--- Comment #4 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2008-05-04 06:02 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The vectorizer doesn't know to vectorize __builtin_cexpi or
> {REAL,IMAG}PART_EXPR
> either.
>
> IMHO rather than somehow tweaking the early unroller the vectorizer should
> know how to deal w
--- Comment #3 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2008-05-04 05:54 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> SLP also doesn't handle vectorization of register operations but needs
> memory source and destination operands(?).
Right.
> Likewise SLP shouldn't be
> confused by unvectorizable data t
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-04 00:29
---
Fixed by r 134918. Closing
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 21:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=15573)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15573&action=view)
second patch
This works for the test case and survives the intrinsic_pack test cases.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 20:44 ---
Fixed with rev. 134918.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36114
--- Comment #15 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 20:41
---
Fixed on 4.3 as well (after regression-testing and
checking on gcc-testresults that there were
no regressions on trunk).
Closing.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 20:40
---
Subject: Bug 35993
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat May 3 20:39:24 2008
New Revision: 134919
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134919
Log:
2008-05-03 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #1 from jaydub66 at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 20:11 ---
Confirmed. The ICEs you get are really due to my rev. 134867, which actually
also triggered some testsuite failures (use_only_1.f90 and g77/970915-0.f). I
have no idea why I didn't notice it (sorry!).
This can easily be
$ gfc -m32 selected_char_kind_1.f90
/tmp/ccUZ7wAS.o: In function `test_':
selected_char_kind_1.f90:(.text+0x2d0): undefined reference to
`_gfortran_selected_char_kind'
/tmp/ccUZ7wAS.o: In function `test2_':
selected_char_kind_1.f90:(.text+0x339): undefined reference to
`_gfortran_selected_char_kin
--- Comment #153 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 19:15
---
After some discussion on IRC the team recommends that we retire this PR. No
need to track bugs in two places and these latter bugs are regressions. The
latest not even related to gfortran.
So in the future, p
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #152 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 18:42 ---
(In reply to comment #151)
> New ICE PR36119, reopening.
>
Why do you re-open this bug report for an regression? A few years
ago when cp2k revealed several bugs at one time, it made sense to have a
meta-bug. But
--- Comment #4 from d at domob dot eu 2008-05-03 18:26 ---
Now I've been analysing a test looking like:
test("abc", "foobar", "hello")
contains
subroutine test(r, s)
character(len=*) :: r, s
character(len=128) :: arr(2)
arr = (/ r, s /)
end subroutine test
end
Which d
--- Comment #151 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-05-03 18:17 ---
New ICE PR36119, reopening.
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
-modules-path
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/build/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.4.0/finclude
-o /tmp/ccwqJEaQ.s
GNU Fortran (GCC) version 4.4.0 20080503 (experimental) [trunk revision 134897]
(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
This blocks compilation of CVS CP2K.
A reduced testcase is:
SUBROUTINE
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36118
Revision 134851 built and tested without regressions.
Revision 134885 up to at least 134889 has these regresssions, which all seem to
be inline-related:
g++.sum g++.dg/opt/pr30965.C
gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/execute/va-arg-pack-1.c
gcc.sum gcc.dg/attr-alwaysinline.c
gcc.sum gcc.dg/torture/nested-fn-1.
--- Comment #23 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 16:06 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> fix almost all the warning by check_po.
>
> I don't know the grammer of error_print, but I think the following two places
> are valid. am I right?
I think they are OK.
check_po is reall
--- Comment #25 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ppc64 cacoshl miscompilation
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #24 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:20 ---
> I am testing with the patch. I wanted to
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:29
---
Subject: Bug 34973
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat May 3 15:28:57 2008
New Revision: 134903
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134903
Log:
2008-05-03 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:29
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:26
---
Subject: Bug 34973
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat May 3 15:26:10 2008
New Revision: 134902
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134902
Log:
2008-05-03 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:23
---
The testcase doesn't pass though:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg00180.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:16
---
Closing.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|A
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:15
---
Subject: Bug 33268
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat May 3 15:14:55 2008
New Revision: 134901
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134901
Log:
2008-05-03 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 15:12
---
Subject: Bug 33268
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat May 3 15:11:33 2008
New Revision: 134900
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134900
Log:
2008-05-03 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #17 from awalton at gnome dot org 2008-05-03 14:57 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Whoops. I can reproduce the
>
> fm-directory-view.c:8887: error: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
> strict-aliasing rules
>
> errors with -O2.
>
Yes, of course, that's what we
--- Comment #22 from lidaobing at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 14:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=15572)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15572&action=view)
check_po log for all .mo files in debian gcc-4.3-locales package
debian gcc-4.3-locales version is 4.3.0-3
and I
--- Comment #3 from d at domob dot eu 2008-05-03 14:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=15571)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15571&action=view)
More tests and first code
Four more test cases for different variations of character array constructors
and a first draft im
--- Comment #21 from lidaobing at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 14:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=15570)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15570&action=view)
2nd zh_CN.po, compressed by bzip2
fix almost all the warning by check_po.
I don't know the grammer of error_print
--- Comment #24 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:20 ---
I am testing with the patch. I wanted to make sure that there was agreement on
how to modify simplify_plus_minus before going too far. Also, I wanted to give
you the opportunity to take the lead on your patch. I can
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:13
---
Err, simple. (-Wstrict-aliasing=0 works, but -Wno-strict-aliasing doesn't)
Index: opts.c
===
--- opts.c (revision 134849)
+++ opts.c (work
--- Comment #20 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:07 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> I had none, but now I wrote a very basic one, which misses several checks and
> gives false positives. I put the Perl script at
> http://physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/tmp/check_po
FX, I th
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:06
---
Whoops. I can reproduce the
fm-directory-view.c:8887: error: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
strict-aliasing rules
errors with -O2.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:05
---
This doesn't lookk like the strict-aliasing warning though, but
gcc-4.3 -S t.i -o /dev/null -Wall -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wnested-externs -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Werror -Wno-pointer-sign
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 14:00 ---
> The frontend should emit calls to the gcc bultin functions which are properly
> constant-folded.
