[Bug target/45483] gcc-4.4.3 and 4.5.3: probably wrong optimization options chosen by "-march=native"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45483 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-22 21:08:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > Should I try with gcc-4.6 to see if it uses something different than "generic" > for mtune (or march has changed again)? Yes.

[Bug testsuite/50485] gcc.target/i386/sse4_1-blendps.c fails spuriously on i686

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50485 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-22 22:37:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > H.J., > > > I think it is wrong to convert memcpy to push/pop here. > > Just to be clear here. It's the assignment 'tmp[1] = src2[1]' that gets > translated into

[Bug target/50498] New: __sync_bool_compare_and_swap_16 isn't supported for x86_64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50498 Bug #: 50498 Summary: __sync_bool_compare_and_swap_16 isn't supported for x86_64 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/50498] __sync_bool_compare_and_swap_16 isn't supported for x86_64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50498 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/45483] gcc-4.4.3 and 4.5.3: probably wrong optimization options chosen by "-march=native"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45483 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-24 15:19:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > New output: > > \_ /usr/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/cc1 -quiet - -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -march=pentium-m -mno-cx16 -mno-sahf -mno-movbe -mno-aes -mno-pcl

[Bug middle-end/50528] New: [4.7 Regression] SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50528 Bug #: 50528 Summary: [4.7 Regression] SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug c/50444] unaligned movdqa instruction after inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-26 17:24:47 UTC --- The problem is the wrong alignment for e->v in method. The initial RTL has (insn 17 16 18 4 (set (mem/s/j:V2DI (plus:DI (reg/v/f:DI 66 [ e ]) (const_int 40 [0x28])) [0 MEM[

[Bug c/50444] -ftree-isa ignores alignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|u

[Bug middle-end/50528] [4.7 Regression] SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50528 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|-

[Bug c/50444] -ftree-isa ignores alignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |4.6.2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug bootstrap/50543] Bootstrap fails to build for latest 4.6

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.6.2 |4.6.0 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-27 1

[Bug bootstrap/50543] Bootstrap fails to build for latest 4.6

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50543 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-27 20:29:55 UTC --- I have no problem with /export/gnu/import/git/gcc-release/configure --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --enable-languages=c,c++ i686-linux --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.6.

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-28 15:54:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > With the -O2 flag and in a very specialized circumstance, the product of a > complex and a double has the wrong sign. > > The problem arises when the blitz++ arra

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-28 18:03:50 UTC --- It is fixed by revision 172430: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00625.html

[Bug lto/50568] New: [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 Bug #: 50568 Summary: [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot |

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 15:59:54 UTC --- I got lto1: internal compiler error: resolution sub id not in object file^M Please submit a full bug report,^M with preprocessed source if appropriate.^M See

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 1

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 17:56:25 UTC --- The problem is in Breakpoint 2, process_symtab (data=0xccc0, name=0x82041fe ".gnu.lto_.symtab.f1d7150d3f9de9cb", offset=1325, length=56) at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/lto-plugi

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:11:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > I don't see the problem on a 64bit bootstrap-lto. > > I guess i must have written some 32bit unsafe code. We can't use 64bit random seed when LTO expects 32bit v

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:16:03 UTC --- Created attachment 25380 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25380 A patch This patch works for me. But I don't think it is correct. We need a way to specify HOST_WIDE_INT

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:19:30 UTC --- HOST_WIDE_INT is needed for gcc, libcpp and plug-in. We should have a central host-wide-int.m4 to define all HOST_WIDE_INT related macros.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:21:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Created attachment 25381 [details] > Use long long in lto-plugin > > Can you please test this patch? > It won't work since you also need to update lto-plugin/l

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:26:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > Created attachment 25380 [details] > A patch > > This patch works for me. But I don't think it is correct. > We need a way to specify HOST_WIDE_INT for lto plug

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||34835 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:34:38 UTC --- Also I don't believe it is 100% safe to use %x for printf/scanf on 64bit integer even on 64bit hosts. I think 64bit random seed change should be reverted for now.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 20:44:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Created attachment 25384 [details] > fix + splay tree > > I have some unrelated trouble with a 32bit bootstrap currently. > > This patch should fix all the pro

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:14:28 UTC --- HOST_WIDE_INT may not be 64bit on 32bit host. But long long is 64bit. I don't think it is correct to use HOST_WIDE_INT in lto.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:20:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) > HOST_WIDE_INT may not be 64bit on 32bit host. > But long long is 64bit. I don't think it is > correct to use HOST_WIDE_INT in lto. It may not be a problem sinc

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:23:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Created attachment 25384 [details] > fix + splay tree > > I have some unrelated trouble with a 32bit bootstrap currently. > > This patch should fix all the pro

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:26:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Created attachment 25381 [details] > Use long long in lto-plugin > > Can you please test this patch? > You missed: /* Find hash table of sub module id */ -

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 23:16:20 UTC --- Created attachment 25386 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25386 A better patch

