http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49963
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Henlich
2011-08-17 07:36:54 UTC ---
Maybe we can trace back the change in GFortran between 4.1 and 4.3 and find out
why it was changed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50104
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-08-17
07:52:49 UTC ---
Duplicate of PR50099.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50101
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-17
08:10:03 UTC ---
I suppose the CTR is introduced after RA in machine-dependent reorg? In which
case can the issue be fixed on branches by adjusting register cost of the CTR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50104
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50103
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50086
--- Comment #4 from edward.sch...@trash-mail.com 2011-08-17 08:24:52 UTC ---
Nice. Thanks a lot. :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-17
08:44:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Draft patch:
This patch fails for gfortran.dg/forall_12.f90 test (of PR31217 and PR33811):
character(LEN=12) :: a(2) = "123456789012"
forall (i = 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
Bug #: 50106
Summary: [ARM] Wrong code with -march=armv5t -mthumb -Os
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber
2011-08-17 08:53:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 25029
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25029
arm-rtemseabi4.11-g++ -march=armv5t -mthumb -Os -S compiler1.test.ii -o
compiler1.test.eabi.Os.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber
2011-08-17 08:54:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 25030
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25030
arm-rtemseabi4.11-g++ -march=armv5t -mthumb -O2 -S compiler1.test.ii -o
compiler1.test.eabi.O2.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #13 from Ilya Enkovich 2011-08-17
09:07:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 25025 [details]
> A patch to use the same mode for shift count
>
> This is an untested patch to use the same mode for shift count.
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Possibly: |Possibly: [4.6/4.7
|[4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-17 09:14:24 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 17 09:14:18 2011
New Revision: 177825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177825
Log:
2011-08-17 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50090
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-17 11:13:25 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Aug 17 11:13:20 2011
New Revision: 177826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177826
Log:
libgcc/
PR target/50090
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49963
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-17 11:25:02 UTC ---
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49963
>
> Paolo Carlini changed:
>
>What|Remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43597
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-17 11:39:10 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Aug 17 11:39:06 2011
New Revision: 177827
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177827
Log:
2011-08-17 Tom de Vries
PR target/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43597
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-17
13:05:07 UTC ---
To continue tracking: Bill Long (Cray) thinks that "**" (i.e. the current
gfortran behaviour) is correct as:
"The key point here, which does not show up in email font, is that, in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31461
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-08-17
13:35:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 25031
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25031
reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-17 13:37:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Created attachment 25025 [details]
> > A patch to use the same mode for shift count
> >
> > This is an untested patch to use the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
Bug #: 50107
Summary: [IRA, i386] allocates regiters in very non-optimal way
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #1 from Yukhin Kirill 2011-08-17
13:41:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 25033
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25033
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50061
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-17 13:52:58 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> 2011-08-12 20:26:35 UTC ---
> Note that I posted a patch for this last weekend:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #15 from Ilya Enkovich 2011-08-17
14:16:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
>
> I think this problem is unique to x86 since some instructions have
> different sizes in register operands. In this example, shift count
> is CL regardl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50108
Bug #: 50108
Summary: [C++0x] Variadic templates with both type and non-type
parameters
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-17 14:37:35
UTC ---
The testcase has ...
int n8 = (arr[7] * 9 + 8) & 15;
for (i = 0; i < len; i+=8)
{
n1 = (n1 + 1) & 15;
s += arr[i] << n1;
The shift count is 32bit, which causes 32bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-17
14:42:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> The testcase has ...
>
> int n8 = (arr[7] * 9 + 8) & 15;
>
> for (i = 0; i < len; i+=8)
> {
> n1 = (n1 + 1) & 15;
>
> s += arr[i]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45625
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50108
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-17
14:58:18 UTC ---
14.1 [temp.param] paragraph 11:
"If a template-parameter of a primary class template or alias template is a
template parameter pack, it shall be the last template-parameter."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-08-17
15:26:01 UTC ---
Candidate fix posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01404.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50101
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner 2011-08-17
15:43:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I suppose the CTR is introduced after RA in machine-dependent reorg? In which
> case can the issue be fixed on branches by adjusting register cost of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50101
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner 2011-08-17
15:45:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 25036
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25036
Postreload rtl dump file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50101
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2011-08-17
15:44:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 25034
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25034
Sched1 rtl dump file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50101
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2011-08-17
15:45:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 25035
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25035
IRA rtl dump file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31461
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-17
16:31:20 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Aug 17 16:31:10 2011
New Revision: 177833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177833
Log:
2011-08-17 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31461
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50103
--- Comment #2 from Sri 2011-08-17 17:00:34 UTC ---
Hi Richard:
Thank you for your response.
