--- Comment #8 from lester dot dev at gmail dot com 2006-04-04 06:17
---
Subject: Re: Bug in gcc when compiling liboil-0.3.7
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 06:02
>---
>Fixed in 4.0.0 so closing as fixed a
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 06:02 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 so closing as fixed as 3.4.6 and 3.3.6 were the last release of
those release cycles.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:44
---
*** Bug 27015 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 2006-04-04 05:44 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25137 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
when compile following file[1] with option `-Wall', it will give a
warning[2]. g++-4.0 do not has this problem. I don't think this
warning is proper.
[1]
// begin array2.cpp
#include
int main() {
std::tr1::array foo = {0, 1};
return foo[1];
}
// end
[2]
array2.cpp: In function 'int main()
--- Comment #6 from lester dot dev at gmail dot com 2006-04-04 05:38
---
Subject: Re: Bug in gcc when compiling liboil-0.3.7
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:33
>---
>It works with -m32 on x86_64-linux-g
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:33 ---
It works with -m32 on x86_64-linux-gnu but not natively on x86.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:27 ---
oh, wait:
ORIGINAL_LD_FOR_TARGET =
./u:/mingw/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-pc-mingw32/4.0.2/../../../../i686-pc-mingw32/bin/ld.exe
looks like make is confused but this is not GCC's fault.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #4 from lester dot dev at gmail dot com 2006-04-04 05:26
---
Created an attachment (id=11197)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11197&action=view)
preprocessed source
Oh sorry! I didn't mind what options should be given to gcc to generate
preprocessed sour
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:25 ---
Something must be wrong with your machine as the following line is 1277:
stamp-collect-ld: $(ORIGINAL_LD_FOR_TARGET)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:22 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 and above already so closing as fixed as 3.4.6 was the last
release of 3.4.6 but I doubt this was ever reproducible with FSF's GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|R
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:15 ---
That is not the preprocessed source though.
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html and try again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27014
--- Comment #2 from lester dot dev at gmail dot com 2006-04-04 05:11
---
Created an attachment (id=11196)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11196&action=view)
this is the source where gcc crashed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27014
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 05:03 ---
by first attaching the preprocessed source :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Hello!
I have a Slackware 10.2 system, with gcc 3.3.6 installed on it. I tried to
build a GNOME from garnome 2.14.0, but suddenly gcc crashed with a bug-report
when compiling a liboil-0.3.7.
Here is a text:
make[4]: Entering directory
`/home/john/garnome-2.14.0/bootstrap/liboil/work/main.d/liboil-
--- Comment #2 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-04-04 04:42 ---
Subject: Re: accepts invalid fortran, different dummy
types/number
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 01:37
>---
>Here is another testcas
--- Comment #9 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2006-04-04 04:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Scalar TRANSFER
- error: invalid operand to unary operator
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:13
>---
>>
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 01:37 ---
Here is another testcase (which ICEs currently but for a different reason):
program main
character (5) :: a = 'hello'
call test ((/a/))
end program main
subroutine test (a)
character (5) :: a
if (a .ne. 'hel
--- Comment #7 from carlos at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 01:11 ---
Subject: Bug 23070
Author: carlos
Date: Tue Apr 4 01:11:42 2006
New Revision: 112655
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112655
Log:
2006-04-03 Carlos O'Donell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Back
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 01:04 ---
You can even do --disable-gcc and get some weird results :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26999
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-04 01:01 ---
It also happens with --disable-libcpp. Both of these should not exist.
These exist now because of:
2006-03-10 Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.in: Handle --disable- generically.
* co
--- Comment #93 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2006-04-04 00:23 ---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around
the declarations
On 03/04/2006, at 4:57 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #92 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #92 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 23:57
---
Both PR 27000 and bug 26984 are reasons why push/pop will fail currently.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 23:54 ---
See also bug 26612, which tells you how to really compute the required
visibility of an instantiated template.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27000
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 23:37 ---
There is still some question about if this warning should be an error in this
case. I asked on IRC and the answer there was it should be an error.
