--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 07:53 ---
Of course libmudflapth needs to come first, otherwise it doesn't override
libpthread symbols it means to override.
If it doesn't, that is a user error though.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 07:59 ---
So, 1. is fixed. If __sync_*compare_and_swap on PowerPC doesn't act as full
barrier, that would be a target bug, not libgomp bug.
Unless separate __sync_*_acq/__sync_*_rel builtins are added, I'm afraid the
only opti
--- Comment #13 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:31 ---
Subject: Bug 43698
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Jul 22 08:30:36 2010
New Revision: 162404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162404
Log:
Fix PR target/43698
2010-07-22 Ramana Radhakrishnan
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:40 ---
Mine. Additional fix is needed for gfc_symbols_could_alias:
--- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
@@ -2811,6 +2811,17 @@ gfc_symbols_could_alias (gfc_symbol *lsym, gfc_symbol
*rsym)
if (lsym->attr.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43494
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43810
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44281
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:49 ---
Fixed in 4.6 (by disabling struct-reorg).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44468
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:50 ---
wontfix on the branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
Priority|P3
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:53 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44777
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44793
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44816
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44982
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44991
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
Version|unknown |4.5.0
http://
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44763
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44753
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44581
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43867
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 09:04 ---
This was fixed. We now print
t.C: In function 'int __gthread_active_p()':
t.C:8:1: note: file /tmp/t.gcda not found, execution counts assumed to be zero
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
W
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44581
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 09:05 ---
Fixed on the branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44763
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44858
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.0
Known to work|4.1.2 |4.1.2 4.3.4
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 09:36 ---
The VRP changes have been committed, so on the trunk this will be now
reproduceable only with -O1 or -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44858
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 09:41
---
Can't be P1. We shipped it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.1 |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33637
--- Comment #1 from nickc at redhat dot com 2010-07-22 09:42 ---
Hi Kazuhiro-san,
This is not a bug, it is the expected behaviour.
What is happening is that the return value from func() is being promoted to
"signed int" (and not "unsigned int" as you might expect). Thus since the
MOV
--- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 09:43 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Created an attachment (id=21003)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21003&action=view) [edit]
> patch against my (diry) tree
> patch restoring the old equivalence list on
Patch posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01718.html
--- Comment #2 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 09:46 ---
Subject: Re: wrong nesting for inner template class
Patch posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01718.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45024
--- Comment #9 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-07-22 10:00 ---
Subject: Re: Aliasing of TARGET dummy argument not
detected correctly
Dear Tobias,
> I think the patch below looks fine, however, if I set a break point, the
> function "gfc_check_dependen
This patch
2010-07-20 Jakub Jelinek
* var-tracking.c (vt_expand_loc, vt_expand_loc_dummy): Bump maximum
depth to 8 from 5.
broke sparc-sun-solaris2.* bootstrap building 64-bit libjava:
$ /var/gcc/gcc-4.6.0-20100721/11-gcc-gas/./gcc/gcj
-B/var/gcc/gcc-4.6.0-20100721/11-gcc-gas
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 10:23 ---
That would be a target bug then, something isn't delegitimized when it should.
Please put a breakpoint on output_operand_lossage and print a backtrace and the
rtx that is being printed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
10:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
Here you go:
Breakpoint 5, output_operand_lossage (cmsgid=0xfe940c60 "") at
/var
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 10:46 ---
This one actually shouldn't be IMHO delegimized, the setm44 value is just a
temporary and thus it shouldn't hold any value interesting for debug info.
Can you please attach -fdump-rtl-vartrack dump?
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #4 from davi dot arnaut at sun dot com 2010-07-22 10:54 ---
Let's get it documented? One sentence should do. I think it's pertinent because
-lpthread will most of the time come before user supplied compiler flags.
--
davi dot arnaut at sun dot com changed:
Wha
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 11:03 ---
Perhaps with LTO we could special case this (perhaps using some special
attribute) and only construct/destruct the first of these
static ios_base::Init __ioinit;
vars and optimize all the others away together with t
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-22 11:25
---
The same idea vaguely occurred to me...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44952
--- Comment #9 from anitha dot boyapati at atmel dot com 2010-07-22 11:26
---
I think the bug is not due to 'naked' function. When the naked attribute is
removed for __init_seed(void), the following diff can be observed in the
assembly file.
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 11:35 ---
Subject: Bug 45019
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jul 22 11:35:09 2010
New Revision: 162410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162410
Log:
2010-07-22 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/45019
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 11:41 ---
So reopening for this enhancement...
Another alternative would be some .init.first array or something similar which
would contain pointers to functions to be run as early constructors and linker
would remove duplicat
--- Comment #39 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 11:48 ---
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #19 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-22 11:50 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
> > (like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for
> > no
> > real benefit. In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-
--- Comment #4 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=21281)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21281&action=view)
-fdump-rtl-vartrack output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
12:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
> --- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 10:46 ---
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:14 ---
Subject: Bug 45017
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 22 12:14:27 2010
New Revision: 162411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162411
Log:
2010-07-22 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:15 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from borntraeger at de dot ibm dot com 2010-07-22 12:41
---
the testcase will fail on big endian machines.
since r2=f and r1=2 instead of r2=2 and r1=f.
Can you adopt the testcase to check the endianess?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45017
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-07-22 12:42 ---
Subject: Re: miscompile with bitfield and
optimization
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, borntraeger at de dot ibm dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from borntraeger at de dot ibm dot com 2010-07-22 12:41
> ---
> the testca
ARM's *push_multi pattern code implementation can result in a buffer overflow.
The assembler instruction gets there built up in a 100 byte buffer but worst
case more buffer space is needed.