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 23:19:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > Thanks. Does it work with this change? I posted a different patch to avoid indirect reference on 64bit host and avoid overflow in static int lto_splay_compare_

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 23:31:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) > I don't understand which overflow you refer to. Can you please clarify? > > afaik a - b is the standard way to write these comparison functions. lto_splay_comp

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p |

[Bug target/50583] New: Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583 Bug #: 50583 Summary: Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug target/50583] Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-30 16:57:14 UTC --- We have 2 choices: 1. Update document of `TYPE __sync_fetch_and_add (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)' `TYPE __sync_fetch_and_sub (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)' `TYPE __sync_fetch_and_or (TYPE *

[Bug target/50583] Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-30 18:37:42 UTC --- The same problem with `TYPE __sync_add_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)' `TYPE __sync_sub_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)' `TYPE __sync_or_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...

[Bug target/50583] Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-30 18:47:21 UTC --- I guess it is OK.

[Bug lto/50601] New: [4.7 Regression] New LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601 Bug #: 50601 Summary: [4.7 Regression] New LTO failures Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug lto/50601] [4.7 Regression] New LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|-

[Bug target/50603] New: [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603 Bug #: 50603 Summary: [x32] Unnecessary lea Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/50603] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED Ever Confirmed|1

[Bug middle-end/50607] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607 Bug #: 50607 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug middle-end/50632] New: [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50632 Bug #: 50632 Summary: [4.7 Regression] New test failures Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/50633] New: [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 Bug #: 50633 Summary: [4.7 Regression] New test failures Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/50632] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50632 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from H

[Bug middle-end/50634] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_4.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50634 Bug #: 50634 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_4.f90 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from H

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 17:55:48 UTC --- Here is a small testcase. shrink-wrap screwed up stack adjustment for local variables: [hjl@gnu-mic-2 pr50633]$ cat x.i struct s { int val[16]; }; extern double f (struct s pb, double pc);

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 18:38:21 UTC --- static int frame_required_for_rtx (rtx *loc, void *data ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) { rtx x = *loc; if (x == stack_pointer_rtx || x == hard_frame_pointer_rtx || x == arg_pointer_rtx || x ==

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 18:50:14 UTC --- This patch seems to work: diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c index 863f09d..0bc1dd9 100644 --- a/gcc/function.c +++ b/gcc/function.c @@ -5312,6 +5312,21 @@ frame_required_for_rtx

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 1

[Bug target/50603] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 19:00:54 UTC --- [hjl@gnu-mic-2 pr50633]$ cat x.i struct s { int val[16]; }; extern double f (struct s pb, double pc); int main () { struct s x; int i; for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) x.val[i] = i + 1;

[Bug target/50603] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 19:19:23 UTC --- Combine failed: (set (mem:SI (and:DI (plus:DI (subreg:DI (mult:SI (reg/v:SI 84 [ i ]) (const_int 4 [0x4])) 0) (subreg:DI (reg:SI 106) 0))

[Bug target/50603] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 19:37:56 UTC --- Taking from combine.c: else if (GET_CODE (t) == ZERO_EXTEND && (GET_CODE (XEXP (t, 0)) == PLUS || GET_CODE (XEXP (t, 0)) == IOR ||

[Bug target/50603] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 19:44:06 UTC --- It doesn't work since we fail to decompose subreg.

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-06 20:09:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Created attachment 25434 [details] > Test patch > > Can you give this a try? Seems to fix the testcase. It works. Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/50657] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_12.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50657 Bug #: 50657 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_type_12.f03 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/50633] [4.7 Regression] New test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50633 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/50665] New: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665 Bug #: 50665 Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/50665] [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-08 19:23:54 UTC --- This may be another target optimization bug: [hjl@gnu-1 prev-gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.i const char * __attribute__((__target__("ssse3"))) foo (const char *s) { return s; } [hjl@gnu-1 prev-gcc]$ .

[Bug bootstrap/50665] [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-08 20:12:37 UTC --- Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. df_ref_create_structure (cl=DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL, collection_rec=0xd110, reg=0xafafafaf, loc=0x0, bb=0xf7dae000, info=0x0, ref_type

[Bug bootstrap/50665] [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50665 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from H.J.

[Bug target/50696] New: [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 Bug #: 50696 Summary: [x32] Unnecessary lea Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 17:59:50 UTC --- It is generated by expand_compound_operation.

