GCC tries to use a register `%SIL' in my test on an i386 machine. However, the
lowest 8 bits of ESI can be directly accessed only in x86-64, but not i386. I
also observe in other tests the use of another two bad register names `%DIL'
and `%BPL'.
The following code can reproduce the bug:
static in
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-10-06 07:50 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10153 ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-10-06 07:50 ---
*** Bug 33674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 08:55 ---
Subject: Bug 25076
Author: tobi
Date: Sat Oct 6 08:55:30 2007
New Revision: 129050
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129050
Log:
PR fortran/25076
fortran/
* resolve.c (gfc_find_forall_index): Move
--- Comment #5 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 09:10 ---
Fixed.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
If you compile the function
void assign2(float* a, double b) {
volatile float v = -b;
*a = -v;
}
you will see that GCC 4.1.2, e.g., at -O2, produces
fldl12(%ebp)
fchs
movl8(%ebp), %eax
fstps -20(%ebp)
flds-20(%ebp)
fstps -4(%ebp
--- Comment #25 from bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2007-10-06 09:51
---
Done: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33675
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21032
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-10-06 10:01 ---
(which means, you should replace "=r" with "=q").
Paolo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33674
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 11:14 ---
This fails in execution, for the same reason:
call func_1((/1,2/), 1)
contains
subroutine func_1(u,n)
integer :: n, u(n(1))
print *, u
end subroutine
end
n is determined to be a function and so must be
--- Comment #16 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 11:44 ---
Subject: Bug 33572
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Oct 6 11:43:56 2007
New Revision: 129051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129051
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/33572
* tree-cfg.c (verify
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 11:45 ---
That is becasue there is a cast to volatile float which causes an extra store.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
libtool: compile: /usr/nabil-files/pfeifer/OBJ-1003-1117/./gcc/gfortran
-B/usr/
nabil-files/pfeifer/OBJ-1003-1117/./gcc/
-B/files/pfeifer/gcc/i386-unknown-freeb
sd6.2/bin/ -B/files/pfeifer/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd6.2/lib/ -isystem
/files/pfe
ifer/gcc/i386-unknown-freebsd6.2/include -isystem
/files
--- Comment #4 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 11:48 ---
Subject: Bug 33655
Author: aoliva
Date: Sat Oct 6 11:47:51 2007
New Revision: 129052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129052
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/33655
* tree-sra.c (bitfiel
--- Comment #17 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 12:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 06:49 ---
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
>> The
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 12:36 ---
10 to 1 this is a problem with coming out of cfglayout mode somewhere.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2007-10-06 13:03 ---
I don't understand. Do you mean that what I consider the natural compilation
of that piece of code (the shorter assembly listing) is incorrect? In other
words: do you think that the shorter assembly listing does no
--- Comment #18 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 13:07
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 06:49 ---
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
>> The
GCC accept test1.cc. But GCC reject test2.cc.
IMHO, this code is valid.
test1.cc:
struct foo
{
~foo(){}
int foo;
};
test2.cc:
struct foo
{
int foo;
~foo(){}
};
--
Summary: Member with same name as class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: U
--- Comment #8 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 14:08 ---
There's no related bug field, but it's worth mentioning that PR19925 and this
should probably be attacked at the same time.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #9 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 14:09 ---
There's no related bug field, but it's worth mentioning that PR20923 and this
should probably be attacked at the same time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19925
--- Comment #9 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 14:43 ---
And this looks like the right place for an attack:
/* Given an array constructor, determine if the constructor is
constant or not by expanding it and making sure that all elements
are constants. This is a bit of
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 15:09 ---
Subject: Bug 33487
Author: bkoz
Date: Sat Oct 6 15:08:58 2007
New Revision: 129054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129054
Log:
2007-10-06 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #17 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-06 15:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33253
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/2007-10/msg00011.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #14 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-06 15:10 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33554
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/2007-10/msg00030.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #10 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-06 15:11 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33055
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/2007-10/msg00081.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-06 15:21 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The testcase is slightly uninformative.
>
> Note, that %esp is aligned here and %ebp is potentially not (thus locals are
> accessed via %esp).
>
> What if:
>
> 1. We have dinamic size alloca() cal
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 15:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=14310)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14310&action=view)
partial fix
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33489
--- Comment #6 from amruth dot laxman at nsn dot com 2007-10-06 15:37
---
Based on the feedback below, I'd like to reopen this as an enhancement request.
Rationale for requesting this as an enhancment is as follows:
-> restoring gcc 3.x behavior will ease migration to gcc 4.x on alignme
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 15:40
---
I do not get this error on x86-64-Gnu-linux. So I think it is target specific.
I am at rev 129029.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33609
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 15:44
---
Taking care of it.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ass
First reported by Daniel Jacobowitz here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2007-10/msg00036.html
The patch is as attached.
--
Summary: [4.2.0 regression] __do_catch, __do_upcast ABI change
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at codesourcery dot com
Severity|normal
This one has me quite puzzled. Starting between 2007-10-02 and 2007-10-03, I
haven't been able to bootstrap with Fortran enabled due to an ICE in the
Fortran compiler for very simple testcases:
$ cat foo.f90
integer function foo ()
end function
$ ./f951 foo.f90
foo.f90:1: internal compiler error:
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 16:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=14311)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14311&action=view)
fix
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33678
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-06 16:16 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
> miscompiles 481.wrf
>
> hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> > --- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-06 02:07 ---
> > Kenny, does your
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 16:47 ---
most of the PowerPC don't enforce alignment requirements for integer
instructions (except for cache inhibited memory) so please don't use that as an
example.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33594
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 17:17 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Needless to say, it was developed on a 64bit machine.
