[Bug c++/39956] New: no error for a instantiated class accessing private types in base class

2009-04-28 Thread kannanmj at hp dot com
Access to private types in a class from another instantiated template class is not getting the expected "type is private" error from gcc compiler. $gcc -c -v inp4.cpp Using built-in specs. Target: hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.11 Configured with: /tmp/gcc-4.3.1.tar.gz/gcc-4.3.1/configure --host=hppa1.1-hp-hpu

[Bug ada/39336] libgnat.dylib, libgnarl.dylib don't contain full paths

2009-04-28 Thread simon at pushface dot org
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org 2009-04-29 06:00 --- (In reply to comment #1) > The Ada make files don't use GNU libtool to build the shared libraries. GNAT Pro 6.2.1 on Darwin uses -rpath/@rpath, presumably AdaCore will fold this in at a future date. -- http://gcc.gn

[Bug libstdc++/39868] libstdc++ generates man pages, which conflict with the linux manpages

2009-04-28 Thread bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 05:12 --- Subject: Bug 39868 Author: bkoz Date: Wed Apr 29 05:12:00 2009 New Revision: 146923 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146923 Log: 2009-04-28 Benjamin Kosnik PR libstdc++/39868 *

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-04-29 05:09 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns > The right thing is just to document them. Agreed. But the question is whether to break %z and all but one person reckon it would be actuall

[Bug c++/39884] undefined reference

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 04:35 --- You need to link in the object file which also contains Preprocess. This bug reporting system is not really for getting basic C++ help which you can get via the newsgroup comp.lang.c++. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bu

[Bug c++/39884] undefined reference

2009-04-28 Thread nilesh dot barange at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from nilesh dot barange at gmail dot com 2009-04-29 04:24 --- (In reply to comment #1) > This means you don't have any definition of Preprocess or any other of the > functions mentioned above. > Following is my code... #include #include #include #include "domain.h"

[Bug fortran/39587] Reading integer from "" gives end-of-file instead of reading a 0

2009-04-28 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 04:06 --- Also, we need to consider taking F2003 9.10 at face value. Notice the use of the word "attempt": "An end-of-file condition occurs in the following cases: (1) When an endfile record is encountered during the re

[Bug fortran/39587] Reading integer from "" gives end-of-file instead of reading a 0

2009-04-28 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 03:38 --- Notice what gfortran does with this modified from the original test case: read(str,'(i1)') a ./a.out 0 Here we properly pad as expected. Now, the subtlety here is: should we provide positioning in

[Bug tree-optimization/39955] [4.5 Regression] struct-layout-1 test failures passing struct containing _Decimal32

2009-04-28 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 02:14 --- Michael, did you configure with --enable-decimal-float? I can never remember whether that is enabled by default for powerpc64-linux or not. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39955

[Bug libstdc++/39491] [4.2/4.3 regression] symbol __signb...@glibcxx_3.4 in libstdc++ exported

2009-04-28 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
--- Comment #31 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-04-29 01:03 --- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] symbol __signb...@glibcxx_3.4 in libstdc++ exported > Also, libstdc++.so is definitely not the right home for __signbitl symbol, so > we definitely shouldn't allow any n

[Bug tree-optimization/39955] [4.5 Regression] struct-layout-1 test failures passing struct containing _Decimal32

2009-04-28 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 00:49 --- The patch from Andreas doesn't make a difference for the struct-layout-1 tests. Here are test results from earlier today: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-04/msg03009.html There are lots of regressions i

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 00:43 --- (In reply to comment #7) > How does gimple handle > > typedef int foo __attribute__ ((aligned(1))); The C/C++ front-end ignores the aligned here but does not mention that to you. That is a different issue though,

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-29 00:42 --- This code: --- void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, __SIZE_TYPE__ n); struct timeval { long tv_sec; }; typedef struct timeval packed __attribute__((aligned(1))); struct outdata { long align; ch

