: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at redhat dot com, kcc at
gcc dot gnu.org,
marxin at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:33:31 2017
New Revision: 252035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-12 Steve Ellcey
PR other/81096
* libbacktrace/Mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Sep 12 17:00:00 2017
New Revision: 252038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-12 Steve Ellcey
PR other/81096
* Makefile.am (tte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #25 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Sep 13 18:06:36 2017
New Revision: 252723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-13 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82066
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Sep 15 20:55:52 2017
New Revision: 252848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-15 Steve Ellcey
PR target/82066
* doc/extend.texi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79794
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71779
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71779
--- Comment #24 from Steve Ellcey ---
So should the patch be backported to the 5/6 branches?
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41274
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41274&action=edit
Test case
GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 82396, which changed state.
Bug 82396 Summary: [8 Regression] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted
output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82440
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82395
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82395
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
I am not sure if PR 82385 and PR 82396 are different bugs or not, they both
involve qsort problems. I guess the aarch64 failure is PR 82396 and not this
one, PR 82395.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42448
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42448&action=edit
Test case
I am compiling the GCC sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey ---
I think I see where this is going wrong but I don't know what to do about it.
In try_combine, line 3288 we have i2 and i3 of:
(insn 18 16 19 3 (set (reg:DI 91)
(ashift:DI (reg:DI 83 [ _26 ])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #12 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 42491
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42491&action=edit
Patch that fixes the test case
Here is a possible patch. It fixes the test case and I am doing a bootstrap
and
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: wdijkstr at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64-*-*
This patch:
2017-10-26 Wilco Dijkstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #14 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> I have a simpler patch. It is testing...
Can you attach your patch to this defect so I can test it as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
Yes, this fixed my SPEC problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 2 21:56:00 2017
New Revision: 254359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79868
* config/aarch64/aarch64-c.c (aarch64_pragma_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 2 21:58:05 2017
New Revision: 254360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79868
* gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_1.c: Update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #27 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> Fixed?
I see still these vect failures on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Nov 17 22:44:32 2017
New Revision: 254901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-17 Steve Ellcey
PR target/81356
* config/aarch64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:18:14 2017
New Revision: 254977
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254977&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 Steve Ellcey
PR target/81356
* gfortran.dg/pr4
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
Compiling this code:
__thread int abc;
void foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60528
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
An additional data point, If I build a MIPS cross compiler as a 32 bit x86
object then it does the right thing, if I build the cross compiler as a 64 bit
object then I get incorrect results. The 4.8.1 compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey ---
It looks like this is a bug in convert_move when POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED
is false. If unsignedp is false we call emit_store_flag to get 'fill_value'.
Arguments 3 and 4 (op0 and op1 in emit_store_flag) are:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60528
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
This may actually be a glibc bug instead of a GCC bug. While GCC puts out
different numbers based on whether or not it is built as a 32 or 64 bit object
(and I think that is a bug) that does not seem to be cau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellc
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: mips*-*-*
Created attachment 32410
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32410&action=edit
Test case
While looking at a GCC fortran test failure
(gfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60528
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
I have created a new bug for the incorrect csinh results and included a cutdown
test case. It looks like a GCC optimization bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
I think this bug should stay
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 32428
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32428&action=edit
New reduced test case
Here is a new reduced test case that calls no libm functions. I am pretty sure
that the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
I see what you mean about the bad code and if I change it by hand (copying $2
to $f13 instead of $f12 then the code does work. I am not sure how to fix the
register allocator though. I thought maybe REG_WORDS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
I think the underlying bug here is the code we generate for builtin_fabs.
In emit-rtl.c (validate_subreg) I see this comment:
/* Subregs involving floating point modes are not allowed to
change size. T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
I didn't notice that just before the emit-rtl.c (validate_subregs) comment
that says:
/* Subregs involving floating point modes are not allowed to
change size. Therefore (subreg:DI (reg:DF) 0) is fine,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60050
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
This patch (GIT hash c5d7f2f65740ad3659ec083daa6af1df3a6473a7)
2014-05-22 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/60969
* ira-costs.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60969
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #15 from Steve Ellcey ---
I am not sure yet where and how to improve this automatically but I have found
an interesting hand optimization that could point to a way to fix this. If I
change the original function:
int foo(int *p, unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65179
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey ---
I tried Marek's patch and it fixed the build issue with glibc. I did get a few
new errors that I think are caused by this change:
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
F
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org, rdsandiford at googlemail dot
com
Target: mips*-*-*
The test gcc.target/mips/octeon
||2014-01-08
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 10 17:54:10 2014
New Revision: 206535
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206535&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-10 Steve Ellcey
PR plugins/59335
* Makefile.in (PLUGIN_HEAD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
The generic problems should be fixed with my patch but the x86 specific plugin
build problem probably still exists.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59462
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 17 18:07:18 2014
New Revision: 206724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206724&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-17 Andrew Pinski
Steve Ellcey
PR target/59462
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59462
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jan 21 18:49:27 2014
New Revision: 206894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline.