I looked at the documentation for xlc and by default the optimizations are
turned off
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v111v131/index.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-17
17:16:11 UTC ---
I guess something wrong with hard register preferencing for multi-register
pseudos in ira-color.c::ira_assign. I believe it works fine for one-register
pseudos. I'll look at this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49963
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-17
17:22:16 UTC ---
Ok, thanks, will do later today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-17 18:43:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I guess something wrong with hard register preferencing for multi-register
> pseudos in ira-color.c::ira_assign. I believe it works fine for one-register
> pseudo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45625
--- Comment #3 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-08-17
18:57:52 UTC ---
Candidate fix posted to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01418.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
Bug #: 50109
Summary: Formatted namelist read with multiple "!" fails with:
Cannot match namelist object name !
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50110
Bug #: 50110
Summary: Endian reversal when adding extzv instruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-17 19:16:40
UTC ---
Created attachment 25038
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25038
A patch
This patch generates:
movq%rdi, %rdx
mulx%rsi, %r10, %r9
addq$3, %r9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50110
--- Comment #1 from David Meggy 2011-08-17
19:18:21 UTC ---
When I compile with with -da to dump all the temporary files the endian
reversal seems to happen in the .179r.combine file.
The following block of code is in the .178r.dce file
(insn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-17 19:22:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I guess something wrong with hard register preferencing for multi-register
> pseudos in ira-color.c::ira_assign. I believe it works fine for one-register
> pseudo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50110
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-17
19:31:56 UTC ---
I think you have issue how zero_extract RTL works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50110
--- Comment #3 from David Meggy 2011-08-17
19:37:48 UTC ---
Andrew, are you referring to an issue with the define_insn macro I created? or
the GCC zero-extract generic code?
I've taken a look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Standard-Name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
Jim Hanson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25037|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
--- Comment #3 from Jim Hanson 2011-08-17
20:35:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> If one changes the write statement to output nfp, then
> gfortran 4.2.5 prints out '5'.
Oops. I attached an improved test case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49464
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25025|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #17 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2011-08-17 21:31:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 25041
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25041
gcc 4.5 backport
I have tried porting the vrp patch to 4.5. It works out of the box on 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-17
22:21:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 25038 [details]
> A patch
>
> This patch generates:
>
> movq%rdi, %rdx
> mulx%rsi, %r10, %r9
> addq$3, %r9
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25040|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-08-17
22:32:23 UTC ---
If I edit the assembly code to have
...
stw r0,-12284(r1)
mr r0,r1
stw r0,-12556(r1)
...
The code assembles, links and runs without further hiccup.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25042|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50068
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-08-17
22:49:21 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Aug 17 22:49:18 2011
New Revision: 177839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177839
Log:
PR target/50068
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50110
--- Comment #4 from David Meggy 2011-08-17
23:15:26 UTC ---
>From rtl.def
/* Reference to a signed bit-field of specified size and position.
Operand 0 is the memory unit (usually SImode or QImode) which
contains the field's first bit. Op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50111
Bug #: 50111
Summary: Option -O0 cause "Error: unsupported for `movq'"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |inline-asm
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50112
Bug #: 50112
Summary: g++ segmentation fault when handling "continue" with
"-O2" option in a dead loop
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50113
Bug #: 50113
Summary: soft-float MIPS64 compiler is miscompiling ggc-page.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jianghan08 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50112
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45625
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2011-08-18
06:44:27 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Thu Aug 18 06:44:22 2011
New Revision: 177846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177846
Log:
PR c++/45625 - Template parm name doesn't hide out
78 matches
Mail list logo
