int x = 0; x < 16; x++)
for (int y = 0; y < 16; y
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 18:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=10823)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10823&action=view)
Possible fix
I am testing the attached patch that seems to fix the problem (although I am
not really sure wheth
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 18:23 ---
Could you please check whether the following patch fixes the problem?
I am not sure whether I would be able to build ada crosscompiler.
Index: loop-invariant.c
===
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-02-11
18:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] GCC error: in emit_move_multi_word, at
expr.c:3053
> Could you please check whether the following patch fixes the problem?
Started test.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
PASS: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/20010114-2.c execution, -Os
Executing on host: /home/gnu/gcc-3.4/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/gnu/gcc-3.4/objdir/
gcc/ /xxx/gnu/gcc-3.4/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/20010226-1.c
-w -O0 -fno-show-column -lm -o
/xxx/gnu/gcc-3.4/objdir/gcc/testsuite/2
--- Comment #15 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-02-11 20:17 ---
FYI, -march=i686 turns on -mtune=generic32 in 4.2, while it turns on
-mtune=pentiumpro in gcc 4.0 and 4.1. I backported the patch to 4.1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01436.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 21:20 ---
*** Bug 25685 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22571
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 21:20 ---
Actually this is still a dup of bug 22571.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22571 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
This is just a reminder bug to make sure that I and/or Paul T. don't lose it as
it will cause an ICE once I fix the double decl issue as we will be start to
inline this function and fail
Testcase:
function a(b)
REAL ::b
b = 2.0
a = 1.0
end function
program gg
real :: h
h = a();
end program gg
--
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-11 21:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10824)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10824&action=view)
patch for product
Here's a patch for the product/sum case. minval/maxval could
be fixed along the same lines,
While building the latest 4.2 snapshot I got the following error:
mkdir java/awt/.libs
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.2.0-20060212/gcc-4.2-20060212/darwin/gcc/gcj
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.2.0-20060212/gcc-4.2-20060212/darwin/powerpc-apple-darwin7/libjava/
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.2.0-20060212/g
--- Comment #64 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-12 01:17 ---
DONT_PROPAGATE_WITH_ANYTHING only exists on the trunk. With that flag, the
timings are:
Flags: -O2
GCC 4.2 (trunk today):
real0m31.704s
user0m31.094s
sys 0m0.584s
Flags: -O3
GCC 4.2 (trunk today):
r
--- Comment #12 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-02-12 01:31 ---
It looks like that unget_char needs to modified to increase the supported
number
of unget. The current number is 1. We can't do
unget_char (dtp, c);
unget_char (dtp, c);
unget_char (dtp, c);
We can have an unget buffe
--- Comment #47 from matz at suse dot de 2006-02-12 03:59 ---
What do you mean with 6 (as making more sense)? The size of the struct?
Anyway, even ignoring that we talk about structs which are packed in various
ways (as you rightly noticed) even the old (IMHO more sensible behaviour)
fu
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-12 04:13 ---
A patch like the rs6000 one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg02517.html
Should work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25765
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-12 06:36
---
Yes, I am working on a scheme that will provide deeper ungets when needed.
Half way there now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26136
--- Comment #23 from jason at redhat dot com 2006-02-12 07:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE on throw code
I think I have a better patch that I'll check in soon.
Jason
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24996
52 matches
Mail list logo
