--- Comment #7 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 18:05 ---
*** Bug 40620 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40462
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are
--- Comment #2 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 18:05 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40462 ***
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 23:33 ---
Tested the fix for sparc; re-open if it's not fixed for darwin too.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #10 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 23:21 ---
Subject: Bug 40347
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jul 1 23:21:17 2009
New Revision: 149158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149158
Log:
PR bootstrap/40347
* fu
--- Comment #9 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 20:42 ---
Mine.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc
--- Comment #15 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 00:46 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-21 20:49 ---
Subject: Bug 37815
Author: rth
Date: Tue Oct 21 20:48:16 2008
New Revision: 141278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141278
Log:
PR 37815
* emit-rtl.c (get_spill_slot_decl)
--- Comment #10 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-17 16:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=16513)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16513&action=view)
proposed patch
I'm pretty sure this patch is sufficient to return this function to working
order.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #24 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 21:59 ---
Subject: Bug 33410
Author: rth
Date: Thu Feb 7 21:58:42 2008
New Revision: 132176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132176
Log:
PR rtl-opt/33410
* config/alpha
--- Comment #23 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 17:46 ---
Subject: Bug 33410
Author: rth
Date: Thu Feb 7 17:45:24 2008
New Revision: 132171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132171
Log:
PR rtl-opt/33410
* config/alpha
--- Comment #21 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-06 17:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=15109)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15109&action=view)
fix, try 2
"I see," said the blind man.
It turns out that the emission of the libcall had bee
--- Comment #19 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-05 20:17 ---
I'm confused about the #16 report that appears to say there is one less error,
and the subsequent reports that there are "many new failures". Please give
more precise feedback.
--
http://gcc.g
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33410
--- You
--- Comment #13 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 17:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=15066)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15066&action=view)
proposed fix
There's two things we can do. First, we could modify loop-iv.c to cope with
a CCmode RE
--- Comment #12 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 16:34 ---
Looks like a bad REG_EQUAL note -- it's got a wrong (or confusing) mode.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33410
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, o
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 02:31 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 02:30 ---
Subject: Bug 28623
Author: rth
Date: Sun Apr 22 02:30:31 2007
New Revision: 124034
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124034
Log:
PR target/28623
* config/alpha
--- Comment #5 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 02:29 ---
Subject: Bug 28623
Author: rth
Date: Sun Apr 22 02:29:05 2007
New Revision: 124033
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124033
Log:
PR target/28623
* config/alpha
--- Comment #4 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-20 20:36 ---
Subject: Bug 28623
Author: rth
Date: Fri Apr 20 20:35:55 2007
New Revision: 124002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124002
Log:
PR target/28623
* config/alpha
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #49 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 19:26 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #48 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 19:17 ---
Subject: Bug 31169
Author: rth
Date: Sun Apr 1 19:17:38 2007
New Revision: 123405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123405
Log:
PR tree-optimization/31169
* tr
--- Comment #41 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 17:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=13302)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13302&action=view)
alternate patch
I'm inclined to take this approach to the problem. Note that the result
range we g
--- Comment #40 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 16:14 ---
The reason we do that is to match the way the arithmetic would be performed
on the host as much as possible. This could be important if someother part
of the compiler already relied on SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED to
--- Comment #35 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 18:21 ---
With some sed help, one can see that fold_binary is completely ruined:
- mhi = 0x0 >> 128 - width;
- if ((~(hi2 | hi1) & mhi) == 0) goto ; else goto ;
-
-:;
- mlo = 0x0;
--- Comment #34 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 18:13 ---
Actually, on second thought, I don't think the sign_bit_p change is legit:
Value ranges after VRP:
-mask_lo_1: [0, +INF] EQUIVALENCES: { } (0 elements)
+mask_lo_1: [0x0, +INF] EQUIVALENCES: {
--- Comment #33 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 17:30 ---
I've been trying to track down this same failure on Alpha. I can reproduce
that
reverting the third hunk allows the bootstrap to complete. Finding what has
got
miscompiled has been very difficult. Only two
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #15 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-05 18:23 ---
"Fixed".
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02 22:08
---
I'm sure that the patches listed in comments #6 and #7 are bogus.
But we've had problems before with unwinding with -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args
(implied by -mtune=i486, implied by i486-linux), p
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02 21:39
---
Actually, BACKTRACESPEC does make it into libgcj.spec via substitution.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23602
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30 02:46
---
That said, I can't get any test to fail when run by hand. libtool compile
and link line pasted out of the log, as well as the associated LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
What am I missing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30 02:09
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 01:58
---
I am uninterested in fixing this for 3.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rth at gcc
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 04:18
---
I believe it to be fixed. Reopen if not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00323.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10692
--- You are receiving this mail becaus
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 09:37
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 00:46
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-25 08:03
---
I don't replicate it. That is, I don't even get gnat1 built at present.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-25 07:38
---
You *do* realize that the current problem has absolutely nothing to do with
the original report, don't you? You *do* realize that rewriting a PR like
this is pointless, and you should file a *new* PR to
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-27 00:09
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg02198.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|REOPENED
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-26 04:36
---
Yes. It's unfortunate, but hard-coded register numbers get that way.
The correct way to fix this is to use the new "c" register constraint
and to not use $27 as an explicit asm register. I
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-04-01 21:48
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-04-01 20:21
---
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00076.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-04-01 02:24
---
Mine; testing patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-16 11:32
---
Committed Jan's patch to both mainline and 3.3.
--
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-09 02:41
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg00628.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11717
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11350
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10692
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10692
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
58 matches
Mail list logo
