--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:44 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Btw, since a couple of days the warning is back :-)
That probably means a regression in the optimizers. Can you identify the
revision?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22
--- Comment #25 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:31 ---
Fixed (cf. comment 24) the warning of comment 21 and comment 23. If a new
warning is spotted, feel free to open a new PR or reopen this PR.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:28 ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.5). Thanks for the report and patch!
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:26 ---
Subject: Bug 40588
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jul 13 06:26:38 2009
New Revision: 149545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149545
Log:
2009-07-12 Tobias Burnus
Philippe Marguinaud
--- Comment #24 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:26 ---
Subject: Bug 22423
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jul 13 06:26:38 2009
New Revision: 149545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149545
Log:
2009-07-12 Tobias Burnus
Philippe Marguinaud
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40689
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 13 06:06:27 2009
New Revision: 149543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149543
Log:
PR c++/36628
* tree.c (rvalue): Use lvalue_or_rva
--- Comment #1 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:06 ---
Subject: Bug 37206
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 13 06:06:27 2009
New Revision: 149543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149543
Log:
PR c++/36628
* tree.c (rvalue): Use lvalue_or_rva
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:06 ---
Subject: Bug 36628
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 13 06:06:27 2009
New Revision: 149543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149543
Log:
PR c++/36628
* tree.c (rvalue): Use lvalue_or_rva
--- Comment #4 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 05:50 ---
Fixed in (at least) r149403.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #1 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 05:49 ---
Confirmed.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 05:48 ---
Confirmed.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #5 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 05:27 ---
Confirmed.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #1 from j-frankish at slb dot com 2009-07-13 04:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=18182)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18182&action=view)
config.log for gcc-build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
See CLFS SVN-20090709-PowerPC64-Multilib - Cross GCC-4.4.0 - Final
Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure --prefix=/cross-tools
--build=powerpc64-cross-linux-gnu --target=powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
--host=powerpc64-cross-linux-gnu --with-sysroot=/mnt/clfs
--with-local-prefix=/tools --disable-nls
--- Comment #1 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 01:19 ---
This is not LTO-specific, changing "Reported against" to 4.5.0.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-12 23:58 ---
Revision 146451 on 4.5 changed it from generating broken code to generating
not-so-broken code. That's completely unexpected since that revision is a
enable-bootstrap-with-c++ thing which isn't supposed to change any beha
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-07-12 22:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] another null pointer in
remove_unreachable_regions
> The testsuite failure was due to a double paste into the testcase; fixing that
> maxes it work.
Uh, double application of patch..
Thanks f
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 22:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=18181)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18181&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40728
If one runs the attached Fortran 2008 program with GCC 4.4 and default options
one gets:
Error: 'x' argument of 'acos' intrinsic at (1) must be REAL
for the complex arguments, which is OK.
However, using -std=f2003 one gets additionally warnings of the kind:
r4 = asinh(r4)
1
Error: Can
--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 22:03
---
Probably due to the fix in PR35828 the original testcase and the one in comment
#3
now compile. However, if I leave out the two "const" in the testcase from
comment #3, the code is rejected which is wrong IMHO.
