--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 06:12 ---
Subject: Bug 44694
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 30 06:12:22 2010
New Revision: 161587
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161587
Log:
PR debug/44694
* cselib.h (cselib_preserve_cfa_ba
gfortran -O2 array_reference_1.f90 just hangs. I have to go in and kill it
manually. This is just one example. There were several failures before I
interrupted make -k check-fortran in order to recover enough CPU cycles to then
go in an kill f951 that was left running.
No problems at -O1 so may
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 04:26
---
I am back on this.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ass
--- Comment #2 from pzhao at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 03:55 ---
C++ has the same problem.
Testcase:
class foo { int x; }
typedef int bar;
g++-4.6:
a.C:3:13: error: two or more data types in declaration of bar
clang++:
a.C:1:21: error: expected ';' after class
class foo { int
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44721
On Linux/x86-64, revision 161570:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01488.html
gave
../../src-trunk/gcc/coverage.c: In function \u2018htab_counts_entry_hash\u2019:
../../src-trunk/gcc/coverage.c:151:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 25 7 26 2 ../../src-trunk/gcc/coverage.c:150 (set (re
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 01:38
---
Subject: Bug 43298
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 30 01:38:42 2010
New Revision: 161586
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161586
Log:
2010-06-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/4329
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 01:36
---
Subject: Bug 43298
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 30 01:35:56 2010
New Revision: 161585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161585
Log:
2010-06-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/4329
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 01:17
---
Kai, your patch seems to be the simplest solution so if no objections I will
commit it in a few days. (I want to make sure we don't get whitespace junk in
it)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44
--- Comment #14 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com 2010-06-30 00:36
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> A good chunk of time seems to be spent in the RTL loop unroller, triggered
> by array prefetching (testing with -O3 -funroll-loops). Otherwise it might
> as well be just excessive co
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-30 00:24 ---
The re-alignment is necessary, so this is a testsuite issue. The comment
needs adjustment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43958
--- Comment #13 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com 2010-06-30 00:23
---
Here is the current status of this work:
patch1: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02956.html
patch2: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg03049.html
On my system with -O3 zero_sized_1.f90 -fp
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 23:46 ---
I have another troublesome testcase:
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-Wall -Wextra -Wc++compat" } */
#error \
In order for the format checking to accept the C front end diagnostic \
framework extensions, you m
--- Comment #22 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 22:41 ---
Closing this again. The partial revert was approved and committed as r161534.
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 22:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=21042)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21042&action=view)
preprocessed tree.i
The patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg03011.html fixes the
reported ICE
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 22:09 ---
(gdb) p debug_bb_n(6)
;; basic block 6, loop depth 0, count 0
;; prev block 5, next block 7
;; pred: 5 [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
;; succ: 9 (eh,exec) 7 [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
:
D.1986_12 = D.1986_7;
x_
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 22:04 ---
Reduced even further:
int DrawChunk(int *tabSize, int x)
{
const int numEnds = 10;
int ends[numEnds + 2];
if (*tabSize > 0) {
x -= 5;
x = (x + *tabSize) / *tabSize;
}
}
--- CUT ---
C
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 21:43 ---
Fixed with r161569. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 21:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44718
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jun 29 21:40:38 2010
New Revision: 161569
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161569
Log:
2010-06-29 Janus Weil
PR fortran/44718
* reso
--- Comment #27 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 21:17
---
>-mno-accumulate-outgoing-args
Well if I understand this option, this is the correct thing to do. Also note
this was unrelated to the original problem so please file a new bug next time.
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #1 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 20:33 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg03042.html
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-06-29 20:32 ---
I have verified that the bootstrap works if I set flag_partial_inlining to 0.
I also did a build with --disable-libstdcxx-pch to see if the build failed when
I didn't build pre-compiled C++ headers and it does. It dies w
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 20:24 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Regtesting now ...
... finished successfully.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44718
--- Comment #6 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 20:24 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> One possible cause of this problem is that in configuration there could be
> something going wrong with stat functions returning 32-bit vs 64-bit values.
This seems not to be the issue he
Bootstrapping revision 161565 on x86_64-apple-darwin10 fails with
...
gcc -c -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute
-pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-Wold
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 20:03 ---
As pointed out by Andrew: One should follow C++ and generate try {} finally{}
blocks (TRY_FINALLY_EXPR).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44709
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:46 ---
Subject: Bug 43801
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:46:05 2010
New Revision: 161564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161564
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43801
* cgraph.c (cgraph_cre
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:37 ---
Subject: Bug 44668
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:37:46 2010
New Revision: 161563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161563
Log:
PR debug/44668
* dwarf2out.c (add_accessibility_a
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:31 ---
Fixed for 4.4.5.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:31 ---
The following patch fixes it:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 161551)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c (working
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:30 ---
Subject: Bug 44587
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:30:29 2010
New Revision: 161562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161562
Log:
PR c++/44587
* pt.c (has_value_dependent_address)
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:30 ---
Subject: Bug 44587
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:29:58 2010
New Revision: 161561
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161561
Log:
PR c++/44587
* pt.c (has_value_dependent_address)
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:29 ---
Subject: Bug 44587
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:29:02 2010
New Revision: 161559
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161559
Log:
PR c++/44587
* pt.c (has_value_dependent_address)
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 19:21 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 19:16 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg03033.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44695
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:13 ---
Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to put a rule there; not sure if it was a typo
or some smartass-autoindent running wild.
