http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46931
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-12-14 08:21:33
UTC ---
> To generate the proposed code, we should assign r12 to p63. IRA marks p63
> conflicting with r12 because DF-infrastructure reports r12 having intersected
> live ranges with p63.
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
--- Comment #14 from norak.van at gmail dot com 2010-12-14 08:27:39 UTC ---
OK
Anyway, could you please help me with this installation problem?
I check that there isn´t these directories:
/cygwin/usr/local/powerpc-ibm-eabi/include or
/cygwin/us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
--- Comment #15 from norak.van at gmail dot com 2010-12-14 08:32:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 22750
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22750
building a GNU toolset
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-14
08:36:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> @@ -2717,7 +2717,7 @@ gfc_get_sym_tree (const char *name, gfc_namespace
>if (ns == NULL)
> -ns = gfc_current_ns;
> +ns = gfc_find_proc_namespace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 08:54:08 UTC ---
I have regstrapped the patch in comment #7 on top of revision 167770. The
failures corresponding to this PR are gone. However I see the following for
both -m32 and -m64:
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 09:09:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I have regstrapped the patch in comment #7 on top of revision 167770. The
> failures corresponding to this PR are gone. However I see the following for
> bot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46934
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45701
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
10:09:53 UTC ---
Also it is clear who starts the infinite recursion? I find it odd, that
disabling the function partitioning lead to need to explicitely declare
unlikely section. Is someone else tryin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
10:27:03 UTC ---
__asm__(".weak\tfoo\n\t.set\tfoo,bar");
sets FOO as equivalent of BAR. I guess this breaks when asm ends up in
different partition than BAR and also leads to undefined symbols when LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 10:39:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Also it is clear who starts the infinite recursion? I find it odd, that
> disabling the function partitioning lead to need to explicitely declare
> unlikely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
10:46:48 UTC ---
... I meat weakref attribute.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Summary: We should recognize expanded switch statement and
convert 2 way switch statements into shift & mask test
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
Severity|n
> well the pre-existing implementation of :
>
> static section *
> darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
> {
> if (reloc)
> return (weak
> ? darwin_sections[text_unlikely_coal_section]
> : unlikely_text_section ()); +
> else
> return (weak
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 10:58:40
UTC ---
> well the pre-existing implementation of :
>
> static section *
> darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
> {
> if (reloc)
> return (weak
> ? darwin_sections[text_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46646
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier
2010-12-14 11:13:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 22751
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22751
testcase .ii
I will try to make a shorter one soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 11:55:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > > > (gdb) print plugindir_string
> > > > $1 = 0x
> > > >
> > > > which is the origin of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46714
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2010-12-14 12:07:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Maybe dup of PR46909?
I can verify that the fix for PR46909 fixes the issue on trunk.
I'm looking into 4.5 branch right now.
cheers
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2010-12-14 12:13:00 UTC ---
It doesn't seem to fail for me with the RC for GCC 4.5.2
with -march=armv5te -mthumb
-march=armv5te
-march=armv7-a
-march=armv7-a -mthumb
at -O2, -O3 and -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 12:13:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > @@ -2717,7 +2717,7 @@ gfc_get_sym_tree (const char *name, gfc_namespace
> >if (ns == NULL)
> > -ns = gfc_current_ns;
> > +ns = gfc_fin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 12:17:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > well the pre-existing implementation of :
> >
> > static section *
> > darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
> > {
> > if (reloc)
> > return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46875
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-14
12:43:50 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Dec 14 12:43:47 2010
New Revision: 167794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167794
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46875
* sched-vi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46875
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46936
Summary: turn __attribute__ ((nonnull (x))) into assert in
debug mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-14
12:56:38 UTC ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01081.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 12:58:20
UTC ---
the stage3 compiler is the same.
it appears that plugin.c thinks there are [5] more options than there are...
at the moment, dunno if this is a code-gen or a config issue.
.. so it'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
13:07:08 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 14 13:07:05 2010
New Revision: 167795
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167795
Log:
PR middle-end/46667
* varasm.c (assemble_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46714
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #59 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-14
13:17:13 UTC ---
Sure, if you want to play with that I have no principled objections. I only add
here that we probably have another related PR filed by Ian (is already in CC?)
and that, as far as I kn
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
already done in darwin_function_section.
In fact you might additionally consider putting
return (DECL_WEAK (decl)
? darwin_sections[text_coal_section]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 13:18:30
UTC ---
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
already done in darwin_function_section.
In fact you might a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pointer_intent_1.f90
FAILs with -fno-inline
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #60 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 13:25:32
UTC ---
> Sure, if you want to play with that I have no principled objections. I only
> add
> here that we probably have another related PR filed by Ian (is already in CC?)