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 20:11:59 UTC --- Does this patch diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c index 6c3b17c..52259b6 100644 --- a/gcc/combine.c +++ b/gcc/combine.c @@ -5078,6 +5078,22 @@ subst (rtx x, rtx from, rtx to, int i

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 22:13:47 UTC --- const_32bit_mask is incorrect since combine may optimize VAL in ADDR & VAL from 0x to 0xfffc. Even if we take this into account, we can't decompose (plus:DI (subreg:DI (mult:SI

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 23:29:05 UTC --- This patch changes combine not to generate: (plus:DI (subreg:DI (mult:SI (reg/v:SI 85 [ i ]) (const_int 4 [0x4])) 0) (subreg:DI (reg:SI 100) 0)) and changes const_32bit_mas

[Bug middle-end/50704] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704 Bug #: 50704 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P

[Bug middle-end/50704] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:01:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Ah! It happens because the underlying architecture is 32-bit. We should run > > these tests only on 64-bit architectures to get the c

[Bug middle-end/50704] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:00:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Ah! It happens because the underlying architecture is 32-bit. We should run > these tests only on 64-bit architectures to get the correct warnings. So I'll > add

[Bug middle-end/50704] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:36:05 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > > So if I want to run the test only on 64-bit architectures, then lp64 is the > correct choice in dg-require-effective-target? > > Artem. x32 also has 64bit reg

[Bug middle-end/50704] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:58:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > > I need to make sure that UNITS_PER_WORD is 8 on the architecture I am running > the test. Is it the case for x32? > Yes.

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p |

[Bug middle-end/50731] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vector-shift2.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50731 Bug #: 50731 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vector-shift2.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/50731] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vector-shift2.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50731 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-14 16:42:37 UTC --- Revision 179952 is OK.

[Bug other/50759] New: [4.7 Regression] @table ended by @end quotation at line 595

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759 Bug #: 50759 Summary: [4.7 Regression] @table ended by @end quotation at line 595 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/50760] New: [4.7 Regression] bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760 Bug #: 50760 Summary: [4.7 Regression] bootstrap failure Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/50760] [4.7 Regression] bootstrap failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50760 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from H.

[Bug middle-end/50795] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-expect-[1234].c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50795 Bug #: 50795 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-expect-[1234].c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug lto/50796] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/plugindir[1234].c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50796 Bug #: 50796 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/plugindir[1234].c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/50797] New: [x32] Use 32bit Pmode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50797 Bug #: 50797 Summary: [x32] Use 32bit Pmode Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug debug/50799] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43177.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799 Bug #: 50799 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43177.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug debug/50799] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43177.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 17:30:07 UTC --- I saw them on Fedora 15 with gdb-7.3-43.fc15.x86_64.

[Bug debug/50799] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43177.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 19:24:55 UTC --- You should try gdb 7.3 to see if it makes a difference.

[Bug debug/50799] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43177.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 21:04:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > What kind of error are you getting from gdb 7.3? Since 7.2 is getting the > correct info, that's the bug report that ought to be submitted to GDB. My understandi

[Bug debug/50799] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43177.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50799 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-20 22:41:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > What kind of error are you getting from gdb 7.3? Since 7.2 is getting the > correct info, that's the bug report that ought to be submitted to GDB. I got Breakpo

[Bug driver/50740] CPUID leaf 7 for BMI/BMI2/AVX2 feature detection not qualified with max_level and doesn't use subleaf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50740 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-21 01:09:46 UTC --- Created attachment 25565 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25565 A patch Kirill, can you take care of it?

[Bug target/50832] New: Strange ix86_attr_length_immediate_default

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50832 Bug #: 50832 Summary: Strange ix86_attr_length_immediate_default Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug middle-end/50867] New: [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with bootstrap-profiled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50867 Bug #: 50867 Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with bootstrap-profiled Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/50868] New: [4.7 Regression] 1x176.gcc in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50868 Bug #: 50868 Summary: [4.7 Regression] 1x176.gcc in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build with LTO Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug middle-end/50867] [4.7 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with bootstrap-profiled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50867 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tom at codesourcery dot com Target Milestone|

[Bug middle-end/50886] New: [4.7 Regression] 445.gobmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886 Bug #: 50886 Summary: [4.7 Regression] 445.gobmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/50886] [4.7 Regression] 445.gobmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50886 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-27 1

[Bug rtl-optimization/50891] New: move2add_note_store fails to properly track register content

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891 Bug #: 50891 Summary: move2add_note_store fails to properly track register content Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/50891] move2add_note_store fails to properly track register content

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-27 23:10:45 UTC --- reload_cse_move2add treats (insn 61 60 62 8 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags) (compare:CCZ (reg:SI 2 cx) (const_int 3 [0x3]))) x.f90:9 6 {*cmpsi_1} (nil)) (jump_insn 62 61 6

[Bug rtl-optimization/50891] move2add_note_store fails to properly track register content

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50891 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-27 23:20:47 UTC --- Does this: --- diff --git a/gcc/postreload.c b/gcc/postreload.c index 0e50d85..526015b 100644 --- a/gcc/postreload.c +++ b/gcc/postreload.c @@ -2039,6 +2039,10 @@ reload_cse_move2add (rtx f

[Bug c++/50870] [C++0x] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with decltype, operator->, and default template arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50870 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-28 15:53:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > HJ, any chance you can figure out when we regressed for testcase in Comment #3 > ? I tried different versions of GCC, I got pr50870.cc:8: error: expected type-sp

<    7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   >