http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55236
Bug #: 55236
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/pr22493-1.c
FAILs with -fPIC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #4 from Adam Mitz 2012-11-07 21:10:26 UTC
---
The generated code for the thunk is incorrect in that it re-uses the %eax
register, clobbering the original "this" value:
Dump of assembler code for function _ZTv0_n16_NK7Derived3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-11-07
21:19:42 UTC ---
Completely untested patch for someone else to foster-parent:
--- sched-rgn.c 2012-11-04 14:48:19.110019609 -0800
+++ sched-rgn.c 2012-11-07 13:17:06.740019608 -0800
@@ -298
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54830
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 21:27:11
UTC ---
Just for the record..
The arithmetic right shift by 16 splits into the sequence swap.w exts.w after
combine. Thus, any other following extensions don't get combined away.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 21:31:39
UTC ---
Christian, I just wanted to check with you whether you've already started doing
something regarding the mac.w / mac.l instructions?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 21:37:47
UTC ---
Jörn,
I was curious whether the soft fpu code of yours is also available as C/C++, or
did you write it in asm only? I guess it would be an interesting bunch of code
quality tests for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 22:00:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> r159431 fixes the ICE. Comment #0 is now accepted without an error message.
With 4.7 and trunk, comment #0 is rejected with:
this_pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #40 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com 2012-11-07 22:02:56 UTC ---
Here is the patch to fix the redundant rehash/reserve issue.
2012-11-07 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/54075
* include/bits/hashtable.h (_Hashtable<>::rehash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-07
22:07:00 UTC ---
> Please note that before your patch, emit_block_move was never called.
Indeed, I missed that.
> Following patch fixes testcase for me:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55122
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:11:13 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:11:08 2012
New Revision: 193310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193310
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-07 22:11:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> If you compile the testcase with the unmodified compiler but without -fPIC,
> you
> get in the assembly file:
>
> movl%edx, _dl_rtld_map-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||33704
--- Comment #19 from Dav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-07
22:16:52 UTC ---
Reconfirmed. It fails with mainline as of today and with the FSF 4.7 branch,
but only with -m32. It compiles fine with -m64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:20:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:20:15 2012
New Revision: 193311
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193311
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Do not fold if
the argument is itself a conditional expression.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20121107-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 22:26:18 UTC ---
Here is a draft patch which rejects comment #1:
Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/pri
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Do not fold if
the argument is itself a conditional expression.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20121107-1.c
- copied unchanged from r193312,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 22:34:53 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:34:48 2012
New Revision: 193314
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193314
Log:
PR middle-end/55235
* ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot|
|gnu.org
nd/55219
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Do not fold if
the argument is itself a conditional expression.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20121107-1.c
- copied unchanged from r193313,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #10 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-07 22:40:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Jörn,
> I was curious whether the soft fpu code of yours is also available as C/C++,
> or
> did you write it in asm only? I guess it would be an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-07
22:43:00 UTC ---
> (,%eax,4) generates a 0x67 address-size prefix, which zero-extends
> 32-bit address to 64-bit.
OK, I see. Then it would be interesting to have a testcase that generates th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:43:35 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:43:30 2012
New Revision: 193317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193317
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-07 23:02:58
UTC ---
Created attachment 28632
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28632
A complete testcase
I applied i386 change at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07
23:31:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28633
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28633
Arithmetic right shift rework 2
This could be an alternative approach for the arith right shif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07
23:33:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> but the compiler is not much good at combining
> high-level transformations with streamlined data representation,
> ABI modification, register allocati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-07
23:33:54 UTC ---
Backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x113d6b90
"/home/bergner/gcc/gcc-fsf-mainline-base/gcc/expr.c", line=7597,
function=0x113d7158
"expand_expr_addr_expr_1")
at /ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-07
23:39:56 UTC ---
...and the reduced test case I used for the above. Does any of the above make
sense for anyone?
class CObject {};
class CMsgProc:virtual public CObject { };
template < ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48806
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 23:50:09
UTC ---
I've tried to reproduce the test case of this PR on rev 193240 (4.8) with the
change in rev 185714 reverted. It seems that this test case doesn't trigger
the error any more. Howev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48806
--- Comment #8 from Ryan Mansfield 2012-11-07
23:56:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Is it OK to close this PR without adding the test case to the test suite?
That's fine with me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #12 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-07 23:56:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Do you have any particular example in mind?
Just compare the size & performance of the code generated from fp-bit.c with
the hand-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-08
00:58:55 UTC ---
On 7 November 2012 22:02, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Ok to commit ? If so, where ?
That patch is OK for trunk and 4.7, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-08
01:08:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
>
> > Do you have any particular example in mind?
>
> Just compare the size & performance of the code generated from fp-b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #42 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-08
01:56:15 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 01:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 7 November 2012 22:02, François Dumont wrote:
>> Ok to commit ? If so, where ?
> That patch is OK for trunk and 4.7, thanks.
... I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #43 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-08
02:26:12 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 02:56 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On the other hand, the old-old code for rehash didn't use
> _M_growth_factor in these computations, it just literally enforced t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