I think this already happens. The problem is that the information is needed
much, much earlier: In initialization exp
--- Comment #13 from awalton at gnome dot org 2008-05-03 13:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=15569)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15569&action=view)
preprocessor output (gzipped)
With "gcc (Ubuntu 4.3.0-3ubuntu4) 4.3.1 20080430 (prerelease)". This is what I
got fro
--- Comment #19 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 13:55 ---
> PS. in emacs's po-mode, po-validate does not warning in this case, any script
> to check this po file?
I had none, but now I wrote a very basic one, which misses several checks and
gives false positives. I put the
--- Comment #2 from d at domob dot eu 2008-05-03 13:35 ---
Just one more thought, for array-constructors with all constant
strings/components with length known at compile-time we should maybe give a
compiler error instead of a runtime-error? Or only a warning and no
runtime-checking?
I
--- Comment #1 from d at domob dot eu 2008-05-03 13:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=15568)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15568&action=view)
Four test cases for character-array constructors
This "patch" includes four test-cases that should all triger a bounds-check
--- Comment #23 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-03 13:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ppc64 cacoshl miscompilation
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #22 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 13:21 ---
> Your patch from comment #17 (with typos fi
--- Comment #22 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 13:21 ---
Your patch from comment #17 (with typos fixed in comment #18).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36090
--- Comment #18 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2008-05-03 13:14 ---
It works fine.thanks!
msgfmt -o gcc.mo gcc-4.3.0.zh_CN.po
mv gcc.mo /gcc-4.4/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/
gfortran cputime.f90;./a.out
the result:
0.55
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36103
--- Comment #17 from lidaobing at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 12:47 ---
an updated (again) zh_CN.po uploaded to TP[1], and also in attachment[2], it
really protect my gfotran-4.3 from crash, I hope it can works for you.
please help check whether it works for you?
thanks.
[1] http://trans
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 12:46 ---
The frontend should emit calls to the gcc bultin functions which are properly
constant-folded.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #16 from lidaobing at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 12:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=15567)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15567&action=view)
new zh_CN.po, compressed by bzip2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36103
Currently, the Bessel function are not simplified, even though MPFR supports
this (since 2.3.0) via
Function: int mpfr_j0 (mpfr_t rop, mpfr_t op, mp_rnd_t rnd)
Function: int mpfr_j1 (mpfr_t rop, mpfr_t op, mp_rnd_t rnd)
Function: int mpfr_jn (mpfr_t rop, long n, mpfr_t op, mp_rnd_t rnd)
Fun
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 12:18
---
We are still waiting for a testcase, which would be the preprocessed source of
the file triggering the warning. You'll get preprocessed source by appending
'-save-temps' to the gcc commandline and the preprocessed
--- Comment #11 from awalton at gnome dot org 2008-05-03 11:26 ---
I believe we're running into this in Nautilus and GCC 4.3.x (confirmed on both
Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex/8.10's 4.3 toolchain and Arch Linux's toolchain [unsure of
the micro-version]). If anyone wants to walk me through the st
--- Comment #15 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2008-05-03 11:05 ---
also crashed.
would MR lidaobing work at gcc's svn version ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36103
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 11:03
---
No it must not. If your program is bogus then it is bogus.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #10 from snes2002 at freenet dot de 2008-05-03 10:26 ---
This is definitely a bug.
The same source-code must do the same thing, no matter what optimize-options
are enabled or disabled.
--
snes2002 at freenet dot de changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 09:50 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase that fails with -O2 -fPIC:
typedef struct {
volatile unsigned int lock;
int pad0_;
} mutex_t;
struct malloc_state {
mutex_t mutex;
};
static struct malloc_state main_arena;
static
--- Comment #4 from nikos42 at gmail dot com 2008-05-03 09:43 ---
Confirmed with gcc 4.3.1. Complete version info:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure linux gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.1 20080401 (prerelease) (Debian 4.3.0-3)
Rega
Ja és még annyi, hogy a weboldalon nem található semmiféle elérhetőség, ahol
lehetne jelezni a problémát.
Nagy Edina wrote:
>
> Szia
>
> Ez a weboldal egy 39.000 GB-os letöltheto adatbázissal rendelkezik!
> Naponta 201 GB adatmennyiséget frissítünk minden kategóriában!
> A szervert folyamat
Én is regisztráltam magam, csak az a baj hogy lehetettlen tölteni. Sajnos
mindig azt írja ki hogy várakozás a szerverre. Így csak FELESLEGES
PÉNZKIDOBÁS. ELÉGEDETTLEN VAGYOK.
REMÉLEM MEGOLDJÁK EZT A PROBLÉMÁT, MERT EZ ÍGY EGYENLÓ A
NULLÁVAL!!!
Nagy Edina wrote:
>
> Szia
>
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-03 09:32 ---
Confirmed. On the tree level we get aliasing wrong again:
:
# VUSE ;
D.30804_7 = n;
# VUSE ;
D.30805_8 = s_3->x;
if (D.30804_7 < D.30805_8) goto ; else goto ;
:;
__b_9 = &s_3->x;
# __b_2 = PHI <
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaydub66 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone|---
--- Comment #21 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-05-03 07:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] ppc64 cacoshl miscompilation
> How do we proceed? Your initial patch is fine with me.
Whose? I can foster-parent yours too, and bootstrap/regtest it on
i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Paolo
--
60 matches
Mail list logo
