--- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 21:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=17004)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17004&action=view)
failing test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38665
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36191
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36254
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36489
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36695
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37037
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.2
Known to work||4.4.0
Target
--- Comment #5 from aleaverfay at gmail dot com 2008-12-29 21:30 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So what gcc are you using? 4.4 (which revision) or 4.3.0 20080125?
> In any case, this compiles just fine for me with both 4.3.2-RH and 4.4 trunk.
>
I downloaded gcc4.4 as a package here:
h
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 21:06 ---
t.i:3: note: Vectorization may not be profitable.
why doesn't the cost model then disallow vectorization here?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
--- Comment #6 from aleaverfay at gmail dot com 2008-12-29 21:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Also what is the ICE?
>
OOH -- ICE == internal compiler error.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/ICE.html
It's a bus error.
$ ~/gcc4.4/usr/local/bin/g++ -o
build/src/release/macos/10.4/32/x86/
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38089
--- Comment #7 from aleaverfay at gmail dot com 2008-12-29 21:38 ---
> In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Also what is the ICE?
> >
>
> OOH -- ICE == internal compiler error.
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/ICE.html
>
> It's a bus error.
>
> $ ~/gcc4.4/usr/local/b
I've encountered this problem while compiling a mostly autogenerated "C" file.
Here is the screen session:
"
~/AFSWD/install/gcc-4.3.2/binsh/gcc -v -save-temps -O1 -march=native
-mtune=native -I/home/sergei/GenericBinauralFFTW/C -Wall gcc_bug.c -o gcc_bug
-lm
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38092
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38228
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38381
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38529
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38533
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38579
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[4.4 regression] ICE with |[4.4 Regression] I
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38615
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38636
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38638
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38640
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38646
--- Comment #1 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-12-29 21:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=17005)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17005&action=view)
'gcc_bug.i.gz' file produced by 'gcc' and 'gzip' from the input 'gcc_bug.c' one
Source with all the files included.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38647
--- Comment #2 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-12-29 21:53 ---
The bug is data-dependent. If inside the 'for' loop I replace all the
coefficients with 1.0, the failure is graceful:
cc1: out of memory allocating 4054207356 bytes after a total of 105562112 bytes
.
--
http://gcc.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38648
--- Comment #3 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-12-29 21:57 ---
No problem occurs with -O0; with -O2, -O3 'gcc' also exits gracefully:
cc1: out of memory allocating 4283978752 bytes after a total of 228749312 bytes
.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38666
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38650
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38603
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38583
--- Comment #21 from stsp at users dot sourceforge dot net 2008-12-29
22:16 ---
> I agree with Steven that there are some cases (like -ffunction-sections) where
> even popping back from the debug section after generating it doesn't work.
Can this possibly be solved by emitting
a warnin
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38609
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:17
---
I think enabling partial PRE to do it is appropriate (with at most inserting
on one edge).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:25 ---
We also see this from time to time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38591
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=17006)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17006&action=view)
reduced testcase
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38649
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38661
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Component|c |middle-end
G
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:37 ---
powerpc64 and -m64 (not -q64)?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:37
---
What's the status of this bug?
If it's not an IRA related problem as comment #1 suggests,
then the summary should be updated accordingly.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-12-29 22:45 ---
Just to make sure - my OS is 32 bits SUSE-10.3, though the CPU is 64 bits
capable.
--
sergstesh at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 23:13 ---
failing assert line 4338:
4334 gfc_match_rvalue (&expr);
4335 gfc_clear_error ();
4336 gfc_buffer_error (0);
4337
4338 gcc_assert (expr && sym == expr->symtree->n.sym);
4
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38665
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 23:22 ---
This is a Fortran FE bug and as such it is P4/P5. That doesn't mean
it shouldn't be fixed for 4.4, just that it isn't release critical.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:56
---
Hi Janis,
your x86 testcase hangs with GCC 4.3.0, 4.3.1, and 4.3.2,
but not with the current revision of the 4.3-branch.
Is the problem now fixed?
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-12-29 23:29 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> if (! CLASS_TYPE_P (t))
> return 0; /* other non-class type (reference or function) */
> if (CLASSTYPE_NON_POD_P (t))
> return 0;
> return 1;
>
> One of those two should be set c
--- Comment #3 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-12-29 22:48 ---
No longer fails with 4.4 since the switch to IRA.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gzp at gmx dot net 2008-12-29 23:34 ---
Done what you requested. log.make show you where make fails first.
$ getconf/POSIX_V6_ILP32_OFF32 ARG_MAX
131072
$ getconf./POSIX_V6_ILP32_OFFBIG ARG_MAX
131072
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
--- Comment #7 from gzp at gmx dot net 2008-12-29 23:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=17007)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17007&action=view)
config.log log.configure log.make
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
--- Comment #9 from gzp at gmx dot net 2008-12-29 23:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=17008)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17008&action=view)
config.log log.configure log.make
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 23:22 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38665
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-29 23:40
---
additional info.
gcc.c-torture/compile/930523-1.c
on x86-32.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35805
--- Comment #8 from gzp at gmx dot net 2008-12-29 23:37 ---
(From update of attachment 17007)
Wrong datestamp in the filename.
