--- Comment #7 from bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2005-12-20 07:49 ---
I can confirm both problems (incorrect reordering and performance regression)
are present in GCC version 4.0.2 and version 4.2.0 20051209 (experimental).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21032
--- Comment #11 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-12-20 07:40 ---
Subject: Re: REGREGRESSION: SSE2 vectorized code is many
times slower on 4.x.x than on 3.4.4
Now this huge runtime difference disappeared
but now 4.0.2-generated code is always ~> 20% slower.
Many memory accesses where th
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:55
---
Oh, I looked a little more and yes it depends on the arch you are building for
but only for 4.x.
Since you are using SSE, you should add also -march=i686 or -march=k8 so that
the code is also tuned for the process
--- Comment #9 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-12-20 06:51 ---
Subject: Re: REGREGRESSION: SSE2 vectorized code is many
times slower on 4.x.x than on 3.4.4
---
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc v
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:48 ---
HJ, see comment #18.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #25 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:46
---
This is now broken even with -g on the mainline so unassigning.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:36 ---
Can you show what the output of "gcc -v" for the 3.4 compiler and the 4.0
compiler?
This looks like just a different using arch by default.
a Compiler compiled for i686 by default gives the good code but code compi
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:33 ---
I don't get:
rep
movsl
At all on GNU/Linux, doing a cross compiler to FreeBSD right now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25500
--- Comment #19 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-20 06:22 ---
Shouldn't that case also be added to 4.1 and mainline to prevent this bug
from happening there?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #5 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-12-20 06:19 ---
Subject: Re: REGREGRESSION: SSE2 vectorized code is many
times slower on 4.x.x than on 3.4.4
Here's attachment with asms generated in both cases.
testcase-old.s is 4.3.3 and testcase-new.s is 4.0.2
In testcase-new.s SSE2
--- Comment #18 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:19
---
Fixed 4.0 only. Not a bug in 4.1 or 4.2
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-20 06:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Segfault
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 05:44 +, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:44 ---
> Created an attachment (id=105
--- Comment #17 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:12
---
Subject: Bug 25305
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Dec 20 06:12:53 2005
New Revision: 108845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108845
Log:
2005-12-20 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 06:06
---
Subject: Bug 25305
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Dec 20 06:06:28 2005
New Revision: 108844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108844
Log:
2005-12-20 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2005-12-20 06:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Segfault
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 05:44 +, kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:44 ---
> Created an attachment (id=105
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-12-20 06:03 ---
Subject: Re: REGREGRESSION: SSE2 vectorized code is many
times slower on 4.x.x than on 3.4.4
Also I use FreeBSD-6.0 if this even can make a difference.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #2 from pin
--- Comment #3 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-12-20 06:01 ---
Subject: Re: REGREGRESSION: SSE2 vectorized code is many
times slower on 4.x.x than on 3.4.4
I run on Athlon64-3200 in i386 compatible mode.
Strange.
I had he problem with gcc-4.0.1, yesterday I compiled gcc-4.0.2 and sam
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:55 ---
I cannot reproduce this on an Athlon 64 running in either 32 or 64 bit mode.
Everything I tried shows that 4.x is actually faster than 3.4.4.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remov
--- Comment #3 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=10533)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10533&action=view)
Patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25501
--- Comment #2 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:42 ---
I've got a patch in testing.
--
kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assi
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:34
---
Fixed in 4.0.3, 4.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
As
--- Comment #1 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2005-12-20 05:34 ---
actually it's the defect in this case: result is not used.
But runtimes are very different in any case.
44.9s on 4.x.x vs. 0m2.371s on 3.4.4
--- begin corrected testcase ---
#include
using na
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:34
---
Subject: Bug 24278
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 05:34:22 2005
New Revision: 108843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108843
Log:
PR c++/24278
* init.c (expand_member_init
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu dot org
Summary|Segfault
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:34
---
Subject: Bug 24278
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 05:33:58 2005
New Revision: 108842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108842
Log:
PR c++/24278
* init.c (expand_member_init)
--- Comment #1 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:31 ---
This seems to be due to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01490.html
Removing the tree-cfgcleanup.c part of the patch fixes the problem.
Basically, I cooked up a testcase so that this problem would be exp
Compiling the following testcase give you a segfault.
You might get an ICE if you enable checking.
void
foo (int a)
{
int b;
int d;
if (a == 2)
b = 3;
else
b = 5;
d = 11;
for (;;)
{
if (d == 5)
break;
d = b;
}
}
--
Summary: Segfault
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:59
---
Subject: Bug 24278
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 04:59:42 2005
New Revision: 108840
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108840
Log:
PR c++/24278
* init.c (expand_member_init)
The following testcase when compiled with 'g++ -O3 -msse3 -o testcase
testcase.C'
finishes in 0m0.277s if compiled with gcc-3.4.4 and in 0m44.843s if compiled
with gcc-4.0.2 (similar on all 4.x.x).