Thanks, Dominique
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33636
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 17:36
---
Nevermind above comment, I can reproduce the problem with:
print *, real(huge(1.0_8),4)
end
(gdb) bt
#0 gfc_range_check (e=0x0) at ../../gcc43/gcc/fortran/arith.c:524
#1 0x00464f29 in range_check (resu
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 18:04
---
The following fixes this:
Index: simplify.c
===
--- simplify.c (revision 129029)
+++ simplify.c (working copy)
@@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ gfc_expr gfc_bad_
Looks like ffmpeg should be added to gcc testsuite. Just another ICE :
[/packages/mplayer/libavcodec]> cc -I../libswscale -I../libavcodec
-DHAVE_AV_CONFIG_H -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_ISOC9X_SOURCE
-I.. -I.. -I../libavutil -Wdisabled-optimization -Wno-pointer-sign
-Wdeclaration
--- Comment #1 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-10-06 18:18
---
Created an attachment (id=14312)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14312&action=view)
elbg.i produced with -save-temps
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33680
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 18:49
---
Might as well assign myself
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 18:59 ---
Sigh. GCC appears to be miscompiling itself on i386-*-freebsd.
configure --disable-bootstrap
make
Builds a working compiler
configure
make bootstrap
dies.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 19:09 ---
Reducing.
Inside tree dce we have a statment as a DECL which seems wrong.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 19:37 ---
Vectorizer produces invalid Gimple SSA code:
D.1769_169 = D.1599 /[ex] 4;
D.1599 should be renamed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #19 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 19:58 ---
In dse.c, scan_insn(), we have:
if ((GET_CODE (PATTERN (insn)) == CLOBBER)
|| volatile_refs_p (PATTERN (insn))
|| (flag_non_call_exceptions && may_trap_p (PATTERN (insn)))
|| (RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (ins
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 20:11 ---
We do catch this earlier with checking turned on.
Reducing all the way now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33680
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 20:37 ---
Reduced testcase:
int f(int dim, int *b) {
int newcentroid[3][dim];
int *a = newcentroid[2];
int i, dist=0;
for (i=0;ihttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33680
cat > foo.c << EOF
void foo() {}
EOF
gcc -c -O1 -fno-tree-salias foo.c
foo.c: In function 'foo':
foo.c:1: internal compiler error: in verify_curr_properties, at passes.c:1044
gcc (GCC) 4.3.0 20071005 (experimental)
--
Summary: ICE with -O1 -fno-tree-salias
Product: gcc
--- Comment #20 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 21:20
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 19:58 ---
> In dse.c, scan_insn(), we have:
>
>
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 20:22
---
Reply to comment #2: After studying this some more.
Note that the first form of the READ has a non optional left paren. This means
that as soon as one sees a left paren right after READ that we must be in
io-co
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 21:22 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33092 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 21:22 ---
*** Bug 33681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 21:36 ---
For once, the segfault is in the
gfortran driver, not the f951 binary.
Backtrace, plus some more debug info:
$ gdb ~/bin/gfortran
GNU gdb 6.6.90.20070912-debian
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Li
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 21:40
---
Well from comment on comp.lang.fortran, I lost my argument. :) We move on to
fixing this. I am not going to assign myself yet. I need to study the how to
do it a bit more.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #24 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-06 21:47 ---
The patch in comment #22 fixes the 3 PR's, but cause a quite massive regression
on my tests, for instance:
INTEGER :: I
CHARACTER(LEN=100) :: data="1.0 3.0"
REAL :: C,D
READ(data,*) C,D
I=TRANSFER(C/D,I)
SELECT CASE
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/guard.cc:68: error: expected
initializer before '*' token
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/guard.cc:71: error: '__cond' is
not a member of '__gnu_cxx'
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/guard.cc:72: error: '__cond' is
not a member of '__gnu_cxx'
../.
--- Comment #1 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2007-10-06
21:53 ---
The 'obvious' patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2007-10/msg00043.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33682
-mainainer-mode
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20071006 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: calculating lgamma instead of gamma
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: critical
Priority
/gcc4.3w/share/man --infodir=/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/share/info
--build=powerpc-apple-darwin8 --enable-languages=c,fortran --with-gmp=/sw
--with-libiconv-prefix=/sw --with-system-zlib --x-includes=/usr/X11R6/include
--x-libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20071006 (experimental) (GCC
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 23:04
---
I checked and the simplification routines work correctly, which means there is
no real testsuite coverage for these functions. We should always include
testcases comparing values calculated at runtime with constan
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 23:40 ---
Subject: Bug 33678
Author: bkoz
Date: Sat Oct 6 23:40:32 2007
New Revision: 129058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129058
Log:
2007-10-06 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 23:45
---
Subject: Bug 33609
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Oct 6 23:44:48 2007
New Revision: 129059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129059
Log:
2007-10-06 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 23:48 ---
Subject: Bug 33678
Author: bkoz
Date: Sat Oct 6 23:48:31 2007
New Revision: 129061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129061
Log:
2007-10-06 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-06 23:49
---
Closing, Thanks Dominique for report and testing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-07 03:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
hj,
here is a fix. I will most likely post the patch on monday after i get
it really tested on a bunch of platforms. The fix is in the third
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-07 03:20 ---
Sources that are obtained via
svn merge -r HEAD:'{2007-10-01}' .
bootstrap without a problem. I'll slide forward to 10-03.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33676
68 matches
Mail list logo
