--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 22:35 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-27 23:08
---
The issue is pretty simple, actually: std::unique_future (which, by the way,
will be renamed just std::future), is missing move assignment operator. Note,
in N2914 it does *not* exist, has been added only in N3
On Linux/ia64, revision 154697 gave
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_10.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_10.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_2.f
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-11-28 00:47 ---
It is caused by revision 154688:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-11/msg00911.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
It seems that even calls to std::copy() with trivially known size are not
inlined. I'm attaching source C++ source file and output of GDB disassemble
command.
Compilation:
g++-4.4 -O3 test3.cpp -o test3
--
Summary: std::copy() results to a call to memmove() and is not
--- Comment #1 from pogonyshev at gmx dot net 2009-11-28 01:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=19166)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19166&action=view)
source code of the program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42203
--- Comment #2 from pogonyshev at gmx dot net 2009-11-28 01:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=19167)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19167&action=view)
disassemble results for main()
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42203
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 01:24 ---
Fixed in 4.5.
a[0] = 0;
a[1] = 1;
memcpy (&b[0], &a[0], 8);
D.8585_1 = b[1];
return D.8585_1;
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 01:46
---
Created an attachment (id=19168)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19168&action=view)
Updated patch
This exploratory patch passes all regression tests. I have also successfully
compiled and ru
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-28
02:06 ---
No new failures seen on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r154715 in the gfortran
testsuite at -m64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42202
This bug was previously mentioned in email from Denis. I have confirmed this on
4.5 (after long but educational tour of reload)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00783.html
When stacks slots increase from zero in reload() (in my case due to
setup_save_areas() ) the register elimination conditi
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 05:04
---
I missed one regression from the patch in comment #13. Stay tuned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
gcc trunk r154706
command flags: -O1 -ffast-math -floop-interchange
Running on testcase gives:
/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-154706-lto/bin/gcc -O1 -ffast-math -floop-interchange
-c testcaseN2-min.i -o tmp.o
testcaseN2-min.i: In function ‘adler32’:
testcaseN2-min.i:1:5: error: definition in block 8 do
--- Comment #1 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2009-11-28 06:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=19169)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19169&action=view)
reduced testcase, comes from gcc sources
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42205
--- Comment #8 from vlad at demoninsight dot com 2009-11-28 06:42 ---
I am somewhat unsure about what our best course of action is at this point. Can
we discuss this in gnu forums? Could I help by providing diagnostics?
I'd like to use 4.4.x for its OpenMP support etc in preference to t
101 - 115 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