Yuri
---
typedef float __v2df
--- Comment #15 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 05:06
---
Evidently I do not have authorization to commit to the 4.0 branch. (I tried
twice) Here is a completed and ready testcase. I strongly suggest people move
on to 4.1 if at all possible. If someone else wants to
--- Comment #24 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:53
---
Fixed on the 4.1 branch, will test the mainline with --disable-bootstrap since
that caused BOOT_CFLAGS to be ignored.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:53
---
Subject: Bug 22313
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Dec 20 04:53:06 2005
New Revision: 108839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108839
Log:
2005-12-19 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:49
---
Fixed in 4.0.3, 4.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ass
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:44
---
Subject: Bug 24915
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 04:44:20 2005
New Revision: 108837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108837
Log:
PR c++/24915
* class.c (add_method): Do no
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:36
---
Subject: Bug 24915
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 04:36:29 2005
New Revision: 108835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108835
Log:
PR c++/24915
* class.c (add_method): Do no
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 04:39
---
Subject: Bug 24915
Author: mmitchel
Date: Tue Dec 20 04:39:30 2005
New Revision: 108836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108836
Log:
PR c++/24915
* class.c (add_method): Do no
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 03:58
---
Test this again on the 4.1 branch and then will apply it there, the mainline
currently ignores BOOT_CFLAGS so I cannot test it there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22313
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 02:37 ---
Closing as fixed in 4.0.0. then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 02:34
---
In this message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00558.html
I suggested that we switch GCC 4.1 back to the pre-3.4 behavior and asked if
there were objections.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-20 02:27 ---
Subject: Re: New: regression: bogus 'defined but not used'
warning
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, rusty at rustcorp dot com dot au wrote:
> static int foo(void) { return 7; }
> int main()
> {
> int foo(void);
>
static int foo(void) { return 7; }
int main()
{
int foo(void);
return foo();
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ /usr/bin/gcc-3.4 -Wall -c foo.c
foo.c:1: warning: 'foo' defined but not used
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ /usr/bin/gcc-3.4 --version
gcc-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.5 (Debian 3.4.5-1)
Copyright (C)
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org
--- Comment #13 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 01:45
---
Subject: Bug 24982
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Dec 20 01:45:27 2005
New Revision: 108831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108831
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/24982
* reload.c (refer
--- Comment #14 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 00:50
---
My apologies, I was looking at the wrong place.
Grigory, thanks for test case.
I have regression tested the patch and see no new failures. There are some
NIST failures, but these are not affected by the patch.
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 00:49 ---
Try the following program:
#include
int main(void)
{
float currConvf = 60342935.0;
printf("%f\n", currConvf);
}
And you will see that you get 60342936.0.
The number of bits needed to represent 60342935 is one
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 00:40 ---
oh, one more thing, GCC does not control atof at all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25498
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-20 00:40 ---
60342935.0 cannot be represented exactly in a float so this is still exacted.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25498
--- Comment #2 from mike dot c at u-s-merchants dot com 2005-12-20 00:21
---
Subject: RE: atof conversion error
Yes, but when I set the string to "60342935.00", I still get the same
result - 60342936 from atof() whereas if the covert to variable is
double (instead of float) I get the
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 23:45 ---
This is called float not having enough precession. This is not a bug. Please
read what floating point is.
The full testcase looks like:
#include
#include
#include
int main(void)
{
char currConv[9];
--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 23:18 ---
Should be fixed on the trunk.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
char currConv[9];
float currConvf;
memset(currConv, '\0', sizeof(currConv));
memcpy(currConv, '60342935', 8);
currConv[8] = 0;
currConvf = atof(currConv);
// currConvf gets assigned value of 60342936 when string 60342935 is converted
to float with atof
// if
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 23:11 ---
testing patch:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
*** config/i386/i386.c (revision 108753)
--- config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
*** ix86_funct
--- Comment #3 from laurent at guerby dot net 2005-12-19 23:09 ---
Ooops: Last known bootstrap: revision 108381
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25436
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 22:46 ---
*** Bug 25497 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 22:46 ---
Actually this is still a violation of the standard.
3.3.6/1 item 2. Though no diagnostic is required for this case so GCC is
correct to error out and so is Comeanu and Microsoft's compiler too.
*** This bug has be
--- Comment #1 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-19 22:45
---
Subject: Re: New: faults typedef redefinition in struct
"baraclese at hotmail dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #7869 +++
|
| I stumbled over the s
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #7869 +++
I stumbled over the second issue that the original bug report mentioned. I
think it was closed prematurely.
To clarify this a bit I provide my own short example.