2014-01-17 Andrew Pinski
Steve Ellcey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59462
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52125
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52125
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
OK, I will check that in as an obvious fix.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: mips-*-*
The included test program prints out:
x = 0.634964 1.298458
x = inf inf
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Oct 23 15:56:15 2015
New Revision: 229259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-23 Steve Ellcey
Andrew Pinski
PR rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Oct 23 15:58:33 2015
New Revision: 229260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-23 Steve Ellcey
Andrew Pinski
PR rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Nov 2 21:04:33 2015
New Revision: 229677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-02 Steve Ellcey
Backport from mainline
2015-10-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Nov 2 21:08:02 2015
New Revision: 229678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-02 Steve Ellcey
2015-10-23 Steve Ellcey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
,
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Looks like it is this patch based on the email in the thread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00310.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65245
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Created attachment 34893 [details]
> Suggested patch
>
> I've been testing following patch.
FYI: I tested this patch on MIPS and it works for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
--- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Mar 3 00:07:19 2015
New Revision: 221128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-02 Steve Ellcey
PR target/58158
* config/mips/mips.md (m
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 34953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34953&action=edit
Test case
When GCC has multiple local variables with di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
It might be easier to see this bug if you apply this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index 7dfe1f6..7beb00e 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
@@ -973,6 +973,8 @@ expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
I submitted a proposed fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00244.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65315
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Mar 5 16:34:03 2015
New Revision: 221219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-05 Steve Ellcey
PR middle-end/65315
* cfgexpand.c (expand
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
My x86 to MIPS build is failing when the new compiler cannot compile a file
from glibc. A cut-down preprocessed test case is attached. It only fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 33941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33941&action=edit
Preprocessed test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
I think the failure may have started with r217265, but I have not confirmed
that for sure.
r217265 | vmakarov | 2014-11-09 08:45:15 -0800 (Sun, 09 Nov 2014) | 34 lines
2014-11-09 Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
I have now verified that the failure started with r217265.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #38 from Steve Ellcey ---
FYI: I am testing a new patch for this that adds a new pass to do this
optimization. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg01228.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Aug 20 15:56:45 2014
New Revision: 214226
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214226&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steve Ellcey
PR middle-end/49191
* doc/sourcebuild.te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Aug 20 15:57:42 2014
New Revision: 214227
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214227&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steve Ellcey
PR middle-end/49191
* lib/target-support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62304
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Dave Malcolm from comment #5)
> Created attachment 33416 [details]
> Candidate patch. Bootstrapped on x86_64; seems to work on stage1 cris and
> sparc
This patch fixed my MIPS build. I am runni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
I still haven't been able to reproduce this. I have been trying to do so with
the gcc-5-branch. Aurelien, what host GCC version are you using when you build
a cross compiler? I am building on Ubuntu 12.04 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey ---
Where in CC1 do you segfault? Can you show me the error message you get when
compiling the test program using the latest gcc-5-branch sources.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey ---
Could you try adding 'debug_rtx (x); debug_rtx (y);' to the front
of rtx_equal_for_cselib_1? It looks like this routine is in an
infinite loop, I would like to see what input it is working on
and see if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #13 from Steve Ellcey ---
Thanks for the trace. I am still not sure I understand what is going on but I
wonder if you could try commenting out this code under the "case 'e'" code in
rtx_equal_for_cselib_1.
#if 0
if (i ==
||2015-12-08
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
It looks like this is going wrong in the bswap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65604
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
I have submitted a patch for this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01049.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #15 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 36978
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36978&action=edit
patch to put debug statements in cselib.c
I still cannot reproduce the failure. I have built cross compilers o
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
The truncate can not be moved out of the loop because that would affect the
overflow behaviour of ret. I.e. we need to truncate ret on each iteration of
the loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
My understanding (I don't have a C/C++ standard handy) is that the addition
done by 'ret + a[i]' is done in integer mode (not as short). This results in
an integer value that may be outside the range of a sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
If we did not truncate ret on each loop iteration then ret could get large
enough to overflow the maximum integer value before we truncate it at the end,
leading to undefined results. But if we truncate ret o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||5.3.0, 6.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey ---
Patch checked in on ToT for 6.0 and on 5.* branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey ---
I think there is still a difference in our configurations. If you add '-v' to
the compile line when compiling the test program what do you see? Specifically
what does COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS show? Mine has:
C
201 - 300 of 314 matches
Mail list logo
