--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 23:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=13581)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13581&action=view)
timekeeping.i from ./kernel/time/timekeeping.c
Second requested attachemnt.
Observation:
You might just as wel
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:13 ---
> You might just as well close on the basis of your last paragraph.
> This is really a documentation issue in getting the info to people like
> kernel.org and others writing programs for free-standing or embedded
--- Comment #20 from m dot vegni at it-systems dot it 2007-05-18 23:31
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] possible quadratic behaviour.
Testsuite ran on i686-pc-linux-gnu without failures (i've enabled c and
c++ only).
xorg-server now compiles as well.
The patch deserves more testing
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 23:45 ---
Mr Pinski
I give up. I hereby formally request that you, Mr. Pinksi, refrain from having
anything to do with problem reports originating from myself (Rainer
Malitzke-Goes alias Ray Malitzke). I rather see them langui
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:48
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Mr Pinski
Well I am going to help now you have provided the preprocessed source for the
missed optimization (since that is all what it is), read the history behind
libgcc (it dates back b
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:52
---
Created an attachment (id=13582)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13582&action=view)
Patch to eliminate segfault
This patch eliminates the segfault from the original test case and the last
tes
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-18 23:58
---
Have to remind myself to submit the patch. The odd messages are from trying to
match and resolve other things, after failing already. I am working on a patch
to try circumvent some of these. Garbage in Garbage
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 00:46 ---
I have verified that this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-05/msg00123.html
causes the regression. FX, can you take a look? Thanks.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed
conjg(transpose(a)) produces the wrong answers. Both absoft and ifort
produce correct answers.
program main
implicit none
complex (kind=4),dimension(2,2)::a,b,c
a(1,1) = (1.,1.)
a(2,1) = (2.,2.)
a(1,2) = (3.,3.)
a(2,2) = (4.,4.)
print *,"original",a
b=conjg(transpose(a))
print
While looking into some failures on the pointer plus branch after fixing up
forwprop, I noticed that we would get a failure in the vectorizer testsuite and
the reason is because we no longer could determine dependence for the two data
accesses.
Here is the testcase which is a modified version of v
--- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-05-19 01:30 ---
Subject: Bug number PR31716
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/2007-05/msg01265.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
Just like PR 31995, this was found on the pointer plus branch after fixing
forwprop (note fowrwprop could be improved even more but that is a different
story and then we just get back to PR 31995 really), This testcase is really
vect-103 but modified to confuse data-ref:
/* { dg-require-effective-t
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31996
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-19 02:02 ---
Well, this is getting funny.
You and apparently others at gcc are looking at the computer-sofware world
through a high powered telescope and in this drastically reduced field of
vision you-all only see gcc. I refres
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 02:04
---
Subject: Bug 31964
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat May 19 01:04:03 2007
New Revision: 124846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124846
Log:
2007-05-18 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 02:07
---
Subject: Bug 31964
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat May 19 01:07:41 2007
New Revision: 124847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124847
Log:
2007-05-18 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 02:10
---
Fixed on trunk, 4.3
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gmorain at gmail dot com 2007-05-19 02:17 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I can reproduce the failure on powerpc-linux-gnu with 4.1.0 but it works on
> the
> trunk. combine is doing something wrong.
>
I tested it on 4.2.0, and it works OK. Except, I can't understan
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-05-19 02:52 ---
malloc is
void *malloc(size_t size);
and size_t is unsigned. I am not sure if checking size < 0 in Fortran is needed
or done properly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31974
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 03:29
---
I see it here too. This is a frontend problem I think. Looks to me like its
the transpose portion looking at -fdump-tree-original.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 03:38
---
Adding FX to cc. This is not a regression relative to 4.1, but its sure ugly!
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 03:47
---
This patch looks simple enough. Has it been regression tested? Anything else
planned with this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20373
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I../.././libiberty/../include -W -Wall
-pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes ../.././libiberty/regex.c -o
regex.o
/var/tmp//ccaaq6Zh.s:10725:indirect jmp without `*'
/var/tmp//ccaaq6Zh.s:10740:indirect jmp without `*'
/var/tmp//ccaaq6Zh.s:10755:indirect
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 04:34 ---
I think this is fixed in 4.2.0 which was just released, i686-darwin was not
that well supported in GCCs before 4.2.0.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 05:12 ---
Functionality installed on trunk.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 05:14 ---
Functionality installed on trunk.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 30250
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat May 19 04:18:05 2007
New Revision: 124849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124849
Log:
PR middle-end/30250
* builtins.c (do_mpfr_lgamma_
This "spec bug" probably affects other targets too.
I did search for "Unreachable" "statement" and came up ONE hit - unrelated:
"Unreachable code at beginning of switch "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25314
It seems that is a complicated issue that is interrelated with a few factors
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 06:02 ---
fixed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg00150.html
by this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01733.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
While tackling this bug ( http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31998 ) I
found a problem with the boehm-gc. This is a seperate bug report only about
boehm-gc (and not about the interrelated issues of the above report).
/gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