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-29 00:33 --- (In reply to comment #6) > Andrew is right. There is no "known" alignment (or misalignment) as far > as the gimple code is concerned, only the natural alignment: > > send_probe (struct outdata * outdata, struct tim

[Bug tree-optimization/39955] [4.5 Regression] struct-layout-1 test failures passing struct containing _Decimal32

2009-04-28 Thread matz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 00:23 --- I tested powerpc64-linux a few minutes ago (r146824) and it doesn't show these errors. I have Andreas Krebbels patch applied, though, and it might really make a difference. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-0

[Bug tree-optimization/39955] [4.5 Regression] struct-layout-1 test failures passing struct containing _Decimal32

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread matz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-29 00:17 --- Andrew is right. There is no "known" alignment (or misalignment) as far as the gimple code is concerned, only the natural alignment: send_probe (struct outdata * outdata, struct timeval * tp) { struct timeval * D.12

[Bug tree-optimization/39955] New: struct-layout-1 test failures passing struct containing _Decimal32

2009-04-28 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
Most of the struct-layout-1 tests started failing on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=146817 r146817 | matz | 2009-04-26 19:35:04 + (Sun, 26 Apr 2009) Here's a minimized testcase that demonstrates the failure: struct S301 { _Decim

[Bug libstdc++/39491] [4.2/4.3 regression] symbol __signb...@glibcxx_3.4 in libstdc++ exported

2009-04-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #30 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:59 --- Also, libstdc++.so is definitely not the right home for __signbitl symbol, so we definitely shouldn't allow any newly linked program to use symbol from that library. If __signbitl is ever needed (prove it), then it b

[Bug libstdc++/39491] [4.2/4.3 regression] symbol __signb...@glibcxx_3.4 in libstdc++ exported

2009-04-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #29 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:56 --- The glibc macro AFAIK does: # define signbit(x) \ (sizeof (x) == sizeof (float)\ ? __signbitf (x)\

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:51 --- I disagree, while the modifiers are perhaps undocumented, there is tons of software in the wild that uses them heavily (I don't know about %z, but many other modifiers) and breaking that all would be a terrible idea.

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:48 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Indeed. We likely fold the memcpy, but that should better preserve the > known alignment. What known alignment? The alignment of the type is known to be the same alignment as long inside

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146817 caused unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 23:43 --- Revision 146817: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg01459.html is the cause. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/39565] Static variable leaves undefined symbol in object file

2009-04-28 Thread anmol at freescale dot com
--- Comment #3 from anmol at freescale dot com 2009-04-28 23:43 --- I verified with native GCC on target: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu on: gcc version 4.5.0 20090423 (experimental) [trunk revision 146648] (GCC) gcc version 4.4.1 20090424 (prerelease) [gcc-4_4-branch revision 146746] (G

[Bug target/39678] complex type isn't passed correctly

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #34 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:43 --- Fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug c++/14482] hard to avoid -Weffc++ warnings with union members

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:42 --- *** Bug 39691 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/39691] union warnings using -Weffc++ flag

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:42 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14482 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug rtl-optimization/39938] [4.5 Regression]: build broke for cris-elf with dbr_schedule change

2009-04-28 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:41 --- Thanks, kind-of verified; build now breaks at the "original" site again. :] This could be the last comment on this PR. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39938

[Bug middle-end/39573] Linking fails on AMD with -march=native and -fopenmp, works with generic x86_64

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:41 --- Fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNE

[Bug fortran/39627] [meta-bug] Fortran 2008 support

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:28 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug ada/39336] libgnat.dylib, libgnarl.dylib don't contain full paths

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:24 --- The Ada make files don't use GNU libtool to build the shared libraries. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39336

[Bug libstdc++/39644] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf 17_intro/headers/c++200x/all.cc plus 3

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39644

[Bug middle-end/39666] spurious warning with ranged-switch statements

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:14 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCON

