--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 09:23 ---
Subject: Bug 40668
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jul 11 09:23:32 2009
New Revision: 149511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149511
Log:
PR target/40668
* function.c (assign_parm_setup_s
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 09:26 ---
Subject: Bug 40668
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jul 11 09:26:23 2009
New Revision: 149512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149512
Log:
PR target/40668
* function.c (assign_parm_setup_
--- Comment #2 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 13:14 ---
I've tried to see what is going on. fill_slots_from_thread
fills wrongly the delay slot of a conditional jmp insn with
"add #-4,r15" where r15 is the stack pointer register for SH.
fill_slots_from_thread computes t
Revision 149512:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-07/msg00392.html
caused:
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/./gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 15:15
---
Marked as regression. Not platform specific. I confirmed this on x86-64
Linux.
We have an illegal seek in transfer.c (next_record_w_unf) at line 2824.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #5 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-11 15:23 ---
The bug occurs on OABI with gcc-4.3-20090705 but not with gcc-4.4-20090707.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38642
--- Comment #13 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-11 15:34 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> would be interesting to know what fixed this on the trunk.
A binary search on trunk identified revision 138207 as the point that fixed
this ICE. That revision is a large merge from gimple-tup
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 15:40
---
Bah. So this then becomes "it would be interesting to know what fixed this on
the gimple-tuples-branch" ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38072
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 17:16
---
Another aspect of this bug. If we do this:
PROGRAM test
OPEN(UNIT=32,FILE="fort.32",STATUS="NEW",ACCESS="SEQUENTIAL",FORM="UNFORMATTED")
!READ(32,END=100)
100 CONTINUE
WRITE (32)
END PROGRAM test
We get:
$ gfc
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 17:53 ---
Cases like
t1.c
int i = 2;
t2.c
int i = 1;
int main() { return i; }
are diagnosed by the linker - not ideal, but not different from -fno-lto
either.
Index: lto-symtab.c
==
This breaks a lot of benchmarks in SPEC CPU 2000.
t.c
int i;
t2.c
int i;
int main() { return i; }
$ ./xgcc -B. -o t t1.c t2.c
$ ./xgcc -B. -o t t1.c t2.c -flto
t2.c:1:5: error: 'i' has already been defined
t1.c:1:5: error: previously defined here
lto-wrapper: ././xgcc returned 1 exit status
co
Code compiles fine w/o O3. Recent SVN. I'm unsure how to proceed, as temp files
will be very large. I don't know where to begin making a smaller testcase.
Please advise.
uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-5.1 MCKELVEY-XP 1.7.0(0.210/5/3) 2009-06-18 12:51 i686 Cygwin
g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-c
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 17:42 ---
Subject: Bug 40713
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jul 11 17:41:59 2009
New Revision: 149514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149514
Log:
PR debug/40713
* dwarf2out.c (dw_fde_struct): Add
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 17:40 ---
Subject: Bug 40667
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jul 11 17:40:29 2009
New Revision: 149513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149513
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/40667
* defaults.h (MINIMUM_
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 18:05 ---
Note this is only true for the non -fno-common case. Really this is an
extension to the standard C language but we should support it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40721
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-07-11 18:09 ---
Subject: Re: [LTO] complains about two tentative
definitions
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 18:05
> ---
> Note this
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 18:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: [LTO] complains about two tentative
> definitions
>
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> > --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 18:40 ---
4.4 branch configured without --enable-checking=yes shouldn't do any checking.
Anyway, I've bootstrapped 4.4 branch after that checkin on both x86_64-linux
and i686-linux without any problem, both without --enable-chec
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 19:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40667
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jul 11 19:06:26 2009
New Revision: 149517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149517
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/40667
* defaults.h (MINIMUM_
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 19:07 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 19:08 ---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-11 19:43
---
I think this constructor never ever worked correctly. The only solution I can
see at the moment is consistently dynamically allocating _M_data->_M_grouping,
and copying the characters of __nl_langinfo_l(__MON_G
--- Comment #3 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-11 20:20 ---
It seems that cpu type and tuning options make a difference here. If I compile
with -mcpu and -mtune referring to a cpu that does not imply FL_LDSCHED, such
as arm740t, then I get the broken code that clobbers r0 before l
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 21:37 ---
Likely fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WA
--- Comment #5 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-07-11
21:55 ---
See also bug 40716.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39886
--- Comment #6 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-07-11
21:55 ---
*** Bug 40716 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-07-11
21:55 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39886 ***
--
d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
These defines in ia32intrin.h
#define _lrotl(a,b) __rold((a), (b))
#define _lrotr(a,b) __rord((a), (b))
...
#define _rotl(a,b) __rold((a), (b))
#define _rotr(a,b) __rord((a), (b))
conflict with mingw32 stdlib.h which
declares those names as func
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 22:34 ---
OK,
this is interesting case. We have:
# BLOCK 6
# PRED: 2 [61.0%] (true,exec) 3 [61.0%] (true,exec) 4 [39.0%] (true,exec)
5 [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
# D.2735_12 = PHI <0(2), 0(3), 0(4), 1(5)>
# .MEM_21
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-07-11 22:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_ssa error:
definition in block 5 does not dominate use in block 7
Thinking about this more, we change here dominance relation in
not-so-obvious way. It is not r
Valid code that links fine without optimization gets undefined references at
-O3. The references are to such as vtable, L8185, WinMain, etc.
Full log attached. I await direction as to what to provide to help solve this.
Temps will be fairly large, and I don't know how to approach a smaller test
ca
--- Comment #1 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2009-07-12 00:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=18178)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18178&action=view)
Build that shows errors
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40723
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 00:15 ---
this looks like a different problem, that is an error is causing gcc to leave
behind a .o file which is invalid ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40723
--- Comment #7 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2009-07-12 04:41
---
> --- Comment #2 From Oliver Kellogg 2009-06-30 10:49 [reply] ---
>
> Does not happen with 4.5.0 trunk 20090406 and earlier versions.
Pardon, the version used was 20090314.
Does happen with 20090506
--- Comment #8 from oliver dot kellogg at eads dot com 2009-07-12 05:28
---
> Building 20090406 r145578 now.
Does not happen there - problem must be between 20090406 and 20090506.
Does further narrowing down make sense?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40599
35 matches
Mail list logo
