http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22792|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22806|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29152
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-18 08:56:49
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat Dec 18 08:56:46 2010
New Revision: 168016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168016
Log:
libffi:
PR libffi/29152
PR libffi/42378
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42378
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-18 08:56:49
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat Dec 18 08:56:46 2010
New Revision: 168016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168016
Log:
libffi:
PR libffi/29152
PR libffi/42378
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46670
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36834
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-18 10:16:16
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sat Dec 18 10:16:13 2010
New Revision: 168019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168019
Log:
2010-12-18 Kai Tietz
PR target/36834
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36834
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46240
--- Comment #3 from dcb 2010-12-18 11:37:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It is caused by revision 162842:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00053.html
Thanks for that. I can confirm the bug still exists
in snapshot 20101211.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47001
Summary: segmentation fault in vect_mark_slp_stmts
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47002
Summary: segmentation fault in find_uses_to_rename_use
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-18
12:52:45 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Dec 18 12:52:41 2010
New Revision: 168023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168023
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46232
* gcc.dg/tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47003
Summary: ice in stabilize_expr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47003
--- Comment #1 from dcb 2010-12-18 13:03:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 22810
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22810
gzipped C++ source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46591
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47002
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47003
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-18
15:38:18 UTC ---
Draft patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/target-memory.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/target-memory.c
@@ -445,6 +445,21 @@ gfc_interpret_derived (unsigned char *buffer, size_t
buffer_size, gfc_expr *resu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 15:40:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Compiled like so:
> > $ gcc-4.4.2 -S -O2 sha256_4way.i -o sha256_4way-44.s
> > $ gcc-4.5.0 -S -O2 sha256_4way.i -o sha256_4way-45.s
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 15:43:06
UTC ---
It may be fixed by the patch for PR 40436.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45094
--- Comment #9 from Siarhei Siamashka
2010-12-18 15:43:39 UTC ---
Can this bug get a "[4.5 regression]" header please?
Even though the bug existed in gcc sources since 2007 (see the link in comment
1), the reported wrong-code problem itself was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45094
--- Comment #10 from Siarhei Siamashka
2010-12-18 15:47:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> see the link in comment 1
Sorry, I mean the link in the original report from Akos:
http://repo.or.cz/w/official-gcc.git/commitdiff/f1225f6f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 16:03:44
UTC ---
Can you try
--
diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
index af1adf4..dd00de6 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
@@ -3342,7 +3342,11 @@ estimate_num_insns (gi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47004
Summary: missed optimization in comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-18
16:21:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Draft patch:
Which of course does not work ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-18 16:27:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Here is a preliminary patch. Hope I got the logic right ...
The patch in comment #4 triggers two testsuite failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/dummy_proce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ACATS c62002a wrong code on arm-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46958
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose 2010-12-18 17:00:55
UTC ---
same build failure on ia64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-18
17:08:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The patch in comment #4 triggers two testsuite failures:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dummy_procedure_4.f90 -O (test for errors, line 28)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin 2010-12-18
17:10:37 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 18 17:10:34 2010
New Revision: 168026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168026
Log:
PR target/46915
* config/pa/pa.c (br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2010-12-18 17:10:59 UTC ---
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:07:51AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-18
> 10:07:33 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > + if ((m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45886
Siarhei Siamashka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toolchain at gentoo dot org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39213
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-18
17:35:48 UTC ---
> I wonder if this wouldn't fix it (at least, that's similar to how lex.c guards
> calling of _cpp_process_line_notes). I can't reproduce it myself, so have to
> guess...
The proble
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39213
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22795|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47006
Summary: ARM: GCC generates faulty assembly code for pre ARMv6
CPUs on unaligned word access
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47006
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-18
18:15:13 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 18 18:15:10 2010
New Revision: 168027
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168027
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46985
* tree-scalar-ev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47006
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #9 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 18:24:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What compiler options are you using?