[Bug bootstrap/39674] Error building with SUN cc (forte 6.2) compiler

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 23:11 --- /* This was a conditional expression but it triggered a bug in Sun C 5.5. */ if (subtract_p) temp = double_int_neg (b->data); else temp = b->data; /* This was a conditional expression but it tr

[Bug target/39616] Stage 2 Werror - trunk revision 145459 - libcpp/identifiers.c:113: error: variably modified 'proxy_assertion_broken' at file scope

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal Component|bootstrap |target GCC ta

[Bug bootstrap/39929] [4.5 Regression] Bootstrapping fails at stage 1 on powerpc-apple-darwin9 and powerpc-ibm-aix

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 22:50 --- (In reply to comment #12) > Maybe there's some significant difference between the behaviour of > mips16_gp_pseudo_reg() and require_pic_register() which causes this, or maybe > MIPS is broken too? Hmm, ARM uses em

[Bug bootstrap/39929] [4.5 Regression] Bootstrapping fails at stage 1 on powerpc-apple-darwin9 and powerpc-ibm-aix

2009-04-28 Thread jules at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jules at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 22:31 --- FYI: the above patch seems to have caused ARM Linux (cross) builds to break, e.g.: /scratch/julian/arm-mainline/src/gcc-mainline/libgcc/../gcc/config/arm/unwind-arm.c:589: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39954

[Bug middle-end/39936] -Wuninitialized false positive with unhelpful diagnostic

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 22:19 --- Works on the trunk. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Compon

[Bug target/39897] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146761 caused libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90

2009-04-28 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 22:16 --- Fixed. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libgomp/39939] MinGW 4.3.0 fails to link sample programme.

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 22:14 --- Your libpthreads is doing something wrong. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/39897] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146761 caused libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39897

[Bug middle-end/39898] [4.5 regression] Revision 146763 caused g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39898

[Bug c++/39884] undefined reference

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 22:11 --- This means you don't have any definition of Preprocess or any other of the functions mentioned above. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 22:04 --- Indeed. We likely fold the memcpy, but that should better preserve the known alignment. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39954

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 21:59 --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think this testcase is invalid really: > memcpy(&outdata->tv, tp, sizeof outdata->tv); > > tv is packed and taking the address of a packed entry is not really a valid > thing. > I

[Bug middle-end/39954] [4.5 Regression] Unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:54 --- I think this testcase is invalid really: memcpy(&outdata->tv, tp, sizeof outdata->tv); tv is packed and taking the address of a packed entry is not really a valid thing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 21:53 --- Actually, alignment is from ix86_avoid_jump_misspredicts, where: /* Look for all minimal intervals of instructions containing 4 jumps. The intervals are bounded by START and INSN. NBYTES is the total size of

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:52 --- So that explains it, Use -Os or attribute cold if you want NOPs to be gone. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug middle-end/39954] New: [4.5 Regression] Unaligned access in gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
On Linux/ia64, revision 146820 gave Apr 26 20:44:03 gnu-12 kernel: pr26565.exe(23460): unaligned access to 0x6e31, ip=0x46d0 Apr 26 20:44:03 gnu-12 kernel: pr26565.exe(23472): unaligned access to 0x6e71, ip=0x46d0 Apr 26 20:44:03 gnu-12 kernel: pr265

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 21:47 --- >From config/i386/i386.c: /* AMD Athlon works faster when RET is not destination of conditional jump or directly preceded by other jump instruction. We avoid the penalty by inserting NOP just before the RET inst

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:42 --- Ok, so one issue with the verifier is that it doesn't distinguish between lvalues and rvalues when verifying verify_types_in_gimple_reference. I will fix this. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug c/38375] infinite loop on invalid struct redefinition

2009-04-28 Thread anmol at freescale dot com
--- Comment #3 from anmol at freescale dot com 2009-04-28 21:38 --- I tried reproducing on trunk and on gcc-4_4-branch; GCC does not loop forever: gcc version 4.5.0 20090423 (experimental) [trunk revision 146648] (GCC) --

