--- Comment #1 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 09:39
---
Must have been some leftovers in my build dir.
Works after complete rebuild from scratch. Sorry for the noise
--
oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 10:38
---
Does not happen with -gnatc (syntax and semantics check only.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34898
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 12:03 ---
Does enabling optimization (-O) fix the problem? My guess is that the
gimplification of the aggregate assignments creates lots of overhead, but that
needs to be investigated by Ada people - stats with a compiler con
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-05-25 12:13 ---
> It's not complete yet, and some details need to be fixed, but the basic
> functionality is there. I hope it can be committed to trunk quite soon.
that would be great... I really hope this will be enough to enable the
mora celeste
kristina
meltin calvin
kongjoo cimarron dong hplab jill
arun hashim
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 13:48 ---
Well, this assignment seems to be _very_ expensive both in terms of parsing
time
and size of the IL to expand. It certainly looks unreasonable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34898
I think the following code is invalid:
interface
subroutine foo
end subroutine
end interface
external foo
Because the INTERFACE statement already specifies the EXTERNAL attribute, which
is thus specified twice.
This code *is* actually rejected (as of rev. 135859), but the error message is
co
--- Comment #5 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 13:31
---
Created an attachment (id=15679)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15679&action=view)
statistics output from gnat1 on pkg001u.adb without aggregate assignments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #6 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 13:38
---
Created an attachment (id=15680)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15680&action=view)
statistics output from gnat1 on pkg001u.adb with one assignment
Here, I enabled the assignment in line 377
--- Comment #1 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-05-25 14:02 ---
Here is a first patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/symbol.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/symbol.c(revision 135859)
+++ gcc/fortran/symbol.c(working copy)
@@ -
--- Comment #2 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-05-25 14:45 ---
Ok, this produces an impressive list of regressions.
Many of those (e.g. actual_procedure_1.f90) seem to be related to
conf (external, dimension); /* See Fortran 95's R504. */
I'm not sure if the constraint from R
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 15:36 ---
> Ok, this produces an impressive list of regressions.
> Many of those (e.g. actual_procedure_1.f90) seem to be related to
> conf (external, dimension); /* See Fortran 95's R504. */
> I'm not sure if the constrai
--- Comment #8 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 15:42
---
(in reply to comment #4)
> Does enabling optimization (-O) fix the problem?
No, does not change the behavior (other than taking even longer)
> [...] stats with a compiler configured with
> --enable-gather-deta
union X { int i; double x; };
int foo (union X *p)
{
union X x = *p;
return x.x;
}
produces
union X x.0;
x.0 = *p;
x = x.0;
this is not optimized at any point. Using a struct instead usually SRA
is able to remove the extra copy.
--
Summary: gimplification of aggregate
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 16:37 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Others testcases (like argument_checking_3.f90) fail because they define lots
> of specific interfaces, but no external implementation for those.
Obviously I got this wrong. The actual reaso
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 16:47 ---
Caused by the fix for PR17526.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Other
OK, this bug was brought on by a mistake I made while writing a
removenode function for a linked list class that I'm making in C++.
It's easy to trigger and, while a program written correctly won't ever
experience a defect from it, it does cause problems while debugging.
I'm using gcc 4.3.0.
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:11 ---
> Which leads me to think we should probably implement this (for the case that
> the interface is explicit). Or is there any good reason that this is not done?
Well, regarding the reason: Before interfaces had no EXT
--- Comment #35 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:17
---
Subject: Bug 17526
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun May 25 17:16:38 2008
New Revision: 135876
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135876
Log:
2008-05-25 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:18 ---
Which was just a workaround. It needs proper fixing so that
Index: tree-gimple.c
===
--- tree-gimple.c (revision 135859)
+++ tree-gimple.c
struct X { int i; int j; };
void bar (struct X *);
int foo (struct X *p)
{
struct X x;
p->i = 1;
x = *p;
x.j = 2;
return p->i - x.i;
}
this should be optimized to return zero. -fno-tree-sra required to show
the missed optimization.
--
Summary: SCCVN should look through str
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #26 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:29 ---
I also get this failure on x86 when using ilp32 && pic. See:
x86_64: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg02221.html
i686: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg01800.html
--
ghazi at gcc d
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:31 ---
I also get this failure on x86 when using ilp32 && pic. See:
x86_64: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg02221.html
i686: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg01800.html
--
ghazi at gcc do
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:52 ---
Subject: Bug 32600
Author: burnus
Date: Sun May 25 17:52:03 2008
New Revision: 135877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135877
Log:
2008-05-25 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR for
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:55 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.4).
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 18:03 ---
The testcase also fails for me on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu or
i686-unknown-linux-gnu but requires -fpic/-fPIC to trigger. (That may explain
the darwin x86 error.) See:
x86_64: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 18:08 ---
I see the failure with x86_64 -m32 or native i686 on the trunk:
x86_64: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg02221.html
i686: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg01800.html
--
ghazi at gc
--- Comment #9 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 18:12
---
Created an attachment (id=15681)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15681&action=view)
gnat1 (trunk r135848) output from -fmem-report, no aggregate assignments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 18:13 ---
Failure also occurs on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and i686-unknown-linux-gnu,
see:
x86_64: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg02221.html
i686: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg01800.html
--- Comment #10 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 18:17
---
Created an attachment (id=15682)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15682&action=view)
same as above but with assignments in pkg001u.adb lines 296 and 377 enabled
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #11 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2008-05-25 18:43
---
Created an attachment (id=15683)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15683&action=view)
att15682 was incorrect, two assignments already exhaust the memory. memreport
for _one_ assignmt.
