--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-03-24 04:10
---
I've reduced the test case to the smallest that I could get to. Note that when
the showtext() function call is replaced by its contents, the test case passed
for -Os. Also, pgm_read_word() in the C test case i
--- Comment #2 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-03-24 04:07
---
Created an attachment (id=15366)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15366&action=view)
Preprocessed test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35675
--- Comment #1 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-03-24 04:06
---
Created an attachment (id=15365)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15365&action=view)
C test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35675
GCC hangs (never completes) with test case using -frtl-abstract-sequences.
Command line:
avr-gcc -mmcu=atmega169 -Os -frtl-abstract-sequences -c test.c -o test.o
The test case fails with -O[23s], but is successful with -O[01].
--
Summary: gcc hangs with -frtl-abstract-sequences -O[2
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-24 00:19 ---
This works for me on the trunk on powerpc-darwin (using double
__attribute__((vector_size(16) )) ).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from michaelni at gmx dot at 2008-03-24 00:08 ---
Subject: Re: Performance degradation when
building code that uses MMX intrinsics with gcc-4.0.0
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:46:41AM -, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #10 from ubizjak a
--- Comment #10 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 23:19 ---
Subject: Bug 15479
Author: rwild
Date: Sun Mar 23 23:19:25 2008
New Revision: 133470
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133470
Log:
gcc/ada/
2008-03-24 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #21 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 22:20
---
Subject: Bug 32972
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Mar 23 22:19:19 2008
New Revision: 133469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133469
Log:
2007-03-23 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR l
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 22:17 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yes. Consider you have code like this:
>
> void foo(void* bar); // a function somewhere
> ...
> foo( NULL ); // you call it
> ...
>
> Now consider you want to add an overload foo(int). Now e
I tried to combine openMP with __m128d SIMD type as reduction variable in a
parallel for loop - gcc crashed. Here is a minimal code sample to reproduce
the error, the command line and the error.
gcc -c -o test.o -march=pentium4 -fopenmp test.c
test.c: In function âtest_fnâ:
test.c:8: internal
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35400
--- Comment #25 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 20:52 ---
Subject: Bug 35496
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Mar 23 20:51:29 2008
New Revision: 133466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133466
Log:
2008-03-23 Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Revert:
--- Comment #6 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-03-23 20:16 ---
> Hmm, 2*0.5 should be folded pretty early so Wconversion should see 1.0 which
> can be converted exactly to an integer (I think), so there should be no
> warning whatsoever. Are you sure you are using GCC 4.3? I cannot
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 19:43 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> > Otherwise, whether this is
> > worth warning or a nuisance is a matter of opinion.
>
> True. So, is there any example where use of NULL / __null in a non-pointer
> context is a good idea
--- Comment #4 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2008-03-23 18:59 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> As for this PR, the warning from the C front-end seems to be mandated by the
> standard (I say this because using -pedantic-errors gives an error instead, so
> it is a pedwarn, it would be nice
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 17:49 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It also fixes the problem on spu-gcc, but on powerpc64-linux
> it seems that the problem still exists:
No, the problem does not still exist, what exist is an extra store and that is
reall
--- Comment #10 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 17:26
---
> This code violates c/c++ aliasing rules.
Probably you are right, but,
1. -fno-strict-aliasing doesn't help
2. -Wstrict-aliasing -Wstrict-aliasing=2 doesn't give any warning.
3. I don't think that re-writing this
--- Comment #9 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 17:21 ---
> Accessing the memory as uint32_t is done for performance reasons,
In this particular case you write a 4-byte constant 0x04000400. Changing this
to
a loop running double number of iterations of 2-byte (unsigned sho
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 17:15
---
Fixed on trunk. No need to back port. The struncate in question is not in 4.3
For the record. The code before the patch was fine except it called struncate
more often then needed. On most systems, this was no
--- Comment #8 from edwintorok at gmail dot com 2008-03-23 16:59 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: gcc-4.3 -O3/-ftree-vectorize regression:
> incorrect code generation
>
> This code violates c/c++ aliasing rules.
>
-Wstrict-aliasing doesn't give a warn
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-03-23 16:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression]: gcc-4.3 -O3/-ftree-vectorize regression:
incorrect code generation
This code violates c/c++ aliasing rules.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2008, at 6:33, "victork at gcc dot gnu dot o
This code violates c/c++ aliasing rules.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2008, at 6:33, "victork at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #6 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23
13:33 ---
Here is AN even more reduced example which demonstrates th
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 16:45
---
Paul, there should be an update to that test case that takes care of it. I am
not seeing it fail here on latest.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35673
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 15:15
---
In gcc.dg/redecl-6.c we have the same issue (basically this is the testcase
from the description). We end up with
ap = &array10;
with typeof (ap) == int[5] * and the type of the rhs == int[10] *.
Note that th
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 14:07 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> Using -Wconversion helps with getting the warning, but it also causes warnings
> for normal common things like foo(2*0.5). While foo(NULL) is almost certainly
Hmm, 2*0.5 should be folded
--- Comment #6 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 13:33 ---
Here is AN even more reduced example which demonstrates the problem:
int main()
{
char buf[256];
char *dest;
int i;
dest = &buf[2];
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
{
*(unsigned *)dest = 0;
dest += 4;
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 13:09 ---
-ftree-loop-linear has known problems that were addressed only in 4.3.0, so
this is probably a dup of one of those.
Reduced testcase:
static inline int
min(const int x, const int y) { return (x <= y) ? x : y; }
st
--- Comment #24 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 12:08 ---
Subject: Bug 35496
Author: uros
Date: Sun Mar 23 12:07:34 2008
New Revision: 133461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133461
Log:
Revert:
2008-03-05 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-03-23 10:46 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> So on my duron 4.3 seems to beat 4.4 as i expected from the generated asm.
Can you tell from code dumps of 4.4 vs 4.3, where you think that 4.4 code is
worse than 4.3 for Duron? For Core2, 4.4
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-23 09:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Add keywords
>
Walter,
This is permitted in F2003 so you have to apply the F95 standard to extract the
message out of gfortran:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] svn]# /irun/bin/gfortran -std=f95 p*.f90
The file ldist-1.f90.101t.ldist should test thus:
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "distributed: split to 4 loops" 1 "ldist" }
}
It only contains "distributed: split to 5 loops"
Paul
--
Summary: ldist-1.f90 fails on amd64/FC8 with latest trunk
Product: gcc
lwz 12,28(1)
stvx 1,0,4
stvx 0,4,0
stvx 0,3,0
stvx 1,0,3
mtvrsave 12
addi 1,1,32
blr
.size test2,.-test2
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.4.0 20080323 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33927
34 matches
Mail list logo