Reopening based on that.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org chan
--- Comment #3 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 23:34 ---
That's weird, I'm sure I tried this before and it didn't produce any kind of
warning. And yet, it does.
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from orion at cora dot nwra dot com 2006-04-03 23:21 ---
See URL for download. This is about as good as I can do. th5s.c is adapted
from the th5h.i file that has the failing test. It is still self-contained and
only runs the test that fails.
The rest of the HDF5 library
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 23:02 ---
And I just checked this is a regression too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ian at airs dot com 2006-04-03 22:57 ---
-feliminate-unused-debug-symbols only applies to stabs debugging. I'm talking
about DWARF (which I admit I didn't say explicitly, although my examples were
all for DWARF).
You might reasonably ask about -feliminate-unused-deb
--- Comment #5 from dcorbit at connx dot com 2006-04-03 22:55 ---
Subject: RE: GCC 4.1.0 Won't build on Mingw. Complainst about no % in format
Attached is the makefile from:
U:\MinGW\gcc-4.1.0\host-i686-pc-mingw32\gcc
Also available:
U:\MinGW\gcc-4.1.0>dir Makefile. /s
Volume in dr
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 22:07 ---
Hmmm, I get a warning:
t.c: In function 'foo':
t.c:3: warning: 'visibility' attribute ignored
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27012
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 22:05 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27012 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 22:05 ---
*** Bug 27013 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27012
--- Comment #33 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 22:05
---
*** Bug 27011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 22:05 ---
This is all recorded under PR 22313.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22313 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
This program:
void foo(void)
{
int x __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
}
makes no sense and should produce a compilation error.
--
Summary: visibility attribute should not be permitted on local
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
This program:
void foo(void)
{
int x __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
}
makes no sense and should produce a compilation error.
--
Summary: visibility attribute should not be permitted on local
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-03 21:54 ---
If -frandom-seed=0 is required for -fprofile-use to work correctly, why not
add it automatically for -fprofile-use?
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from amonakov at gmail dot com 2006-04-03 21:25 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> So what is wrong?
>
Oh, sorry for the mess. Shame on me.
Building profiledbootstrap with checking enabled produces ICEing compiler (make
profiledbootstrap stops trying to compile crtsuff.c)
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:13 ---
>From looking at the debugger a little bit, the inlininer is not remapping the
CONST_DECL correctly. I might look at this more if I get some time.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|
--- Comment #7 from orion at cora dot nwra dot com 2006-04-03 21:13 ---
Looks like adding -save-temps to the flags breaks the configure check for
-fPIC, so the code be built with -save-temps that worked also did not have
-fPIC (perhaps that is a clue). Trick was to remove -pipe when usi
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:08 ---
I had meant the Makefile inside the gcc subdirectory :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26959
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:05 ---
So what is wrong?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:02 ---
*** Bug 27010 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27011
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:02 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27011 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:01
---
*** Bug 27009 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:01 ---
This was just fixed last week :).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17298 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 21:00 ---
PS Hmmm. I now cannot obtain the fault with an unpatched version, in spite of
provoking it today, repeatedly, on both FC3 and Cygwin Curiouser and
curiouser.
Cancel that thought - it is still there; it just doesn
--
Summary: building profiledboort
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at g
--
Summary: building profiledboor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at gm
This is with SUSE 10.1b9's gcc-fortran-4.1.0-10
~> gfortran -c fleur.F
fleur.F: In function MAIN__:
fleur.F:1: fatal error: gfc_todo: Not Implemented: Scalarization of
non-elemental intrinsic: __transfer1
compilation terminated.
Stripped-down test case:
-
PROGR
--- Comment #2 from dcorbit at connx dot com 2006-04-03 20:00 ---
Subject: RE: GCC 4.1.0 Won't build on Mingw. Complainst about no % in format
The attached makefile is from the gcc-4.1.0 directory.
