This testcase will cause an internel error when compiled with options "-O3
-fprefetch-loop-arrays" on IA-64 + Linux.
SUBROUTINE EBJFT()
dimension nmw(140)
if(k.eq.0) goto 10
go to 30
10 continue
do 20 l=1, 140
20nmw(l)= 0.0D0
30 continue
go to (1
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |normal
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimizati
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-02 09:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/27804
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00060.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #2 from uros at kss-loka dot si 2006-06-02 10:04 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> There is nothing special about reassociation at all. In fact what you are
> seeing is register allocator going funky. This what you get with x87.
This is also what you get with SSE.
--
htt
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 10:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is also what you get with SSE.
And how many registers does SSE have, not many. Try it on PPC or any processor
have more registers?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #2 from tijl at ulyssis dot org 2006-06-02 11:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=11578)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11578&action=view)
proposed patch
This patch fixes my problems, but I'm not sure I got all cases and I'm not sure
if the _finite versions
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 11:57 ---
This is a dup of PR27416 - the ICE on invalid part of that bug.
The testcase violates OpenMP 2.5 section 2.8.3 restriction:
"A list item that appears in a reduction clause of a work-sharing construct
must be shared in
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 11:57 ---
*** Bug 27870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
$ cat forall_3.f90
type t
integer :: p(1)
end type
type (t), dimension (1) :: v
integer i
forall (i=1:1,.false.)
v(i)%p = v(i+1)%p
end forall
end
$ gfortran forall_3.f90 -fbounds-check && ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: Array reference out of bounds
--
Summary: B
Note: This problems happens only on trunk compiler configured with
--target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnuspe --enable-e500_double
I have lots of dejagnu failures that looks just like this one:
/temp/gnu_toolchain/build_area/obj_gcc-trunk_e500v2/gcc/xgcc
-B/temp/gnu_toolchain/build_area/obj_gcc-trunk
--- Comment #1 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-06-02 15:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=11579)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11579&action=view)
file generated with --save-temps
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27875
When I am trying to build GCC 4.1.1 I am getting the following error:
/root/Downloads/gcc-4.1.1/host-i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/root/Downloads/gcc-4.1.1/host-i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc -nostdinc++
-L/root/Downloads/gcc-4.1.1/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/root/Downloads/gcc-4.1
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 15:51 ---
/usr/bin/ld: BFD 2.15.92.0.2 20040927 internal error, aborting at
../../bfd/elf32-i386.c line 2262 in elf_i386_relocate_section
Two things, first this is a bug in binutils.
Second the version of binutils y
--- Comment #2 from razin at avaya dot com 2006-06-02 15:55 ---
Subject: RE: Getting an error when building GCC 4.1.1
If you do not mind can you explain a little bit in details the
difference between FSF and HJL binutils.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: pinskia at gcc dot g
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 15:58 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Subject: RE: Getting an error when building GCC 4.1.1
>
> If you do not mind can you explain a little bit in details the
> difference between FSF and HJL binutils.
HJL does not care abo
--- Comment #4 from razin at avaya dot com 2006-06-02 15:59 ---
Subject: RE: Getting an error when building GCC 4.1.1
Thanks! I will make a note of that.
Sergey
-Original Message-
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-02 16:00 ---
Subject: Bug number PR target/27842
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00078.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #3 from green at redhat dot com 2006-06-02 16:09 ---
This bug may also be what's causing rssowl to suddenly fail in FC5. Both
Eclipse (swt) and gcc were updated in FC5 recently, and one of those triggered
the failure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193
--- Comment #8 from idht4n at hotmail dot com 2006-06-02 16:22 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> g++f4 -o hello hello.o -lmudflap
>
> You need both -fmudlfap and -lmudflap when linking.
>
> This is not a bug.
>
OK - mostly my bad then. Sorry. But if you need them both, why doesn't it
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 16:39 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
The FAQ on gcc.gnu.org states in section 2.2 "Dynamic linker is unable to find
GCC libraries" the following:
However, if you feel you really need such an option to be passed automatically
to the linker, you may add it to the GCC specs file. This file can be found in
the same directory that contai
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
--- Comment #2 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-02
17:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] libgomp fails to configure on IRIX 5.3
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00084.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27540
GCC 4.1.0 works, but 4.1.1 does not (dies in libstdc++):
#
# /home/martinol/auto_v4.0/third/build-csips9/gcc-4.1.1/configure
--prefix=/home/martinol/auto_v4.0/devel/mips-sgi-irix6.5 --disable-
shared --enable-static
--with-gmp=/home/martinol/auto_v4.0/devel/mips-sgi-irix6.5
--with-mpfr=/home/mar
--- Comment #11 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-02 18:47 ---
Falk's original testcase is baesd on a segfault while compiling qt4-x11. I
just found another application, enigmail, which segfaults on Alpha (with the
same backtrace as in this PR). The interesting observation is that eni
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-02 18:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=11580)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11580&action=view)
test case for 4.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27467
--- Comment #4 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-02 18:49 ---
(From update of attachment 11580)
wrong bug, sorry
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
A
--- Comment #12 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-02 18:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=11581)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11581&action=view)
test case for 4.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27082
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-02 19:59 ---
Before confirming this we have to understand why we have got rather good
testresults for 4.1.1 on mips-sgi-irix6.5:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-05/msg01513.html
Eric, any idea?