Original code:
--8<--
{
int i;
char pattern[100];
if (TARGET_ARM)
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:52 ---
Subject: Bug 44891
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jul 22 12:52:14 2010
New Revision: 162413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162413
Log:
2010-07-22 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimization/448
--- Comment #1 from John dot Tytgat at aaug dot net 2010-07-22 12:53
---
Created an attachment (id=21282)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21282&action=view)
Proposed patch to fix the buffer overflow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45029
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 12:54
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
=gcc&view=rev&rev=162414
Log:
2010-07-22 Richard Guenther
* lib/target-supports-dg.exp (dg-require-linker-plugin): New proc.
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_linker_plugin_available): Likewise.
PR lto/43373
* gcc.dg/lto/20100722-1_0.c: New testcase
=gcc&view=rev&rev=162414
Log:
2010-07-22 Richard Guenther
* lib/target-supports-dg.exp (dg-require-linker-plugin): New proc.
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_linker_plugin_available): Likewise.
PR lto/43373
* gcc.dg/lto/20100722-1_0.c: New testcase
--- Comment #6 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2010-07-22 12:59 ---
> Huh? This is one byte, how does endianess come into play?
By the use of bitfields.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45017
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:02 ---
Thanks, can I also ask for -fdump-rtl-aligments dump (i.e. one immediately
before *.vartrack)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #7 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=21283)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21283&action=view)
-fdump-rtl-alignments output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
This is a bug which needs to be fixed before -fwhole-file can be enabled by
default. Otherwise, the test results look fine. (Note: I tested with
-fwhole-file enabled by default and including the patch for PR 44945.)
Extended test case: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_4.f90
real,exter
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:34 ---
So it is wrong already before *.alignments, as it has stuff like:
(insn:TI 256 255 1556 2
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/print/ipp/attribute/defaults/FinishingsDefault.java:117
(set (reg:D
I 1
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:42 ---
Another test case is: libgomp.fortran/retval1.f90
(Found via "cd $BUILD/*/libgomp; make check")
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45030
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:47
---
Subject: Bug 42451
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 22 13:47:32 2010
New Revision: 162415
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162415
Log:
2010-07-22 Richard Guenther
PR lto/42451
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:49
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
13:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
> Can you compile with -da and find out in which dump D#71 has been introduced?
--- Comment #10 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=21284)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21284&action=view)
sched2 dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:52 ---
Can I ask for the immediately preceeding dump too? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #12 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 13:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=21285)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21285&action=view)
split4 dump
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:03 ---
So it is wrong already in *.split4:
(insn 256 255 258 2
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/print/ipp/attribute/defaults/FinishingsDefault.java:117
(set (reg:DI 1 %g1 [328])
(ashift:DI (re
--- Comment #14 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=21286)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21286&action=view)
-fdump-rtl-expand output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #15 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=21287)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21287&action=view)
-fdump-tree-optimized output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45028
--- Comment #40 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 14:07
---
(In reply to comment #39)
> HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
>
Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
on ia64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:10 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:14 ---
*** Bug 43658 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:14 ---
This is a dup of PR43157.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43157 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:19 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
to/43850
* g++.dg/lto/20100722-1_0.C: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/20100722-1_0.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43850
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:20 ---
(insn 264 263 265 3
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/print/ipp/attribute/defaults/FinishingsDefault.java:123
(set (reg/f:DI 332)
(reg:DI 8 %o0)) -1 (expr_list:REG_NOALIAS (reg/f:DI 332)
I have OpenSuse with ia64 architecture and GCC 4.3.3 (I tried also with GCC
4.4.0 and 4.4.4)
I am trying building a file that include the cxxabi.h header, but the compiler
displays following error:
In file included from ../src/core/callback.cc:41:
/bin/gcc/gcc-4.3.3/lib/gcc/ia64-suse-linux/4.3.3/.
--- Comment #41 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
14:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
> HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Testing.
With the previous versions, hash table lookups were somehow broken,
resulting in NULL
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
14:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
> in *.expand looks correct, that var_location is %o0 instead of %g1 though. So
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:37 ---
Hi,
Patches should be sent to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org rather than put in bugzilla
entries.
Even though the number of registers is theoretically 16 you are never going to
have num_saves = 16 . It's at the maximum g
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:44 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I have OpenSuse with ia64 architecture and GCC 4.3.3 (I tried also with GCC
> 4.4.0 and 4.4.4)
> I am trying building a file that include the cxxabi.h header, but the compiler
> displays follo
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:47 ---
Confirmed. We ICE in the vectorizer SLPing.
Somewhat reduced testcase:
SUBROUTINE XSHOW(MAASY,MBASY,MCASY,NAASY,NBASY,NCASY,
& XRMREF,XRNSYM2,XRSYMM2,XRITSY2,MBINS)
INTEGER HEAPDM
PARAM
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:48 ---
This invalid program reproduces your error, so I assume that's what you've
done.
Don't do that.
#include
namespace ns3
{
#include
}
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:52 ---
Works for me now, so no way of getting a reduced testcase.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:58 ---
Sounds like a cprop_hardreg bug. Before that pass we have (after a call_insn):
(insn 264 263 266 2
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/print/ipp/attribute/defaults/FinishingsDefault.java:123
(set
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
15:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
> --- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:58
> ---
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15:25 ---
I have a fix.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|un
--- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=21288)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21288&action=view)
gcc46-pr45028.patch
I wonder if the attached (untested) patch wouldn't fix this problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15:36 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> IPA-CP can do that for quite some time please try with -fno-ipa-cp.
As expected: It works with -fno-ipa-cp.
> (I don't have a trunk built with enabled fortra
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
15:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
> --- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15:32
> ---
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