> -Original Message-
> From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:54 ---
This patch is ok by me if someone wants to check it in.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23829
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:51 ---
Bug should not have been closed, reopening.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:44 ---
The patch fixes the problem by bolting the context to the floor and putting
concrete on it. The first gfc_evaluate_now prevents the error and the second
gets us a consistent result.
Should I detect that the first arg
--- Comment #4 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:44 ---
Subject: Re: Missed optimization of comparison with 'limited
range'
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 19:22 +, trt at acm dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from trt at acm dot org 2006-04-03 19:22 ---
> S
--- Comment #3 from trt at acm dot org 2006-04-03 19:22 ---
Since x is unsigned char, default promotions apply and x+1 will be a signed
integer in the range 1..256
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27007
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-04-03 19:22 ---
Subject: Re: Missed optimization of comparison with 'limited
range'
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> x+1 can wrap so try x be UINT_MAX.
Wrong. The test uses *unsigned char*. In the n
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:17 ---
Confirmed, this is definitely wrong but we can do better than disabling this
for odd vectors I think. Adding 1 to them should work.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:10 ---
This worked in 4.0.2, by just loading the constant via memory so this is a
regression.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 19:02 ---
Report this bug to Apple since this is Apple's GCC that has been heavly
modified.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27008
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 18:59 ---
x+1 can wrap so try x be UINT_MAX.
In fact x != -1 is valid for unsigned as -1 is casted to unsigned and you get
UINT_MAX :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
gcc version 3.3, Apple build 1495, ppc-darwin.
command-line: gcc -O3 file.c
output: 1 2 0 0 5 6 0 0 9 10 0 0 13 14 0 0 17 18
command-line: gcc -O0 file.c
output: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Compile and run the following file with optimization < O2. The output is a list
of intege
This function always returns 1, but gcc misses the optimization:
int foo(unsigned char x)
{
return (x+1) != 0;
}
fold-const.c converts the comparison to "x != -1", but that's it.
shorten_compare() in c-common.c would optimize it, but it doesn't get called.
fold-const.c has similar code on lin
When compiling the following code with -O0 -maltivec:
typedef union
{
int i[4];
__attribute__((altivec(vector__))) int v;
} vec_int4;
int main (void)
{
vec_int4 i1;
i1.v = (__attribute__((altivec(vector__))) int){31, 31, 31, 31};
printf ("%d\n", i1.i[0]);
return 0;
}
the output
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 18:16 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rittle at latour dot labs dot mot dot com 2006-04-03
17:57 ---
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5 support for libjava
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"gerald at pfeifer dot com"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Comment #3 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2006-04-03 04:58 -
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 17:50 ---
From:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-04/msg00107.html
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/visibility/anon1.C scan-hidden private_extern[
\\t_]*_?_ZN.*1fEv
So we have a testsuite failure also :).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 17:45 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26991
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 17:42 ---
Just a note here, we really always want to deal with a + CST and not worry
about if CST is negative or not, I had a patch to do but there was a testsuite
regression because of VRP, see PR 25148. In fact currently we
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 17:35 ---
Fixed in 4.0.0 at least so closing as 3.4.x is not being updated anymore.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 17:28 ---
I happened to try this out this weekend.
I don't see an ICE in build_java_check_indexed_type
(with 4.0, 4.1 and head). Now I see:
+ gcj -c --classpath=jakarta-poi.jar joone-engine.jar -o joone-engine.o
org/joone/log
--- Comment #10 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-03 17:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable
calculated
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer
> > >
--- Comment #3 from boris dot breidenbach at physik dot uni-erlangen dot de
2006-04-03 17:00 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Maybe I should say, that I am using an Opteron system. I ran the code on
an linux-operton box and it showed the same behaviour.
