[Bug c++/40362] openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races

2009-06-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 06:57 --- You have to read the code to understand how that happens. But basically GOMP_parallel_start does: gomp_team_start (fn, data, num_threads, gomp_new_team (num_threads)); Where gomp_new_team creates the *thr (which i

[Bug c++/40362] openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races

2009-06-06 Thread bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com 2009-06-07 06:52 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Except this is a false positive as thread 4 is not created when the thread 2 > writes to *thr. It looks like valgrind does not know what is happening here > really. I'm not sure tha

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-07 06:37 --- On powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64, but not with default -m32, I also see the following new failures: ERROR: gcc.dg/vect/vect-42.c: error executing dg-final: syntax error in target selector "target !vect_hw_misalign"

[Bug c++/40362] openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races

2009-06-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 06:22 --- Except this is a false positive as thread 4 is not created when the thread 2 writes to *thr. It looks like valgrind does not know what is happening here really. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40

[Bug c++/40365] g++ template expansion bug

2009-06-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 06:15 --- Can you show the internal compiler error? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40365

[Bug c++/40362] openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races

2009-06-06 Thread bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com 2009-06-07 06:14 --- (In reply to comment #1) > >==21970==at 0x71A35FD: gomp_iter_dynamic_next (iter.c:190) > > Is a bogus warning as that is thread specific data: > struct gomp_thread *thr = gomp_thread (); > struct gomp_

[Bug c++/40365] New: g++ template expansion bug

2009-06-06 Thread oleg_dolomanov at hotmail dot com
I am trying to build Olex2 (sourceforge) project on x64 system with Pentium 6600Q and 6Gb of memory, using any 64bit Linux and it crashes gcc C++ on large template expansion (>0.5k templates a class) with internal compiler error, which happens in different files depending on the gcc version (4.1,

[Bug c++/40362] openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races

2009-06-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 00:11 --- >==21970==at 0x71A35FD: gomp_iter_dynamic_next (iter.c:190) Is a bogus warning as that is thread specific data: struct gomp_thread *thr = gomp_thread (); struct gomp_work_share *ws = thr->ts.work_share; --

[Bug testsuite/39831] gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-*.c assume the default -mfp-math does not include SSE

2009-06-06 Thread fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 23:27 --- I can confirm that at least the three tests that are run (1 to 3) PASS on darwin with the following patch: Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-1.c ===

[Bug middle-end/40364] ICE in in purge_dead_edges, at cfgrtl.c:2325 compiling MAME

2009-06-06 Thread dopefishjustin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from dopefishjustin at gmail dot com 2009-06-06 23:18 --- Created an attachment (id=17958) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17958&action=view) .i file -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40364

[Bug middle-end/40364] New: ICE in in purge_dead_edges, at cfgrtl.c:2325 compiling MAME

2009-06-06 Thread dopefishjustin at gmail dot com
Got an ICE trying to compile MAME with the mingw-w64-bin_i686-mingw_20090605 snapshot of mingw-w64: In file included from src/emu/cpu/tms9900/ti990_10.c:9:0: src/emu/cpu/tms9900/99xxcore.h:149:25: warning: "TMS99105A_ID" is not defined src/emu/cpu/tms9900/99xxcore.h:157:25: warning: "TMS99110A_ID"

[Bug tree-optimization/40140] [4.5 Regression] ICE with -ftree-parallelize-loops

2009-06-06 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 22:54 --- The original testcase doesn't crash anymore, but now an even simpler version crashes: double sqrt(double x) { double d; asm("" : "=t"(d)

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

2009-06-06 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-06 22:22 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote: > That is why we shouldn't close a bug report without checking > in a testcase. Closing a bra

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

2009-06-06 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-06 22:16 --- (In reply to comment #8) > The bug reappeared between 2009-05-22 and 2009-05-29 on the trunk. > That is why we shouldn't close a bug report without checking in a testcase. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b

[Bug fortran/32890] Compile-time detect of LHS/RHS missmatch for PACK

2009-06-06 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 21:17 --- FIXED on the trunk (4.5). Close. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/37203] Check ORDER= of RESHAPE

2009-06-06 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 21:10 --- Subject: Bug 37203 Author: burnus Date: Sat Jun 6 21:09:57 2009 New Revision: 148238 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148238 Log: 2009-06-06 Daniel Franke PR fortran/37203

[Bug c/40363] New: Nonoptimal save/restore registers

2009-06-06 Thread vvv at ru dot ru
IMHO, current save/restore registers strategy is not optimal. Look: # cat test.c #include void print(char *mess, char *format, int text) { printf(mess); printf(format,text); } void main() { print("X=","%d\n",1); } # gcc --version gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20090601 (experimental) #

