--- Comment #7 from gschafer at zip dot com dot au 2008-03-16 06:41 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> As a workaround can you try using all of the sysroot framework?
Thanks for looking at this Carlos. But the sysroot stuff is not really suited
to a non /usr layout. For example, with my --p
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-16 05:08 ---
Hmm, reorder basic blocks already takes into the edge probability.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35603
--- Comment #1 from xinliangli at gmail dot com 2008-03-16 05:06 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Given code like:
>
> if (C1)
> {
> B1:
>..
> }
> else if (C2)
> {
> B2:
>...
> }
>
> If edge profile indicates that B2 (Predicate: ^C1 AND C2 ) is hot but B1
> (predicate: C1) is rar
Given code like:
if (C1)
{
B1:
..
}
else if (C2)
{
B2:
...
}
If edge profile indicates that B2 (Predicate: ^C1 AND C2 ) is hot but B1
(predicate: C1) is rarely executed, and if C1 and C2 are mutually exclusive so
that the following holds:
C1 AND C2 = FALSE
==> ^C1 OR ^C2 = TRUE
==> ^C1 A
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-16 05:00
---
You r 'this' is better than my 'Think' Passed regression testing here on
x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35470
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-16 03:04 ---
Here is a self contained example:
namespace std
{
struct string
{
~string();
string();
};
}
int
main(const int,
const char * const * const)
{
std::string x[0UL][0UL] =
{
};
std::
--- Comment #1 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2008-03-16 02:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=15331)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15331&action=view)
C++ test case: use g++ -Wsign-conversion -c test050.cc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35602
This warning makes no sense to me:
alpha1:test>g++ -Wsign-conversion -c test050.cc
test050.cc: In function 'int main(int, const char* const*)':
test050.cc:10: warning: conversion to 'long unsigned int' from 'long int' may
change the sign of the result
See attached test case. The warning appears
Hi people,
I've run into a little problem building Qt 4.3.4 on Slackware Linux
(-current as of today).
After configuring with
"configure -optimized-qmake -no-nis -no-tablet"
I ran "gmake" and got the following compile error which said "Please
report this bug.", so I did :-)
I'm not sure whether
--- Comment #4 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-03-15 23:49 ---
This bug also causes incorrect code and appears to be regression from 4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34916
The good news is that the fix is effective.
Anything else I can do to help expedite the im
--- Comment #8 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-03-15 23:40 ---
This appear to be same bug where combine is erroneously assuming all DF
register references are to different instructions. So it tries combining
instructions with themselves and stuff gets lost.
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:40 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > - openf95 and sunf95 reject it
> > - ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
> > Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers, of which two gave an
>
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed as rejecting valid code, reduced testcase is:
This fixes it and is regtesting as I write.
Paul(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Confirmed as rejecting valid
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:36 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed as rejecting valid code, reduced testcase is:
This fixes it and is regtesting as I write.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:06 ---
It is.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35595 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:06 ---
*** Bug 35600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-03-15 21:58 ---
This info is from assembler (as):
$ as --target-help
-Q ignored
-V print assembler version number
-k ignored
-n Do not optimize c
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-15 20:25 ---
Never mind. __m64 is vector of 2 ints.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ cat x.c
typedef int __m64 __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (8), __may_alias__));
__m64 upper = {0x7eff7eff7eff7eff};
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ /usr/gcc-4.4/bin/gcc -S x.c
x.c:3: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ cat y.c
typedef long long
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 19:44 ---
I bet this is a dup of bug 35595.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-03-15 19:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=15330)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15330&action=view)
g\ipped C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35600
I just tried to compile the Linux kernel 2.6.24.3
with the GNU C compiler version 4.4 snapshot 20080314
The compiler said
gcc -Wp,-MD,drivers/isdn/capi/.capi.o.d -nostdinc -isystem
/home/dcb/gcc/20080314/results/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.4.0/include
-D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -include in
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P1
http:
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35399
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33702
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 19:21 ---
I can't reproduce this and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-03/msg01177.html
doesn't have these either.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Add
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 19:22 ---
*** Bug 35530 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 19:22 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35400 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35593
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[4.3/4.4 Regression] g++|[4.3/4.4 Regressio
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 19:13 ---
This was probably broken by the attribute handling on templates changes.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 19:06
---
Err, fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35448
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Prio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/work $ gcc --target-help
[...]
-march=CPU/-mtune=CPU generate code/optimize for CPU, where CPU is one of:
i386, i486, pentium, pentiumpro, pentium4, nocona,
core, core2, k6, athlon, k8, generic32, generic64
[...]
[EMAIL
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 18:40 ---
Try 4.0.4 or 4.1.2 or 4.2.3 or 4.3.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35586
--- Comment #6 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2008-03-15 18:24 ---
Or more relevantly, #4205.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35596
--- Comment #5 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2008-03-15 18:17 ---
This is probably related to #28262. That bug's about
typedef void fn(int = 0);
typedef fn *fp;
void call(fp f) { f(); }
which used to be accepted (up to 4.2), but is now correctly rejected in 4.3.
This bug is really the
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 18:10
---
Jumped too soon. Several failures with that pacth
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35470
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 18:07
---
Think I have a fix. Regression testing.