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-28 21:35 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote: > --- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:25 --- > ;; Function

[Bug rtl-optimization/39938] [4.5 Regression]: build broke for cris-elf with dbr_schedule change

2009-04-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:32 --- This should work now. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/39938] [4.5 Regression]: build broke for cris-elf with dbr_schedule change

2009-04-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:30 --- Subject: Bug 39938 Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Apr 28 21:29:58 2009 New Revision: 146915 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146915 Log: PR rtl-optimization/39938 * resource.c (

[Bug middle-end/39941] [4.5 Regression] ice in passes.c:execute_todo()

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:27 --- We need to update SSA form after FRE as we now notice the cast to entry_func (with noreturn attribute, thus no VDEF) was invalid (and thus we add a VDEF). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39941

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread sje at cup dot hp dot com
--- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:25 --- ;; Function foo (foo) foo () { vector float D.2002; vector float D.2001; vector float D.2000; vector float D.1999; vector float D.1998; vector float D.1997; v4sf value.1; v4sf value.0; : value.0_2 = val

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread vvv at ru dot ru
--- Comment #6 from vvv at ru dot ru 2009-04-28 21:18 --- Let's compile file test.c //#file test.c extern int F(int m); void func(int x) { int u = F(x); while (u) u = F(u)*3+1; } # gcc -o t.out test.c -c -O2 # objdump -d t.out t.out: file format e

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:18 --- (In reply to comment #3) > There error I get on cc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c and > gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c with optimization level 1 or greater is: > > x.c:6: error: invalid expression for min lvalue > D.200

[Bug middle-end/39941] [4.5 Regression] ice in passes.c:execute_todo()

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:24 --- Mine. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:23 --- 4.1.2 produces: .L4: addq$8, %rsp .p2align 4,,2 ret While the trunk produces: .L1: addq$8, %rsp .p2align 4,,2 .p2align 3 ret -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-28 21:21 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > (In reply to comment #3) > > There error I get on cc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c a

[Bug middle-end/39941] [4.5 Regression] ice in passes.c:execute_todo()

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:17 --- Reduced testcase. Fails at -O1. typedef void (*entry_func) (void) __attribute__ ((noreturn)); extern entry_func entry_addr; static void bsd_boot_entry (void) { stop (); } void bsd_boot (void) { entry_addr =

[Bug middle-end/39932] [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused many test failures

2009-04-28 Thread sje at cup dot hp dot com
--- Comment #3 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:10 --- There error I get on cc.c-torture/execute/20050604-1.c and gcc.dg/torture/pr21817-1.c with optimization level 1 or greater is: x.c:6: error: invalid expression for min lvalue D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1

[Bug middle-end/39941] [4.5 Regression] ice in passes.c:execute_todo()

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 21:09 --- Confirmed. #1 0x084a7d71 in execute_todo (flags=7) at /home/richard/src/trunk/gcc/passes.c:1031 1031gcc_assert (flags & TODO_update_ssa_any); (gdb) #2 0x084a8772 in execute_one_pass (pass=0x8d26100)

[Bug testsuite/39790] gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c,opt-2.c fail if TLS is not supported by C library

2009-04-28 Thread jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 20:58 --- Patch was committed to trunk and branch 4.4. -- jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug testsuite/39790] gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c,opt-2.c fail if TLS is not supported by C library

2009-04-28 Thread jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 20:57 --- Subject: Bug 39790 Author: jingyu Date: Tue Apr 28 20:57:42 2009 New Revision: 146914 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146914 Log: Backport from mainline. PR testsuite/39790

[Bug libstdc++/39491] [4.2/4.3 regression] symbol __signb...@glibcxx_3.4 in libstdc++ exported