--
o
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 18:56
---
ada/utils2.c:1774 (build_simple_component_ref)111547200:71.1%
clearly a frontend issue.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 19:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=15684)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15684&action=view)
patch
Ok, I extended the patch, and got the regression count down from a few million
to exactly two:
FAIL: gfort
--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-05-25 19:20 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This would fix it.
4.3.1-20080525 with this patch seems to work fine.
>
> Index: tree-eh.c
> ===
> --- tree-e
gcc 4.3.0 was configured with an explicit exec-prefix (different from prefix):
$ ../configure --target=powerpc-rtems --prefix=/opt/rtems-head//host
--exec-prefix=/opt/rtems-head//host/i386_linux26/gcc-4.3.0
--mandir=/opt/rtems-head//doc/man --infodir=/opt/rtems-head//doc/info
--enable-languages=
Something doesn't work as expected with tree inlining. This is visible by
adding the missing check to the CALL_CANNOT_INLINE_P flag:
#define CALL_CANNOT_INLINE_P(NODE) (CALL_EXPR_CHECK (NODE)->base.static_flag)
You get gazillions of failures in the C testsuite coming from cgraphbuild.c
and ipa-i
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 19:58 ---
> Patch is attached.
You need also to reject the following, which violates R504.
interface
real function bar()
end function bar
end interface
dimension :: bar(4)
end
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 19:59 ---
The call edge's statement will either be an assignment (whos rhs is a call
expression) or a call expression (if the call's return value is ignored).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36329
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 20:00 ---
The checks in ipa-inline.c should all look like CALL_CANNOT_INLINE_P
(get_call_expr_in (...)).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36329
--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 20:03 ---
This should be fun :-)
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assi
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 20:08 ---
This works for me down to 4.1.3:
$ gfortran-4.1 -static foo.f
$ ./a.out
$ head -4 fort.10
0.99950656E+00 0.31410759E-01 0.99950656E+00 0.31410759E-01
0.99802673E+00 0.62790520E-01 0.99802673E+00 0.62790520
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 20:24 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 21:28 ---
Close as invalid. If you think this is an error, please reopen. If you have
further questions, send those to the gfortran mailing list.
Thanks for sending a bugreport after finding a bug. (Even though it turned out
t
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 22:00 ---
Somewhere a
fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (to_tree), from_tree)
is missing, but I fail to see where. I think one could add a couple of those in
trans-array.c; I think there is more than one missing.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 22:33 ---
The failure of proc_decl_9.f90 was actually due to a bug that slipped in with
my procedure declaration update patch from May 1st, which I have fixed now.
So we're left with gomp/reduction3.f90, which contains this pie
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 22:38 ---
Subject: Bug 18428
Author: dfranke
Date: Sun May 25 22:37:41 2008
New Revision: 135882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135882
Log:
gcc:
2008-05-26 Daniel Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
i386-pc-solaris2.10 configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables.
gcc-4.3.1-RC-20080523.tar.bz2
binutils 2.18
Solaris 10 x86_64 U4
I can build gcc 4.2.3.
But I can't build gcc 4.2.4 and 4.3.1.
pwd: /export/home/test/gcc-4.3.1-build/build/i386-pc-solaris2.10
configure: creating cache .
--- Comment #1 from cnstar9988 at gmail dot com 2008-05-26 00:43 ---
gmp 4.2.2, mpfr 2.3.1
Both gmp and mpfr build with "--disable-shared ABI=32"
gcc 4.3.1 configure:
../src/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-4.3.1 --with-gmp=/opt/gcc-4.3.1/gmp
--with-mpfr=/opt/gcc-4.3.1/mpfr --with-as=/usr/lo
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-26 00:50 ---
-m64
Use --disable-multilib.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from cnstar9988 at gmail dot com 2008-05-26 00:54 ---
I want both build my programs -m32 -m64
My OS is solaris 10 x86_64.
I can run well with gcc 4.2.3.
If I build gcc 4.3.1 with --disable-multilib, I can only compile with apps with
-m32?
--
cnstar9988 at gmail dot co
On Linux/ia32, Linux/Intel64 and Linux/ia64, when configured with
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-decimal-float=bid
--with-demangler-in-ld --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa
--enable-checking=assert --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.4 --with-local-prefix=/usr/local
revision
--- Comment #4 from cnstar9988 at gmail dot com 2008-05-26 02:14 ---
gcc 4.3.1 can build with --disable-multilib on i386-pc-solaris2.10.
It can only compiles 32bit apps.
gcc 4.3.1 can build on sparc-sun-solaris2.10.
It can compiles 32bit and 64bit apps.
-
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-26 06:47
---
Fixing.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|una
55 matches
Mail list logo