It may be worth noting that comeau online does not produce any errors on
--- Comment #2 from stephen at marenka dot net 2005-12-19 21:21 ---
It does not. I'll report the aliasing violation back to the csound maintainer.
I wonder why it's only a problem on m68k.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25496
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 21:14 ---
*(long *)benchar
You are violating C aliasing rules as you are acessing a char array as a long
(yes this is an aliasing violation, the opposite is not an aliasing violation
that is acessing a long as a char is not a
gcc -O2 -falign-loops=4 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -o buggy buggy.c
$ ./buggy
DBname = >>English.xmg<<
Segmentation fault
If you drop any single one of the parameters, it works. Dropping -O2 to
-O1 also works.
I wasn't able to find a simpler file that illustrated the problem, but
the at
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 20:10 ---
Incomplete analysis, can't reply to the second part of comment #3.
"No" to the first part.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25335
--- Comment #10 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 20:10
---
Subject: Bug 24793
Author: rakdver
Date: Mon Dec 19 20:10:11 2005
New Revision: 108808
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108808
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24793
* tree-ssa-loop-
--- Comment #7 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2005-12-19 19:43
---
I had messed up the original change to df.c.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at naturalbridge dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:37
---
Fortran bugs are never release critical: P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:37
---
Should be fixed before release, and it looks like we have an almost-patch. P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:35
---
I've marked this as P2.
I wouldn't be overly optimistic about fixing it, though; the cast-to-object
extension is proving to support in G++, especially as the middle end has ceased
providing as much support.
--
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:33
---
Why is this marked as WAITING?
We need to figure out whether this code is valid; given that it's from Boost,
it probably is. In that case, we'll need to fix it. P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org change
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:30
---
Must be fixed: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Pri
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:26
---
Should be fixed before release, if possible: P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:26
---
Do we have a testcase for this bug on a primary/secondary platform, or is this
something CRIS-specific?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25335
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:24
---
ICE on very plausible code: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:22
---
Since this is just a testsuite failure, I've marked it as P5. However, we
really do want to get as close to zero FAILs as possible, so I hope that
someone will correct the testcase.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:21
---
I would definitely like to see this resolved, but it will never be
release-critical: P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:16
---
ICE on somewhat odd code: P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:14
---
This needs fixing before release: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:12
---
This is not valid code; the error message is correct. You asked for an
instantiation of the entire class, which includes the static data member.
There is no definition of the static data member available.
You mu
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 19:07
---
I don't quite understand how likely we are to see this ICE; -Os
-ftree-loop-linear seems like an obscure combination of flags. I'll call it P2
for now.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
W
--- Comment #1 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:53 ---
This also occurs in a couple of places in the gcc testsuite, eg.
gcc.c-torture/compile/20050303-1.c
Reduced C testcase below.
int crc(int nleft)
{
int toread;
unsigned char buf[(128 * 1024)];
toread =
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:51
---
We should fix this -- but it's not release-critical, due to the fact that the
double -o on the command-line is not a very common case. P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Remov
--- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:50
---
Serious wrong code problem: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:48
---
Serious problem - but an ICE, not wrong code: P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:45
---
Since the code is invalid, this is not a huge problem, but still shoudl be
fixed: P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:44
---
A minor diagnostic issue: P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-19 18:40 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] (short) ((int)(unsigned
short) + (int)) is done in the wrong type
Kazu Hirata wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>> (Why should we get 1? Upon entry to f, a will be 1, since 32769 will be
>> re
--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:40
---
Fortran problems are not release critical: P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #10 from kazu at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-19 18:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] (short) ((int)(unsigned
short) + (int)) is done in the wrong type
Hi Mark,
> (Why should we get 1? Upon entry to f, a will be 1, since 32769 will be
> reduced modulo 2^16. Then,
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:36 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (Why should we get 1? Upon entry to f, a will be 1, since 32769 will be
> reduced modulo 2^16. Then, b will be 1 - 32768, or -32767. I don't see why
> that should be converted to 1 -- bu
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:32
---
Serious wrong code problem: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:30 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00548.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25121
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
Component|other
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25125
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:29
---
(Why should we get 1? Upon entry to f, a will be 1, since 32769 will be
reduced modulo 2^16. Then, b will be 1 - 32768, or -32767. I don't see why
that should be converted to 1 -- but I certainly don't see why i
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:16
---
Fortran issues are not release-critical: P5.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:15
---
Crashes are bad: P2 for now. If it turns out that this is "just" an
ICE-on-invalid, then we might downgrade the priority.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:09
---
Serious problem on popular platform: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:08
---
We need to at least understand this problem before release: P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:07
---
Downgraded to P5, as this will never be a release-critical issue.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 18:05
---
I've marked this as P2. We should try to understand the problem, but inlining
heuristics are notoriously hard to get right, so it's hard to be sure whether
we're seeing a real bug in the compiler, or just a situat
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