On gcc version 3.4.4 20050314 (prer
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-03 16:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong final value
of induction variable calculated
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 16:52 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer overflow
> during conversion of the integer offset to an unsigned pointer. I'm sending
> a patch that fixes this for com
--- Comment #2 from boris dot breidenbach at physik dot uni-erlangen dot de
2006-04-03 16:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=11193)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11193&action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27005
--- Comment #1 from boris dot breidenbach at physik dot uni-erlangen dot de
2006-04-03 16:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=11192)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11192&action=view)
buggy code with comments
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27005
I am using gcc 3.4.3 on solais 10.
g++ -v:
Reading specs from /usr/sfw/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.10/3.4.3/specs
Configured with: /builds/sfw10-gate/usr/src/cmd/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/configure
--prefix=/usr/sfw --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --with-gnu-as
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --without-gnu-ld --enable-lan
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-04-03 16:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR26763
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00082.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #29 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 16:31
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> With a bit simplified testcase (my computer does not have enough memory for
> this one), we spend 30% of compile time in rewrite_update_phi_arguments.
> However, only 1.6% (less then 1%
--- Comment #6 from orion at cora dot nwra dot com 2006-04-03 16:24 ---
Hmm, tried adding -save-temps to my flags so that I could collect .s and .i
files, but it appears that the segfault also goes away. Removing -save-temps
indeed goes back to the previous behavior. Removing -pipe has
--- Comment #28 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 16:20
---
I confirm, that with -fno-tree-salias -O1 4.1.1 is on-par with -O1 4.0.3. So
all remaining compile-time/memory problems are due to extra virtual operands.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26830
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 16:16 ---
In fact this is a latent bug shown by:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-require-visibility "" } */
/* { dg-final { scan-not-hidden "_ZN1SIiED1Ev" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-not-hidden "_ZN1SIiEC1ERKi" } } */
templat
--- Comment #2 from pavel dot petrovic at gmail dot com 2006-04-03 16:03
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> types are not expressions though.
sure, but I wouldn't mind that, the compiler complains
about expression, not about type. isn't typecasting
an expression after all?
> It is not inc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 15:34 ---
types are not expressions though.
It is not incorrect but just misleading.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 15:22 ---
I still say x86 should be using HWI of 64bits anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 15:22 ---
Subject: Bug 26858
Author: aph
Date: Mon Apr 3 15:22:21 2006
New Revision: 112641
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112641
Log:
2006-04-03 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/26858
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 15:06 ---
This is the normal problem of using specific registers for multiplication on
x86 and x86_64 so running out of registers is easy :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 15:04 ---
I bet you can reproduce this with using "#pragma GCC visibility", without
namespaces. Related to PR 26984.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 15:02 ---
The patch is bogus, but the problem in the source looks still valid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26998
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 14:59 ---
This option should not exist, try --disable-libcpp and you will get even
worse.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26999
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-03 14:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Insane amount
of memory needed at -O1 and above because of salias
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:43 +, bonzini at gnu dot org wrot
--- Comment #1 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 14:37 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.1/4.2 Regression]
Insane amount of memory needed at -O1 and above because of salias
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:43 +, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> spinning a separate bug from PR26
--- Comment #8 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 14:31 ---
Subject: Bug 26858
Author: aph
Date: Mon Apr 3 14:31:56 2006
New Revision: 112640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112640
Log:
2006-04-03 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR java/26858
--- Comment #27 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 14:16
---
With a bit simplified testcase (my computer does not have enough memory for
this one), we spend 30% of compile time in rewrite_update_phi_arguments.
However, only 1.6% (less then 1% of compile time) of the
rewrite_
spinning a separate bug from PR26830. we are creating a lot of field memory
tags, each of which is present in a 900-argument phi, which causes us to use
more memory than 4.0.
to some extent this is unavoidable, but I wonder if we could throttle things
down a bit?
--
Summary: [4.1/4.
--- Comment #26 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-03 13:40 ---
compile-time should be fixed on 4.1 (richard, could you confirm). spinning a
separate bug for the salias memory hog problems.
zdenek wanted to investigate manual SSA update of real operands for 4.2
--
bonzini at gnu d
--- Comment #25 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-04-03 13:37 ---
Subject: Bug 26830
Author: bonzini
Date: Mon Apr 3 13:37:07 2006
New Revision: 112639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112639
Log:
2006-04-03 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-opti
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
