http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12 21:25:58 UTC ---
f1.c vs. f.c:
...
int g(int*);int g(int*);
int f1(void) |int f(void)
{{
int tt = 0; int tt = 0;
int t = 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-12 21:33:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26061
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26061
tentative patch
Using this tentative patch, now also f in f.c.149t.optimized ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 15:00:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 26070
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26070
update tentative patch
now testing on x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-17 11:39:53 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Dec 17 11:39:49 2011
New Revision: 182433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182433
Log:
2011-12-17 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-17 11:39:47 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Dec 17 11:39:43 2011
New Revision: 182432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182432
Log:
2011-12-17 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-17 12:49:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26119
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26119
res_hconf.c.221r.mach, using Andrew's patch
(In reply to comment #13)
> I thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 13:17:23 UTC ---
> given this definition, maybe insn 141 should be marked as frame-related, since
> it restores a reg in the epilogue.
It seems to be the other way round: insn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 13:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> This is the patch which I am testing:
> Index: genatt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-04 21:43:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > AFAIU, the only thing causing problems is frame-related insns being
> > speculated.
>
> Yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773
Bug #: 51773
Summary: error building libitm/aatree.cc on ARM
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-06 10:51:51 UTC ---
Looks related to:
+ [BZ #13529]
+ * assert/assert.h (static_assert): Define.
+
diff --git a/assert/assert.h b/assert/assert.h
index 841f435..4022e28 100644
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-08 14:12:44 UTC ---
Submitted http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00359.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-08 14:13:19 UTC ---
Submitted http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00363.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 08:49:50 UTC ---
Author: vries
Revision: 183038
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Jan 10 08:49:45 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 08:50:45 UTC ---
Author: vries
Revision: 183052
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Jan 10 08:50:40 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51271
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-11 09:45:02 UTC ---
>> Either way, we should be able to formulate an assert in scan_trace that
>> checks this condition. Do you think that would be useful?
> You absolutely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-11 13:00:37 UTC ---
This attempt at 'a glibc version check and defining the std::gets prototype in
libstdc++' (PR 51773 comment 11) unbreaks the libstdc++ build:
...
Index: libstdc++-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-18 05:41:34 UTC ---
This works for the 3 examples:
...
Index: tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- tree-ssa-sccvn.c (revision 182098)
+++ tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-21 11:34:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 26402
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26402
patch to fix problem in comment 4
(In reply to comment #12)
> Tom, are you handlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
Bug #: 51964
Summary: Missed tail merging opportunity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 13:43:33 UTC ---
I have a still rather vague idea that we might value number the uses rather
than the defs: assign the same number to uses which use a value in the same
way. I don't kno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 14:04:07 UTC ---
> I tested an earlier version of this patch without any problems, I just need to
> retest and submit.
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/ms
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 14:10:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 26430
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26430
Tentative patch
2012-01-23 Tom de Vries
PR tree-optimization/51879
tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40060
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
Bug #: 51990
Summary: ICE in copy_reference_ops_from_ref
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 08:39:23 UTC ---
tentative fix:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c (revision 183325)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26430|0 |1
is obsolete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 10:15:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This extension is not even documented, see PR 37428 for more info.
>
There are at least these 3 examples in the testsuite that us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Bug #: 51998
Summary: compiler hangs on self-recursive alias attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 16:33:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think fatal_error is undesirable, you should error on it somewhere and just
> drop the alias attribute.
Jakub,
like this? :
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
Bug #: 52009
Summary: Another missed tail merging opportunity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-27 10:38:32 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:38:27 2012
New Revision: 183614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183614
Log:
2012-01-27 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-27 10:38:38 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 27 10:38:34 2012
New Revision: 183615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183615
Log:
2012-01-27 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-28 21:00:14 UTC ---
Submitted generic patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01540.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-30 09:43:04 UTC ---
Value numbering of stores appears to be a bit different than what I expected.
pr51879-9.c:
...
int z;
void
foo (void)
{
z = 5;
z = 5;
}
...
pr51879-9.c.028t.fre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-30 20:09:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 26518
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26518
tentative patch
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In more detail:
...
lto1: internal compiler error: in input_varpool_node, at lto-cgraph.c:1371^M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
>Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Jakub,
Can you tell whether this is a test-case problem or openmp support problem?
Thanks,
- Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> That test is huge, can you narrow it to something smaller that still ICEs?
> Like, bisect to a single omp target in main and corresponding fN function +
> support?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 45226 [details]
> gcc9-pr88460.patch
>
> Ah, PR86660 reappeared here, copy and tweak from before that testcase has
> been adjusted. Tested jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88460
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> > Richard Biener changed:
> >
> >What|Removed |Added
> > -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88491
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Dec 14 09:43:41 2018
New Revision: 267127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] Remove bashism from libbacktrace/allocfail.sh
Test-case libbac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88491
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> After r264397 "[nvptx] Remove use of CUDA unified memory in libgomp", I'm
> seeing (intermittently only, and only on some systems):
>
I see the failure reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88063
--- Comment #14 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Dec 28 03:43:26 2018
New Revision: 267443
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267443&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libbacktrace] Fix memory leak in loop in build_address_map
When failing
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries ---
Patch fixing the problem mentioned in the description committed to trunk.