-
--- Comment #23 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 21:57
---
Btw, since a couple of days the warning is back :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-12 21:21 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> What options did you use ? Did you use -O2 , -O3 or -Os with the testcase
> you've added here ? I don't see the problem with 4.5.0 trunk 149479 with
> either
> -mcpu=arm740t or with arm7tdmi
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 21:10 ---
Subject: Bug 36628
Author: jason
Date: Sun Jul 12 21:10:09 2009
New Revision: 149536
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149536
Log:
PR c++/36628
* tree.c (rvalue): Use lvalue_or_rva
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 20:51 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=18179)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18179&action=view) [edit]
> reduced test case in plain C
>
What options did you use ? Did you use -O2
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 20:23 ---
The testsuite failure was due to a double paste into the testcase; fixing that
maxes it work.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
complex :: z
z = cmplx(0.0, cmplx(0.0,0.0))
end
Expected:
Error: line 2: Wrong data type for argument Y to the CMPLX intrinsic
Result:
Interner Fehler bei (1):
gfc_simplify_dcmplx(): Bad type (y)
--
Summary: ICE gfc_simplify_dcmplx(): Bad type when passing
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 19:19 ---
Subject: Bug 40689
Author: jason
Date: Sun Jul 12 19:19:03 2009
New Revision: 149533
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149533
Log:
PR c++/40689
* init.c (build_new_1): Handle initi
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-12 18:33
---
The same failure happens on Linux/Intel64 and Linux/ia64.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-12 18:32 ---
It doesn't work. On Linux/ia32, I got
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr40388.C -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr40388.C -O1 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr40388.C -O2 (test for excess
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-12 18:23 ---
Revision 149518 is OK. I am running Fedora 11. I can't reproduce it
even with revision 149512.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-12 18:19 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> These were added by HJ. Either we need to fixinclude stdlib.h or not define
> these based on a configure test (I guess the former is more robust if
> ia32intrin.h defines these only if the
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-07-12 16:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_ssa error:
definition in block 5 does not dominate use in block 7
Hi,
there is interesting difficulty with this plan.
When we have something like
BB1: if (test
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-07-12 15:06 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Both.
This seems to fix the issue, indeed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40726
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 14:58 ---
Both.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40726
--- Comment #37 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-07-12 14:49 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Joost, if you can, please test this patch on all of CP2K. Other testors
> welcome.
A bit late, but yes, current trunk now works fine (I/O wise)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #5 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-07-12 14:35 ---
> In which case you should
> > try removing DECL_IS_MALLOC (fndecl) = 1 in trans-decl.c.
this matches twice (line 1565 and line 1429). Which one should be removed ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 14:30 ---
Instead, if the Fortran return type does not have POINTER, TARGET or
ALLOCATABLE
attributes the middle-end type for the result-decl should have TYPE_RESTRICT
set if it is a pointer.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-07-12 14:30 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Do you by chance return pointers in any function? In which case you should
> try removing DECL_IS_MALLOC (fndecl) = 1 in trans-decl.c. I pointed this out
> to Paul already, but appearantly it
--
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=40726
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 14:24 ---
Do you by chance return pointers in any function? In which case you should
try removing DECL_IS_MALLOC (fndecl) = 1 in trans-decl.c. I pointed this out
to Paul already, but appearantly it is still stuck in his whol
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40726
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-07-12 14:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=18180)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18180&action=view)
testcase
correct results with
gfortran -c -O0 PR40726.f90
wrong code with
gfortran -c -O1 PR40726.f90
--
http
CP2K is currently miscompiled by gcc trunk. The last know good version is rev.
149159 first bad version is 149201. I've been able to narrow the problem down
to a miscompilation of 1 file, works fine at -O0, but goes wrong at -O1. I
don't have a runtime testcase (except running cp2k.sopt on
cp2k/te
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 12:07
---
Subject: Bug 40585
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jul 12 12:07:35 2009
New Revision: 149530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149530
Log:
PR tree-optimization/40585
* except.c (exp
--- Comment #4 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-12 11:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=18179)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18179&action=view)
reduced test case in plain C
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39429
Reduced from gfortran.dg/bind_c_dts_2.f03.
bind_c_dts_2.f03:
module bind_c_dts_2
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
implicit none
type, bind(c) :: my_c_type_1
integer(c_int) :: j
end type my_c_type_1
contains
subroutine sub0(my_type, expected_j) bind(c)
type(my_c_type_1) :: my_type
integ
At -O0 -flto with
t1.f
subroutine f
print *, "Hello World"
end
t2.f
program test
call f
end
the reader ICEs with
lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_get_pickled_tree, at
lto-streamer-in.c:2389
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if ap
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 08:31 ---
Sounds sane.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40676
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 08:24 ---
These were added by HJ. Either we need to fixinclude stdlib.h or not define
these based on a configure test (I guess the former is more robust if
ia32intrin.h defines these only if they are not already defined).
-
49 matches
Mail list logo