2009-04-28 Thread carlos at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #28 from carlos at codesourcery dot com 2009-04-28 20:57 --- Exporting a non-default versioned symbol is useless since new programs won't be able to link against that definition. Did 4.2/4.3 export a global default symbol for __signbitl? If we did export a global default s

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 20:47 --- FWIW I agree. Relying on undocumented behavior is as invalid as any other invalid asm that happened to work in the past. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39949

[Bug testsuite/39790] gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c,opt-2.c fail if TLS is not supported by C library

2009-04-28 Thread jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jingyu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 20:39 --- Subject: Bug 39790 Author: jingyu Date: Tue Apr 28 20:39:11 2009 New Revision: 146913 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146913 Log: PR testsuite/39790 * lib/target-supports.exp (c

[Bug fortran/39953] Error: Expected VARIABLE at (1)

2009-04-28 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-04-28 20:38 --- Works for me on (powerpc|i686)-apple-darwin9 gfortran 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.4.0, and trunk. You should update your gfortran to at least 4.3.3 (4.2 is no longer supported). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug c/39903] [4.4 Regression] ICE on flexible member

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 20:04 --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Is this one of those bugs that only trigger on -fPIC? > > I opened PR 39952 for this. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|R

[Bug fortran/39953] New: Error: Expected VARIABLE at (1)

2009-04-28 Thread eugene dot loh at sun dot com
This compilation problem prevents SPECmpi benchmark 115.fds4 (file read.f) from compiling with gfortran. Here is an example of the problem: % cat read.f MODULE READ CONTAINS SUBROUTINE READ_SPRK OPEN(95,FILE='dat',FORM='FORMATTED',STATUS='OL

[Bug testsuite/39952] New: Inadequate gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c generates some tests randomly. Not all possible combinations are tested. The test T(2456,double a;struct{int * c;}b[];,F(2456,a,-85022.609375,131929.593750)) from PR 39903 was never generated on Linux/x86-64. As the result, PR 39903 regression wasn't detec

[Bug c++/35669] NULL (__null) not considered different from 0 with C++

2009-04-28 Thread mdorey at bluearc dot com
--- Comment #9 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2009-04-28 20:00 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Because a null pointer constant is an integral constant expression, thus the > warning is wrong. Are all integral constant expressions necessarily implicitly convertible to all integer types?

[Bug debug/39703] GCC produces single locations instead of location lists for some formal parameters

2009-04-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 19:44 --- > This makes sense to me as a possible explanation, but my response would be > to turn variable tracking on even at -O0. This was experimented, but this generates bloated and inferior debugging infor mation for t

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-04-28 19:33 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns > If I had told you that we had had several internal applications > which use %z on x87 since 1998, would it make a difference? Maybe no, but i

[Bug fortran/39945] -fopenmp causes runtime crash on assigning reasonably large array

2009-04-28 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 19:25 --- (In reply to comment #6) > may be interested to RTFM and specially: > > -fno-automatic > -fmax-stack-var-size=n Well, -fopenmp implies -frecursive and thus the use of the stack. If a function can never be called in s

[Bug other/39951] New: Dangling symlink ".../include-fixed/mach" created on install

2009-04-28 Thread skunk at iskunk dot org
After installing GCC: $ ls -l $PREFIX/lib/gcc/alphaev56-dec-osf4.0g/4.4.0/include-fixed/mach lrwxr-xr-x 1 locallocal 25 Apr 28 14:22 $PREFIX/lib/gcc/alphaev56-dec-osf4.0g/4.4.0/include-fixed/mach -> root/usr/sys/include/mach $ ls -l $PREFIX/lib/gcc/alphaev56-dec-osf4.0g/4.4.0/inclu

[Bug debug/39703] GCC produces single locations instead of location lists for some formal parameters

2009-04-28 Thread jdraper at super dot org
--- Comment #2 from jdraper at super dot org 2009-04-28 18:24 --- (In reply to comment #1) > IIRC at -O0, variable tracking is not enabled so it only produces single > locations. > This makes sense to me as a possible explanation, but my response would be to turn variable tracking on e