[Bug fortran/40354] bug with procedure pointers and C interoperability

2009-06-06 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 20:34 --- Closing as invalid. The code submitted by Alain is invalid Fortran as described by the excerpts from the Fortran 2003 standard quoted in Comment #1. The Standard does not require a compiler to detect and report the i

[Bug middle-end/32950] [4.5 regression] ICE with __complex__ double

2009-06-06 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 20:32 --- The bug reappeared between 2009-05-22 and 2009-05-29 on the trunk. -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/40163] [4.5 Regression] null pointer in remove_unreachable_regions

2009-06-06 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 20:27 --- The bug disappeared between 2009-05-22 and 2009-05-29. -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/37946] [c++0x] ICE with enum class

2009-06-06 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 20:11 --- This was fixed on the trunk and for GCC 4.4.1 by Jason's patch for PR38064. Jason, would you mind adding this as another testcase to the testsuite so that we can close the bug? -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot o

[Bug c++/40362] New: openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races

2009-06-06 Thread bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com
The source code of libgomp should be reviewed carefully whether all variables that are accessed by more than one thread are protected by a consistent locking strategy. When analyzing OpenMP programs with Helgrind or DRD, several data races are reported. The test I ran myself and the results are as

[Bug fortran/32890] Compile-time detect of LHS/RHS missmatch for PACK

2009-06-06 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 18:51 --- Subject: Bug 32890 Author: burnus Date: Sat Jun 6 18:51:29 2009 New Revision: 148237 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148237 Log: fortran/ 2009-06-06 Daniel Franke PR fortran/32890

[Bug rtl-optimization/40361] Conditional return not always profitable with -Os

2009-06-06 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 17:56 --- I tested the patch on arm-elf ("-march=armv7-r" and "-march=armv7 -mthumb"), trunk revision 148235, -Os, unpatched and patched, with CSiBE: armv7-r: unpatched : 3557127 bytes patched : 3554655 bytes win: 2472 bytes

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread eres at il dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #6 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-06 17:32 --- (In reply to comment #5) > With the patch in comment #3 the failures are gone: > make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="vect.exp=*.c --target_board=unix'{,-m64}'" Thanks for checking, I'll submit the patch then. -- http:/

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-06 17:24 --- With the patch in comment #3 the failures are gone: make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="vect.exp=*.c --target_board=unix'{,-m64}'" ... === gcc Summary === # of expected passes2829 # of expec

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread eres at il dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #4 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-06 16:46 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Created an attachment (id=17957) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17957&action=view) [edit] > A patch to fix the fails I appreciate it if you could test whether the attached

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread eres at il dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #3 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-06 16:43 --- Created an attachment (id=17957) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17957&action=view) A patch to fix the fails -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359

[Bug libfortran/40334] [4.4/4.5 Regression] changed BACKSPACE behaviour at end of file.

2009-06-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 16:09 --- Correction "have not" regtested the patch above. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40334

[Bug libfortran/40334] [4.4/4.5 Regression] changed BACKSPACE behaviour at end of file.

2009-06-06 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 16:08 --- In the test case, the the first EOF is generated in transfer.c (hit_eof) which sets the end file conditions. The second EOF is generated in list_read.c:1689. When returning from he error condition, the end file c

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-06 15:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite. > It might be that i686 should be added to > check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign. It does, but I still have 9 ext

[Bug middle-end/28417] suboptimal 'division by constant' optimization

2009-06-06 Thread aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||16996 nThis|| Sta

[Bug rtl-optimization/40361] New: Conditional return not always profitable with -Os

2009-06-06 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
elf "xgcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20090606 (experimental) [trunk revision 148236]", with options -march=armv7-r -Os -dAP" without patches results in this code: .file "t.c" .text .align 2 .global foo .type foo, %function foo:

[Bug bootstrap/40360] New: configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object files: cannot compile

2009-06-06 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
First, this bug report is very similar to the closed bug 35693. I could find no way to re-open that bug report, and in any case this is a different version of gcc, a different machine etc. I believe the 'solution' given there, which involves setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not really the right answer,

[Bug target/30354] -Os doesn't optimize a/CONST even if it saves size.

2009-06-06 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-06 13:41 --- It seems to make sense to bump cost of idiv a bit, given the fact that there are register pressure implications. I would like to however understand what code sequences we produce that are estimated to be long but en

[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread eres at il dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #1 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-06 11:00 --- It might be that i686 should be added to check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign. Please try the following patch: Index: testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp ===

[Bug testsuite/40359] New: [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.

2009-06-06 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
On i686-apple-darwin9, revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite with both -m32 and -m64: < FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-31.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorization not profitable" 1 < FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-31.c scan-tree-dump-ti

[Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free

2009-06-06 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-06 07:08 --- (In reply to comment #13) > Subject: Bug 40168 Richard, this empty constructor patch was also OKed for 4.4 and has been on mainline for a while. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-05/msg00288.html Do you intend to c