--
gzp at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 23:42 ---
The function is simply too big and we likely use most of the memory computing
and storing the const reals. A case for closer investigation.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #22 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-29 23:48 ---
Subject: Re: miscalculation of asm labels with -g3
stsp at users dot sourceforge dot net wrote:
> Can this possibly be solved by emitting
> a warning if the asm in global scope is
> used with -ffunction-sections?
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 23:51
---
(In reply to comment #10)
Hmm, this patch bootstraps just fine on the 4.3 branch but causes miscompares
on the trunk (the 4.3 branch had checking on also when I bootstrapped it on
i386-darwin8.11).
--
http://g
--- Comment #6 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-12-30 00:00 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The function is simply too big and we likely use most of the memory computing
> and storing the const reals. A case for closer investigation.
>
(In reply to comment #5)
> The function is sim
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 00:01 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> My primary concern is segmentation fault, not the cases when 'gcc' can't
> allocate enough memory and reports the problem clearly.
The seg fault is most likely some recursive function gone
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 00:04
---
Without any patches, I was able to build just fine on x86_64-linux-gnu.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38339
--- Comment #8 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2008-12-30 00:08 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > My primary concern is segmentation fault, not the cases when 'gcc' can't
> > allocate enough memory and reports the problem clearly.
>
> The seg fault is most like
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 00:35 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 00:55 ---
I posted a new patch for this, with a changelog and such:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg01256.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:02 ---
I have a simple patch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assi
--- Comment #18 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:18
---
*** Bug 37970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:18
---
To make things short: The bug is a duplicate of PR24791.
> This code (for better or worse) appeared to have built with 4.0.1. By adding
>the "class" stuff in the template specialization the static member was actua
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:28 ---
I almost want to say http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01605.html
caused it. Still looking into it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:33
---
Confirmed.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:37
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I almost want to say http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01605.html
> caused it. Still looking into it.
Yes that caused it, it removed the check to make sure TYPE_PTRMEM_P is a
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 01:40
---
Patch which I am testing:
Index: pt.c
===
--- pt.c(revision 142951)
+++ pt.c(working copy)
@@ -4626,6 +4626,13 @@ convert_nontype_argu
--- Comment #2 from bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com 2008-12-30
01:46 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01905.html caused the regression
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38581
--- Comment #45 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2008-12-30 01:49 ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> Does anyone have new numbers?
Fixed on both i386/x86_64:
x86_64:
4.4 (trunk 142847): 5.4s
4.3.2 release: 5.4s
4.2.4 release: 5.4s
i386:
4.4 (trunk 142847): 2.7s
4.3.2 release:
--- Comment #4 from aixing at ca dot ibm dot com 2008-12-30 01:53 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> powerpc64 and -m64 (not -q64)?
SLES11 is 64-bit mode by default. -q64 is not GCC (Or g++) option.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38569
--- Comment #6 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2008-12-30 02:50 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Revision 141860 caused 30% slowdown on 454.calculix in SPEC CPU 2006
> with -O2 -ffast-math on Linux/Intel64.
This regression has been fixed in some revision between 142187 and 142212.
--
--- Comment #4 from esmithmail at gmail dot com 2008-12-30 02:57 ---
Works now. Thanks, guys.
--
esmithmail at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 03:03 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 03:27 ---
The patch which fixed PR 21210 caused this regression. There needs to be an
extra check if we are moving away from using build_c_cast. In fact reverting
that patch fixes the issue and gets us back to where we were
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:22
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Patch which I am testing:
> Index: pt.c
> ===
> --- pt.c(revision 142951)
> +++ pt.c(working copy)
> @@ -4
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:35
---
That patch removed lots of code that is nessarry for this check, I have to add
back
+/* The call to perform_qualification_conversions will
+ insert a NOP_EXPR over EXPR to do express conversion,
+
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:39 ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source for the -m64 case?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:45 ---
*** Bug 34827 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 05:45 ---
>func is incorrectly found by name-lookup.
No it should be found even without the "Foo weird;"
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34870 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from rschiele at gmail dot com 2008-12-30 06:07 ---
It works for you? This is weired!
Just tried it with current trunk again and it does still show exactly the same
error there.
--
rschiele at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 06:14 ---
Ok, it fails with -m64, looking into it.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from irar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 07:00 ---
Subject: Bug 38529
Author: irar
Date: Tue Dec 30 06:58:57 2008
New Revision: 142959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142959
Log:
PR tree-optimization/38529
* tree-vect-transform (v
--- Comment #23 from imam dot toufique at intel dot com 2008-12-30 07:11
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Can you still provide the preprocessed source?
hi,
I was able to solve this issue. this could be closed now.
thanks Andrew for following up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #24 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-30 07:14
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> I was able to solve this issue. this could be closed now.
Well there is most likely still an issue -fPIC, even if it is not reproducible
without that -fPIC, it is still a bug that GCC
gcc 4.3.2 build seems to fail when linking libgcc. I am using libmpfr 2.3.2
and libgmp 4.2.4 . this is failing for SuSE Linux Ent. Server9 32-bit
platform.
gcc 4.3.2 build on the 64-bit platform went through.
Here is the error snippet:
# @multilib_dir@ is not really necessary, but sometimes i
101 - 197 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