--
pcarlini at suse dot
--- Comment #11 from rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-06-02 20:11 ---
I recently ran into this on ppc/ppc64 when building a toolchain with gcc4.1 or
gcc4.2.
When the bootstrap gcc was built with --enable-checking=all (or =fold which we
just tested) the glibc 32bit build stage fails in vfp
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-02 20:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR14067
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00093.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
Static linking is broken on ia64:
$ gcc -static -v hello.c
Using built-in specs.
Target: ia64-suse-linux
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info
--mandir=/usr/share/man --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--en
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 20:32
---
> Eric, any idea?
I presume the message means that the functions are not declared in ?
I do have both in on the IRIX machine:
__SGI_LIBC_USING_FROM_STD(wcstok)
__SGI_LIBC_USING_FROM_STD(wcsftime)
--
http
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27880
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-02 20:35 ---
4.1.1 20060511 is also affected, 4.2.0 20060508 works.
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-02 20:43 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > Eric, any idea?
>
> I presume the message means that the functions are not declared in ?
Yes, that for sure ;) but we have got specific configure tests for that and, at
the moment, I have no i
--- Comment #4 from martinol at nrlssc dot navy dot mil 2006-06-02 20:55
---
Created an attachment (id=11582)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11582&action=view)
./mips-sgi-irix6.5/libstdc++-v3/config.log
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27878
--- Comment #5 from martinol at nrlssc dot navy dot mil 2006-06-02 21:05
---
An IRIX64 system here has wchar.h with the __SGI_LIBC_USING_FROM_STD(wcstok),
but it failed in the fortran part! :-(
The SGI I am using has a much different looking wchar.h with wsctok here:
#if !defined(_SGI
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 21:18
---
> An IRIX64 system here has wchar.h with the __SGI_LIBC_USING_FROM_STD(wcstok),
> but it failed in the fortran part! :-(
That's it: puar% uname -s
IRIX64
I've not tried to build the Fortran compiler on the machi
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-06-02 21:21 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=11582)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11582&action=view) [edit]
> ./mips-sgi-irix6.5/libstdc++-v3/config.log
I do not understand: the configure tes
Please submit a patch against SVN trunk to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
ChangeLog entries
I regret that I cannot spend more time on this than I already have. If
you don't want to use my diffs, then please just consider it as a bug
report. If you don't want to do that either, then I guess the
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 22:03
---
Confirmed.
Shorter testcase (fails with C or C++ frontend):
=
static int* foo(int *q, int j) { return q + j; }
int* r;
void bar(int *p)
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<2; ++
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 22:38
---
Here's an even shorter testcase:
=
struct X {};
struct Y : virtual X {};
struct Z : virtual X {};
struct A : Y, Z {};
struct B : A
{
static const int i = sizeof((Z*
--- Comment #1 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-02 22:40 ---
I believe this is because you are configuring with --with-system-libunwind and
your system unwind does not have _Unwind_GetIPInfo. This routine was added to
the GCC libunwind back in February by Jakub Jelinek to fix PR o
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 22:49 ---
And I did mention this when that other PR's patch was posted.
--with-system-libunwind is the "issue".
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-06-02 23:10 ---
I should have mentioned that for HP-UX, where the system unwind also does not
have _Unwind_GetIPInfo, I added it to libgcc. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01285.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 23:19 ---
Real bug, despite Andrew's usual portion of x86-hate.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 23:24
---
Testing a patch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigne
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 23:50 ---
Subject: Bug 27850
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Jun 2 23:50:11 2006
New Revision: 114332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114332
Log:
PR other/27850
* Makefile.in (stmp-fixinc): F
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 23:19
> ---
> Real bug, despite Andrew's usual portion of x86-hate.
>
>
It'd be good to know what exactly is going wrong.
Reassociation only touches floating point because someone asked
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-03 02:11 ---
Subject: Re: reassociation pass produces ~30% slower matrix
multiplication code
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 23:19
> ---
> Real bug,
Compiling the GCC testsuite file alias3.C with -O1 -finline-functions exhausts
memory on checking=all or =yes builds of GCC 4.1.1, on Ubuntu 5.04 with virtual
memory limited to 500M. Roughly similar behavior on Mac OSX 10.4.6 with a
checking=all build of GCC 4.1.0, though ulimit is broken on the M
--- Comment #1 from flash at pobox dot com 2006-06-03 02:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=11583)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11583&action=view)
Preprocessed Delta-reduced source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27881
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-03 02:38 ---
What reassociation is doing is "scheduling" the instructions further down
before the use but it exands the life time of some variables.
e.g.:
D.1563_59 = rA0_49 * rB0_50;
rC0_0_60 = D.1563_59 + rC0_0_516;
D.15
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-03 02:49 ---
If you change the code to be integers, this also cause the drop too with
reassociation even without -ffast-math so it is unrelated to the fact
-ffast-math turns on reassociate for floating points for fast math.
So
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-03 03:42 ---
Here is a testcase without inline functions:
void bar(int *p, int t1)
{
int i;
static int *tt;
for (i=0; i<2; ++i)
if (i)
{
int t = i - 1;
tt = p+t;
}
}
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-03 03:46 ---
The code to do:
2098 /* If we just created an invalid range with the minimum
2099 greater than the maximum, take the maximum all the
2100 way to +INF. */
2101
57 matches
Mail list logo