Index: resolve.c
===
--- resolve.c (revision 133251)
+++ resolve.c (working copy)
@@ -967,7 +967,7 @@ c
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
Component|c |target
GCC ta
--- Comment #6 from beckmann dot maik at googlemail dot com 2008-03-15
17:21 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Closing. Fixed on 4.4
>
Jerry, many thanks for fixing this!
Since this patch is very minor I hope it will be applied to 4.3 before 4.3.1 is
out (building gcc on windows isn't f
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 16:54
---
Closing. Fixed on 4.4
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 16:53
---
Subject: Bug 35184
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 16:53:05 2008
New Revision: 133253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133253
Log:
2008-03-15 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 16:46
---
Subject: Bug 35184
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 16:45:12 2008
New Revision: 133252
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133252
Log:
2008-03-15 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 16:25
---
Removing this assert on this argument being passed in seems to resolve this
issue. I wonder if this was a leftover from a debugging session.
Index: trans-array.c
=
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 16:09 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sever
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 14:33 ---
Fixed in trunk, no backport to 4.3. Closing.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 14:29 ---
Subject: Bug 35584
Author: dfranke
Date: Sat Mar 15 14:28:55 2008
New Revision: 133250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133250
Log:
2008-03-15 Daniel Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fo
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 14:28 ---
Subject: Bug 35593
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 15 14:27:55 2008
New Revision: 133249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133249
Log:
2008-03-15 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 14:19 ---
I guess this was just a dup of PR35595.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35598
--- Comment #2 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 13:40 ---
I built 5 targets overnight and all failed at the same spot. I don't think
this is a target specific bug. I am closing it until I can figure out more of
what it it.
--
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 13:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=15329)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15329&action=view)
Preprocessed test case
Fails for me with all of these compiler combinations:
/home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-i386
--- Comment #2 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 13:32 ---
The change was applied to libstdc++. The patch affects building libstdc++.
The warning was added in 1996 for all targets and debugging formats:
Mon Apr 15 03:43:11 1996 Jeffrey A. Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* t
Similar error on other files .. just reporting this one
xgcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20080315 (experimental) [trunk revision 133234]
/home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-i386/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-i386/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-i386/i386-rtems4.9/m486/newlib
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 12:40
---
the nonoverlapping_memrefs_p check can be simplified (consolidated) by using
the generic get_ref_base_and_extent code. The result of that can be adjusted
by MEM_OFFSET and only in case of an indirect base we may t
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 12:28 ---
Ah, indeed. It was fixed by the patch for PR23094 that I had applied ;)
Maybe adjust this testcase to not be a dup of PR23094.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13146
--- Comment #1 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 12:12
---
Patch submitted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00938.html
--
simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 11:51 ---
points-to works well and ends up with __b_5 pointing to anything, so we fall
back to use SMTs which in this case is (for const int& __b):
SMT.761, UID 18425, const int, is addressable, is global, call clobbered, may
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 11:33 ---
In fact it's completely wrong.
# __b_5 = PHI <&D.12083(48), __b_342(22)>;
:;
# VUSE ;
# VUSE ;
# VUSE ;
# VUSE ;
D.12120_344 = *__b_5;
should be
# __b_5 = PHI <&D.12083(48), __b_342(22)>;
:;
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 11:28 ---
Sorry. The tree optimizers produce
:;
__asm__ __volatile__("fistl %0":"=m" r:"t" txcum * 2.0e+0 - 5.0e-1);
D.16879 = r >> 1;
if (D.16879 < sp->bbox[0]) goto ; else goto ;
:;
__b = &D.12083;
goto ();
:;
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 10:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=15328)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15328&action=view)
unincluded testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35596
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 10:57 ---
This is an endless recursion during parsing (which blows the stack). Note
that gcc 4.3 complains about a missing argument to for_each:
/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl_algo.h: In function _Funct std::for_each(_IIter,
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 10:46 ---
So isn't this a target bug then? That is, the warning should be disabled for
targets that "work"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35597
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 10:44 ---
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35595
--- Comment #6 from brian at dessent dot net 2008-03-15 10:20 ---
Subject: Re: configure: error: cannot compute suffix of
object files
al dot danial at gmail dot com wrote:
> Indeed, adding the MPFR and GPM lib directories to LD_LIBRARY_PATH solves the
> problem. For some reason I
--- Comment #5 from pgut001 at cs dot auckland dot ac dot nz 2008-03-15
09:09 ---
>Care to write a text? I will format it and submit it as a patch if you want.
How about the following, using as a starting point the latest docs (4.3.0),
section 5.27, 'warn_unused_result', which currentl
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 07:47
---
The diagnostic could be handled by temporarily setting an attribute on the
internal file and then checking each list item to see if the attribute has been
set. However, if the internal unit is an array section, o
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 07:39
---
*** Bug 35563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 07:39
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35524 ***
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 07:34
---
Closing. Thankyou for bug report. Test case committed.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 07:32
---
Subject: Bug 35478
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Mar 15 07:32:13 2008
New Revision: 133239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133239
Log:
2008-03-15 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry to use this reporting method, but I'm new to your error reporting
system, and I could not get through the Bugzilla routines.
GNAT Ada bug:
I encountered this error while using the included make procedure for
oos-0.1.1 in the gnade download. The command line causing the problem
(as synthesi
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 07:09
---
Approved to commit new message
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35584
80 matches
Mail list logo