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 18:23 --- Considering this is all undocumened no. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 18:22 --- (In reply to comment #3) > H.J., please do not make up testcases and tell us who was actually using %z > for > x87 as of March 31st, 2009. > If I had told you that we had had several internal applications which us

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-04-28 18:14 --- ... to mark as waiting. -- bonzini at gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-04-28 18:13 --- reopening... -- bonzini at gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/39950] New: __unix__ macro is not predefined on AIX platform (C and C++)

2009-04-28 Thread skasapin at ca dot ibm dot com
__unix__ macro is not predefined with gcc/g++ on AIX platform. Should it be predefined on this platform for portability? -- Summary: __unix__ macro is not predefined on AIX platform (C and C++) Product: gcc Version: 3.3.4 Status:

[Bug c++/5] [1.36.3/1.37/.../3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] C++ sucks, can't you make it better?

2009-04-28 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-04-28 18:12 --- *** Bug 39949 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- bonzini at gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-04-28 18:12 --- H.J., please do not make up testcases and tell us who was actually using %z for x87 as of March 31st, 2009. Otherwise, this bug has the same level of seriousness as the one I'm closing it as duplicate of. *** This bug has

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 17:37 --- Unfortunately, all code snippets and dumps are of no use. Please see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for the reason why. As an exercise, please compile *standalone* _preprocessed_ source you will create with -S added to your

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread vvv at ru dot ru
--- Comment #4 from vvv at ru dot ru 2009-04-28 17:15 --- Created an attachment (id=1) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1&action=view) Simple example from Linux See two functons: static void pre_schedule_rt static void switched_from_rt -- http://gcc.gnu.o

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread vvv at ru dot ru
--- Comment #3 from vvv at ru dot ru 2009-04-28 17:10 --- Additional examples from Linux Kernel 2.6.29.1: (Note: conditional statement at the end of all fuctions!) = linux/drivers/video/console/bitblit.c void fbcon_set_bitops(struct fbcon_ops *ops) { ops->bmove

[Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg %ax,%ax; retq

2009-04-28 Thread vvv at ru dot ru
--- Comment #2 from vvv at ru dot ru 2009-04-28 17:04 --- Created an attachment (id=17776) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17776&action=view) Source file from Linx Kernel 2.6.29.1 See static void set_blitting_type -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3

[Bug c++/57] [DR 325] GCC can't parse a non-parenthesized comma in a template-id within a default argument

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #43 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 16:51 --- *** Bug 39948 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/39948] Cannot set default arguments in methods when methods contain multiple templates...

2009-04-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 16:51 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 57 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 16:45 --- None of x86 insn modifiers are documented and %z comments in gcc source codes on 4.3/4.4 branches are simply incorrect. %z has been working on x87 insns since day 1 on gcc.gnu.org back to 1992. Why do we have to brea

[Bug target/39949] [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-04-28 16:39 --- Wontfix, the code uses undocumented operand modifier. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/39949] New: [4.5 regression] Revision 146874 breaks %z on x87 insns

2009-04-28 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
Revision 146874: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg01518.html breaks %z on x87 insns: [...@gnu-16 float-1]$ cat foo.c #define fp_to_int(func,ftype,itype) \ itype \ __attribute__((noinline)) \ func (ftype value) \ { \ itype res; \ __asm__ __volatile__ ("fistp%z0 %0" : "=m" (res) : "t"

[Bug fortran/39946] PROCEDURE statements: interface with RESULT variable

2009-04-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 16:31 --- Fixed with r146905. Closing. -- janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/39946] PROCEDURE statements: interface with RESULT variable

2009-04-28 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-28 16:27 --- Subject: Bug 39946 Author: janus Date: Tue Apr 28 16:27:27 2009 New Revision: 146905 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146905 Log: 2009-04-28 Janus Weil PR fortran/39946 * reso

  1   2   >