Other problems mentioned
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider oacc_validate_dims on trunk:
...
oacc_validate_dims (tree fn, tree attrs, int *dims, int level, unsigned used)
{
tree purpose[GOMP_DIM_MAX];
unsigned ix
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider libgomp testcase vred2d-128.c (posted partially here):
...
gentest (test1, &quo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88706
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> I think the same problem exists for the other work around in
> nvptx_adjust_parallelism, this one:
> ...
> /* FIXME: This is overly conservative; worker and vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
--- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jan 7 08:10:56 2019
New Revision: 267630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Don't emit barriers for empty loops -- fix
When compiling an empt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jan 7 10:01:49 2019
New Revision: 267640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Force vl32 if calling vector-partitionable routines
With PTX_MAX_V
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider this minimized/modified test-case:
...
$ cat libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-1.c
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With the nvptx vector-length patches arriving on trunk, it starts to become
important to run the libgomp openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88756
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 9 00:07:55 2019
New Revision: 267747
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267747&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libgomp, testsuite, openacc] Don't use const int for dimensions
Const int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88756
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> For the user, it's somewhat confusing that this passes with warning when
> compiling as C++, and fails to execute when compiling as C.
> I wonder why we don't do t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88703
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jan 12 10:27:12 2019
New Revision: 267877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Verify dimension limits after applying defaults
There's a problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0)
> > After r264397 "[nvptx] Remove use of CUDA unified memory in libgomp", I'm
> > seeing (intermittently only, and onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jan 12 22:18:50 2019
New Revision: 267894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Force vl32 if calling vector-partitionable routines -- test-cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat Jan 12 22:18:39 2019
New Revision: 267893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Don't emit barriers for empty loops -- test-cases
Add test-cases
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
spinoff from PR 80547 - '[7/8/9 Regression] nvptx back end ICE with OpenACC
"reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> An additional observation: for host fallback (adding an "if(0)" clause to
> both the OpenMP and OpenACC directives, for example), the OpenMP code still
> works,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Jan 15 10:11:16 2019
New Revision: 267934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Handle assignment to gang-level reduction variable
2019-01-15 Tom
||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> The is the OpenACC variant of OpenMP's PR71535.
>
> You need to add "#pragma acc routine" f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88244
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Discussed here ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00932.html ).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Jan 17 00:08:05 2019
New Revision: 267996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libbacktrace] Handle DW_FORM_GNU_strp_alt
Handle DW_FORM_GNU_strp_alt whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> Author: vries
> Date: Thu Jan 17 00:08:05 2019
> New Revision: 267996
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267996&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> [libbacktrace] Han
Priority: P3
Component: libbacktrace
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ian at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In libbacktrace we use views to load portions of files into memory:
...
extern int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Jan 17 13:42:20 2019
New Revision: 268031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libbacktrace] Handle DW_FORM_GNU_ref_alt
Handle DW_FORM_GNU_ref_alt which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Jan 17 13:42:30 2019
New Revision: 268032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libbacktrace] Add btest_dwz test-case
Add test-case to verify that libbac
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries ---
Patches implementing complete feature and test-case committed, marking
resolved-fixed.
There'
: libbacktrace
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ian at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For each compilation unit we parse in build_address_map, we call read_abbrevs,
to parse the abbrevs, and store the parsed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88894
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|no
UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Atm, abort-1.c passes like this:
...
CheCKpOInT
libgomp: cuStreamSynchronize error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88939
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
The usual fix for this sort of problem is to move the map_pop to before the
GOMP_PLUGIN_fatal:
...
@@ -1365,6 +1365,7 @@ nvptx_exec
if (async < acc_async_noval)
{
r = CUDA_CALL_NOCHECK (cuStream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88939
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Furthermore, because of running into the cudaMemFree error, the process hangs
indefinitely with this callstack:
...
libgomp: cuStreamSynchronize error: an illegal instruction was encountered
libgomp: cuMemFre
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider abort-6.c (the async version of abort-1.c):
...
/* { dg-do run } */
#include
#include
int
main (void
UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider test-case:
...
$ cat libgomp/testsuite/libgo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88941
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
A patch like this waits for the kernel to finish, and then forces processing
the event, so it fixes the failing test-case:
...
diff --git a/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c b/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c
index d
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
[ Spin-off bug from PR88941 - "[nvptx, openacc, libgomp] Assertion
`!s->map->active'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88942
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88941
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> At the acc_shutdown documentation, we read:
> ..
> - This routine may not be called during execution of an accelerator compute
> region.
> - If the program attemp
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider test-case:
...
/* { dg-do run } */
int
main (void)
{
#pragma acc parallel async
;
#pragma acc parallel async
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87835
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
This minimized test-case (rewritten to avoid the kernels construct, by setting
the num_gangs as libgomp would have chosen it for kernels, and making the loop
a gang loop):
...
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-addi
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider this test-case:
...
/* { dg-do run } */
#include
int
main (void)
{
int a[128];
int N = 128;
#pragma acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88981
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88981
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
A good thing to note here, when adding #pragma acc wait, the program (compiled
with -O0) takes ~10 seconds to finish on my quadro 1200m.
Without the pragma acc wait, it still takes 10 seconds.
When inspectin
401 - 500 of 3236 matches
Mail list logo