Pretty basic: -O3 -Wall -msse2 -g
Sometimes -O3 -Wall -g -march=native, on a quad core Intel box
Results are the same:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46985
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #10 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 18:49:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Can you try
>
> --
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
> index af1adf4..dd00de6 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
Summary: Values from namelist file should not depend on locale
settings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 19:08:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> GCC 4.6 (trunk revision 167996) also inlines ROTR. Is it possible for the
> reporter to measure the number of k-iters with a recent snapshot of the trunk?
La
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #12 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 19:09:25
UTC ---
Any other patches for me to try, for gcc 4.5.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2010-12-18
19:21:05 UTC ---
I'd like to wait for Honza's opinion before we just start trying random
patches.
But if you feel like trying some other things, perhaps you can see if
backporting all changes of
h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47004
Geert Bosch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bosch at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 19:35:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 22813
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22813
A new patch
Try this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-18 19:38:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I'd like to wait for Honza's opinion before we just start trying random
> patches.
>
> But if you feel like trying some other things, perhaps you can see if
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-18
20:18:47 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Dec 18 20:18:43 2010
New Revision: 168031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168031
Log:
2010-12-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44982
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-18 20:22:18 UTC ---
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44982
>
> Steven Bosscher changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46974
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/extends_2.f03 FAIL with
-Os -fschedule-insns
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-12-18 20:56:15 UTC ---
trunk is currently closed for macro->hook conversions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01291.html
I have now created a branch to work on this PR:
svn://gcc.gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47006
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2010-12-18
21:05:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Why is there no diagnostic for this?
With -Walign-cast you should get one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-18
21:07:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Dec 18 21:07:12 2010
New Revision: 168034
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168034
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46969
* tree-parloops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #17 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 21:15:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> -if (decl && DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS (decl) == BUILT_IN_MD)
> +/* Do not special case builtins where we see the body.
> + This just confuse inliner.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #18 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 21:16:31
UTC ---
argh, please ignore comment #17. misquote.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #19 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 21:17:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Created attachment 22813 [details]
> A new patch
>
> Try this.
This patch successfully fixes the performance regression in 4.5.1.
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 21:25:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does this still happen if -g is removed? (Via -g0)
No. Attached change fixes fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47000
--- Comment #20 from Jeff Garzik 2010-12-18 21:25:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I don't think it is a good idea to change inliner heuristics in 4.5 at this
> point. If it is always a good idea to inline that function, it should be
> __a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46880
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-18 21:33:03
UTC ---
Maybe better set of flags:
$ g++ -O -fgcse -fstack-protector-all -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure -fweb
pr46880.C
$ ./a.out
Aborted
_Z3foov:
...
xorpdxmm1, xmm1# tmp65
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46880
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-18 22:05:03
UTC ---
Created attachment 22816
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22816
better testcase
$ gcc -O pr46880-2.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted
(will probably fail with strict aliasing)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #12 from Rolf Eike Beer 2010-12-18 22:27:40 UTC
---
Any chance this gets backported?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 22:42:13 UTC ---
> Any chance this gets backported?
It's not a regression, but I think it should be backported since it breaks
Linux in a somewhat random manner. I'm currently testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46880
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47008
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42378
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47007
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2010-12-19 02:14:40 UTC ---
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 08:52:07PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> In order to use a decimal comma (and ";" as separator), one can use
> DECIMAL="comma" in the OPEN statemen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47009
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV (too deep recursion) in
cgraph_clone_inlined_nodes with -O
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47009
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-12-19 02:35:00
UTC ---
Probably dup of PR46367 - I was searching for lookup_attribute, and there were
no results...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47010
Summary: Missed optimization: x86-64 prologue not deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
As
og=/mingw --enable-libstdcxx-debug
--with-build-time-tools=/platform/cross-on-linux/mingw --disable-nls
--with-mpc=/mingw --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-lto --disable-plugin
--enable-checking=release --enable-sjlj-exceptions
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.6.0 20101218 (experimental) mingw-20090
83 matches
Mail list logo