[Bug target/13877] [3.3 regression] miscompilation with -O -funroll-loops on powerpc

2004-03-12 Thread gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-13 01:20 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Created an attachment (id=5894) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5894&action=view) > clear loop_info->initial_value is loop preconditioned > > This fixes the proble

[Bug target/13877] [3.3 regression] miscompilation with -O -funroll-loops on powerpc

2004-03-12 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-13 01:19 --- Subject: Bug 13877 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_3-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-13 01:19:05 Modified files: gcc: Change

Re: Debian gcc questions

2004-03-12 Thread Matthias Klose
Will Newton writes: > > > 1. Is the fix for PR7871 in the Debian gcc 3.3? > It went into gcc-3_3-branch on 2004-02-28. it's in the 3.3.3-2 package in unstable, which is not yet available on all architectures. > > 2. Will the changes to the MIPS ABI[1] in gcc 3.4 require any > transition plan?

[Bug debug/11983] [3.3 Regression] ICE in dwarf-2 on code using altivec

2004-03-12 Thread gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-12 21:07 --- (In reply to comment #18) > 3.4.0 fix committed. The patch as if does not apply cleably to gcc-3_3-branch. Do you have a version for gcc-3.3.4? Does it worth it? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/

Re: Debian gcc questions

2004-03-12 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:34:32AM +, Will Newton wrote: > 2. Will the changes to the MIPS ABI[1] in gcc 3.4 require any > transition plan? Probably not. For o32 - all Debian MIPS ports right now are still o32 - the changes are only in very rare corner cases. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> > I don't think there is a PR for it since the code in question does not > > provoke the bug on a vanilla FSF build. > > Now I'm confused. If the bug is not present in 3.3.3, then what is there > to backport? The bug is present, by inspection. > Or are you saying that the bug is present, bu

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Joe Buck
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:08:30PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 06:38, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > - Is 14302 the bug that caused XFree86 4.3 builds to fail on Debian ARM? > > > > > > CCed Phil Blundell > > > > No. The XFree86 problem was also in GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_AD

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Phil Blundell
on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:38:54AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > arm-10730.dpatch: > 2003-05-15 Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > PR target/10730 > * config/arm/arm.c (adjacent_mem_locations): Reject offsets > involving invalid constants. I guess this one should also be

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Joe Buck
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 04:50:13PM +, Phil Blundell wrote: > on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:46:36AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > > Is the bug fixed in the gcc-3.3 CVS branch? This one was serious and > > visible enough that we should have a PR for it (so there's a referenceable > > bug description for

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Phil Blundell
on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:46:36AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > Is the bug fixed in the gcc-3.3 CVS branch? This one was serious and > visible enough that we should have a PR for it (so there's a referenceable > bug description for the 3.3.4 release notes when they come out). Not yet. I think Richar

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Joe Buck
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:44:10AM +, Philip Blundell wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 06:38, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > - Is 14302 the bug that caused XFree86 4.3 builds to fail on Debian ARM? > > > > CCed Phil Blundell > > No. The XFree86 problem was also in GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, but th

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Richard Earnshaw
> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 06:38, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > - Is 14302 the bug that caused XFree86 4.3 builds to fail on Debian ARM? > > > > CCed Phil Blundell > > No. The XFree86 problem was also in GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, but this > was a different bug. I don't think we had a PR filed for th

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Gerhard Tonn
Matthias Klose wrote: s390-ifcft.dpatch: Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> backport of ifcvt patch see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-04/msg01072.html s390-nonlocal-goto.dpatch: Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> nonlocal goto patch These two patches are not needed any

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Philip Blundell
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 12:08, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > Phil, were you going to commit the back-port you had done? Yep, I can do that. p.

Debian gcc questions

2004-03-12 Thread Will Newton
1. Is the fix for PR7871 in the Debian gcc 3.3? It went into gcc-3_3-branch on 2004-02-28. 2. Will the changes to the MIPS ABI[1] in gcc 3.4 require any transition plan? Thanks, [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Philip Blundell
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 06:38, Matthias Klose wrote: > > - Is 14302 the bug that caused XFree86 4.3 builds to fail on Debian ARM? > > CCed Phil Blundell No. The XFree86 problem was also in GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, but this was a different bug. I don't think we had a PR filed for the XFree86 thin

Re: 3.3.4 status, and some questions

2004-03-12 Thread Matthias Klose
Joe Buck writes: > I took a look at bugzilla and a first snapshot of what the release notes > would be like, if we released now, appear below. > > I have some questions: > > - I successfully built 3.3.3 on an ia64 GNU/Linux box and did not observe > a bootstrap failure. Was 13918 something tha