> and that, as far
=hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
--enable-threads=posix --disable-nls --with-gmp=/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0
--with-libelf=/opt/gnu64 --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101214 (experimental) [trunk revision 167781] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-14
13:28:06 UTC ---
Even though it is possible to unbreak
purge_empty_blocks/maybe_tidy_empty_bb/sel_merge_blocks for this case, I think
it's not worth it given that sel-sched generally expects somewh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #61 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-14
13:33:32 UTC ---
Agreed. If you can check that on GNU systems the trick actually works, I can
help with the boring autoconf bits (it would be easier if somebody could
outline a scheme for such test)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 13:41:02
UTC ---
OK, seems to be related to _Bool vs. unsigned char.
e.g.:
unsigned char x_exit_after_options;
#define exit_after_options global_options.x_exit_after_options
c.f.
_Bool x_exit_af
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45852
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-14
13:56:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 13:56:25 2010
New Revision: 167798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167798
Log:
PR fortran/46874
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_tran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-14
13:59:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 13:59:20 2010
New Revision: 167799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167799
Log:
PR fortran/46874
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_tran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 14:02:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I think this is a different problem - those messages are characteristic of
> dsymutil missing an input file. This might be related to the changes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 14:04:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Hi,
> does the following patch fix the problem?
> darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
> already done in darwin_func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-14
14:10:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 14:09:59 2010
New Revision: 167800
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167800
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46909
* gimple-fold.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46885
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-14
14:11:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 14:11:16 2010
New Revision: 167801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167801
Log:
PR debug/46885
* tree-ssa-loop-manip.c (can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46883
Chung-Lin Tang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cltang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 14:17:53 UTC ---
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force it I get
=== g++ tests ===
Schedule of vari
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46646
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 14:23:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
> alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force it I get
> Using /sw64/share/d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #24 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
14:30:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
> > alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
Summary: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320 example 6
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
URL: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 14:34:59
UTC ---
this is a fix (but, clearly, there's something fragile here).
#include
includes
I'm not sure why that should cause a problem since the translation of bool to
int should not be acti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
14:35:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> like this?
> (fixes the specific problem - but not reg-tested):
>
>
This is in addition to the patch from Comment 7, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
14:37:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #21)
>
> > like this?
> > (fixes the specific problem - but not reg-tested):
> >
> >
>
> This is in addition to the patch from Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-14
14:38:38 UTC ---
After a discussion with Andrey and refreshing my memory on that code I think
it's actually better to unbreak purge_empty_blocks in this case. It used to be
correct, i.e. it never
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46885
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45852
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #62 from Mark Mitchell 2010-12-14
15:17:25 UTC ---
> Having everyone with knowledge of static construction alerted, can't we use
> the
> GNU constructor priorities to solve PR44952?
The two constraints are:
(a) priorities aren't su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46923
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
Summary: asm aliases with linker plugin segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||46940
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
Summary: [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2010-12-14
16:02:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > To generate the proposed code, we should assign r12 to p63. IRA marks p63
> > conflicting with r12 because DF-infrastructure reports r12 having
> > in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45721
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 16:39:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > Running /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
> > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 16:41:02
UTC ---
more of a problem is:
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 assembly comparison
F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46654
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 16:44:09 UTC ---
Partial tests (x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0) with the patch in comment #21 (with
the one in comment #7 reverted) show that the pr is fixed, but it introduces at
least one regressi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 16:46:19
UTC ---
PASS: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g -I. (test for excess errors)
line #35
<
__GLOBAL__sub_I__GCC_gcc_live_trunk_gcc_testsuite_g__.dg_pch_system_1.C_867072EB_0966702C:
> __GLOBAL__sub_I_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-12-14 16:48:20
UTC ---
Yes, I agree that excessive peppering of the code with register asm causes
worse performance. The interpreter is only placing the very hot ip and sp
registers in hard-coded registers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
Summary: x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-14
17:09:50 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 14 17:09:33 2010
New Revision: 167806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167806
Log:
2010-12-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
17:09:47 UTC ---
With the patch from comment 21 applied on x86_64-apple-darwin10, I am seeing...
FAIL: gcc.dg/darwin-weakimport-3.c scan-assembler-not coalesced
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr25376.c scan-assembler m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45544
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-14
17:13:19 UTC ---
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
unsigned long f1 (unsigned int a, int b, unsigned short c, short d, unsigned
char e, signed char f)
{
return (unsigned long) a + b + c + d + e + f;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 17:16:39
UTC ---
minor update (this removes a test for reorder & partition + exceptions that is
carried out too early)
Tests for reorder + exceptions and reorder + unwind are carried out in opts.c
now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-14 17:24:39
UTC ---
I can see a different error than what reported:
glcells.c:846:12: internal compiler error: in chrec_component_in_loop_num, at
tree-chrec.c:758
I'm reducing the testcase using delta.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-14 17:26:11 UTC ---
If the conclusion is that the callee can rely on the caller having done
the extension then you need to watch out for security issues in the kernel
syscall ABI when bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 17:32:16
UTC ---
> minor update (this removes a test for reorder & partition + exceptions that is
> carried out too early)
This seem sane to me. I've also posted more fixed to function partitioning
tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46943
Summary: Unnecessary ZERO_EXTEND
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 18:30:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I agree that this is better, though it still causes some regressions. I will
> now test the following variant:
>
> Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44952
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 19:00:43 UTC ---
If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
the failures in comments #29 and #31.
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
