http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53735
zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhenqiang.chen at linaro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54098
Bug #: 54098
Summary: [tree-vrp] ICE on valid code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54096
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-26
08:43:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Sorry about that, I though i had included the source code. I'm working
> on getting an updated compiler, but IT here is being difficult and I could
> take a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-07-26
08:44:01 UTC ---
Looks like r189812 fixed some failures but not all of them.
Patch from comment 2 fixes all problems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44354
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-26
08:47:42 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Jul 26 08:47:33 2012
New Revision: 189882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189882
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/44354
* array.c (sough
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54030
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|AVR (maybe ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44354
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-26
08:54:02 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Jul 26 08:53:56 2012
New Revision: 189883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189883
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/44354
* trans-array.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54098
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54094
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44354
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-26
09:58:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> so it would be still worthwhile to pursue your patch if it does not have
> negative effects elsewhere. We should be able to fix the induction code
> to hand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-26
10:18:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > so it would be still worthwhile to pursue your patch if it does not have
> > negative effects elsewhere. We should be able t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53418
--- Comment #10 from Antoine Balestrat 2012-07-26
10:23:43 UTC ---
This simple testcase appears to trigger the same ICE :
$ cat ice.c
void f(void)
{
0 || 0 / 0 ? : 0;
}
$ gcc -w ice.c
ice.c: In function ‘f’:
ice.c:3:12: internal compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54098
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-26
10:25:21 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 26 10:25:15 2012
New Revision: 189885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189885
Log:
2012-07-26 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54099
Bug #: 54099
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr44691.f fails with ICE
in free_regset_pool, at sel-sched-ir.c:994
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53418
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54098
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54099
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54099
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-26
12:08:31 UTC ---
This is the variant of the patch that I will commit after testing:
Index: sel-sched-ir.c
===
--- sel-sched-ir.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #12 from Dennis Lubert 2012-07-26
12:30:00 UTC ---
I can confirm that now the reserve works as I would expect it (causing no
further rehashes). However the amount of rehashes done in the testcase is still
155 (needing 4.5s), while gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #13 from François Dumont 2012-07-26
12:31:56 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 26 12:31:50 2012
New Revision: 189889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189889
Log:
2012-07-26 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54093
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2012-07-26 13:16:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 27877
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27877
proposed fix
Please try out this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-26
13:21:28 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Jul 26 13:21:21 2012
New Revision: 189891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189891
Log:
PR regression/54084
* sel-sched-ir.c (cm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54084
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53418
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-07-26 14:09:07 UTC ---
If something ICEs on current trunk it's clearly a different bug from this
one, which is fixed, and so would need to be filed as a separate bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54096
--- Comment #5 from badass at vt dot edu 2012-07-26 14:10:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 27878
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27878
source code
all files are modules except for prg_fwb.f90.
we believe the error segmentation fau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54096
--- Comment #6 from badass at vt dot edu 2012-07-26 14:13:52 UTC ---
Trying again. Source code attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-26
14:48:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 27879
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27879
incomplete prototype patch
Something like this. But I'll rather wait for the symtab reorg to rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54096
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-26
14:52:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 27878 [details]
> source code
Compiles here (w/o errors) on x86-64-gnu-linux with
gcc version 4.5.3 20110428 [gcc-4_5-branch revision 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54096
--- Comment #8 from badass at vt dot edu 2012-07-26 15:24:29 UTC ---
Thanks, will try with newer version of gcc on my end.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-07-26
15:27:17 UTC ---
A candidate implementation patch for this has been posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01348.html
@Joseph:
Thank you for the note. I believe the patch handles thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||venkataramanan.kumar at amd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-07-26 16:13:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> is this same as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53397
No. Monto Carlo is independent of FFT.
I can confirm the huge drop of the FFT score
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #15 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 16:30:33 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
> 2012-07-23 13:46:43 UTC ---
> Dodji, just in case isn't clear already, this is the PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #16 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:15:15 UTC ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
>
> --- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-24
> 09:34:21 UTC ---
> Err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #16 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:15:15 UTC ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
>
> --- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-24
> 09:34:21 UTC ---
> Err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #17 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:15:43 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini
> 2012-07-24 10:13:24 UTC ---
> Thanks Steven for looking into this!
Indeed, thank you Steven!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #18 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 17:18:34 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com com> 2012-07-24 10:03:05 UTC ---
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>> The point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-07-26
17:36:28 UTC ---
In any case, please add the testcase showing 4.5s vs 1.5s.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #19 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-07-26 19:44:59 UTC ---
Dodji, please see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01204.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54100
Bug #: 54100
Summary: Problems building libjava on AIX 5.2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #5 from Michal Malecki 2012-07-26
20:18:36 UTC ---
Looks nice. Is that a big deal if you also make a standard [[noreturn]]
attribute simply an alias to [[gnu::noreturn]]? As far as I know the standard,
they should behave exactly the s
from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-26
20:34:52 UTC ---
Still happens for:
"xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20120726 (experimental) [trunk revision 189887]"
$ sh -x foo.sh
+ cat
+ gcc gcov_test.c -o gcov_test -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage
+ ./gcov_test
+ gcov gcov_test.c
File 'gcov_test.c'
Lines e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #20 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-07-26 21:11:16 UTC ---
"stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com" a écrit:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
>
> --- Comment #19 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com com> 2012-07-26 19:44:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #15 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-26 22:10:21 UTC
---
Tried the patch and just as Dennis Lubert pointed out, the number of rehashes
is not decreased. Is there any plan to fix this issue?
4.8.0 work:
+ rm -f gcov_test.gcda gcov_test.gcno
+ cat
+ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20120726 (experimental) [trunk revision 189890]
Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #16 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-07-26
22:50:17 UTC ---
In my tests, with this patch, 4.7.1 is about 10% slower than 4.6 ... a vast
improvement but certainly not parity.
./bench46 1.75s user 0.82s system 99% cpu 2.577 total
./bench47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-07-26
22:55:15 UTC ---
Because of more rehashing, unrelated to reserve, I suppose?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #18 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-07-26
23:38:34 UTC ---
I couldn't say. I don't understand the issue, I'm just reporting results and
deploying packages for my fellow devs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #15 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-26
23:45:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> So either we revert the patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=177658 or we add e.g.
> clobbers of address register to the check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-26
23:52:32 UTC ---
Patch post for r177658: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg00353.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101
Bug #: 54101
Summary: Using std::declval for types without a default
constructor and with a deleted copy constructor
errors.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-27
00:32:54 UTC ---
Testcase please.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54102
Bug #: 54102
Summary: generated html vs. utf8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54102
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #20 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-07-27
01:00:14 UTC ---
Are you talking to me? 'cause I was providing results for the patch already
committed to svn, using the code in this very bug description.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54093
--- Comment #5 from Ryan Mansfield 2012-07-27
02:56:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 27877 [details]
> proposed fix
>
> Please try out this patch.
The patch resolves the ICEs, and I didn't see any others problems buildin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54100
--- Comment #1 from The Written Word
2012-07-27 04:24:59 UTC ---
Tried building 4.7.1 on AIX 6.1 and 7.1 and get a similar error.
$ cd /opt/build/china
$ bzip2 -dc gcc-4.7.1.tar.bz2 | tar xf -
$ mkdir gcc-4.7.1-o
$ cd gcc-4.7.1-o
$ CONFIG_SHELL=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-07-27 06:04:09
UTC ---
I don't think the issue is with declval, this is probably a dup of the PR
saying that ?: has a wrong return type with g++ (can't find the number right
now).
64 matches
Mail list logo