I've removed the offending tab.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:08 ---
Fixed with r161554. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:06 ---
Subject: Bug 44696
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:06:07 2010
New Revision: 161554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161554
Log:
2010-06-29 Janus Weil
PR fortran/44696
* tran
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:03:41 2010
New Revision: 161551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161551
Log:
2010-06-29 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/44582
* tr
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirm
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:00 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Or if you install from your distro you need the development packages, for gmp
^ that should say "for Ubuntu" not "for gmp"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44714
Revision 161547:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01465.html
caused:
Makefile:3712: warning: overriding commands for target `s-tm-texi'
Makefile:3710: warning: ignoring old commands for target `s-tm-texi'
The problem is the tab at
# check if someone mistakenly only changed tm.texi.
s-t
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:58 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jun 29 18:57:43 2010
New Revision: 161550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161550
Log:
2010-06-29 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/44582
* tr
--- Comment #12 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:45 ---
also fails when the bootstrap compiler is gcc-4.2 (apple 4.2.1).
i688-apple-darwin9 is ok for the same trunk rev.
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:43 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > > sudo make
> >
> > There's no need to build as root.
>
> If I don"t build as root I get errors with removing certain files due to lack
> of permissions for some reason.
That's because yo
Reported by John McFarland at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-06/msg00286.html
If one uses
procedure(), pointer :: f
at multiple scopes of the same program, gfortran treats the proc-pointer name
("f") as external name - and thus rejects using it once as function and once as
subroutine name:
--- Comment #4 from jbare7 at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 18:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> also, please check whether this is the same issue as Bug 43819 (did you search
> for existing bugs with "cannot compute suffix" before entering a bug?)
>
> It's likely you need to set LD_LIBRARY_
--- Comment #3 from jbare7 at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 18:23 ---
> > sudo make
>
> There's no need to build as root.
If I don"t build as root I get errors with removing certain files due to lack
of permissions for some reason.
> > Then I found out I needed GMP, MPFR, and MPC installed
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:23
---
*** Bug 44717 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:23 ---
There was only a few version of GCC which accepted this. They were incorrectly
accepting it. See PR 26068 for the versions which accepted it (marked as known
to fail). This is invalid code.
*** This bug has been
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:22 ---
Subject: Bug 44034
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Jun 29 18:22:00 2010
New Revision: 161547
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161547
Log:
gcc:
PR other/44034
* target.def, doc/tm.texi
Compiling the following code:
extern "C" static void test();
with a 4.5.1 snapshot results in:
test.cpp:1:12: error: invalid use of static in linkage specification
The supposedly equivalent
extern "C" {
static void test();
}
works fine.
This used to work before (not sure what version).
R
The ia64-hp-hpux11.23 platform fails when building the C++ library during a
bootstrap build with r161382. r161381 works. r161521, which has some bug
fixes, still fails. The failure only occurs with bootstrap, the compiler
faults when building the libstdc++ library.
/proj/opensrc_nobackup/sje/reg
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:34 ---
*** Bug 41544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:34 ---
Dupe of 35167, which I have now reopened.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35167 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:34 ---
tweaking summary a bit.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summ
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirm
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:32 ---
Reopening, this is a bug. The address of a static member function is a valid
address constant expression: it's a pointer to a function, in this case created
implicitly.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:03
---
Created an attachment (id=21041)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21041&action=view)
Recognize (lo_sum (high ...) ...) in rs6000_legitimize_reload_address
> It seems to me that simply extending
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:56
---
I agree, this looks like a longstanding bug in
rs6000_legitimize_reload_address.
What happens here is that find_reloads is called on this insn:
(insn 15 8 18 2 pr44707.c:13 (asm_operands/v ("/* %0 %1 %2 %3 %4 */"
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-29 16:46 ---
Subject: Re: Break in increment expression of "for" statement
inconsistent with g++
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
> What does a break with a statement expression do for each frontend? Is
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 16:40 ---
Subject: Re: New: Break in increment expression of "for" statement
inconsistent with g++
What does a break with a statement expression do for each frontend? Is
it even valid to have a break there(without a statement e
What does a break with a statement expression do for each frontend? Is
it even valid to have a break there(without a statement expression)?
If it is valid, what does each standard say about the break there? If
they say the same thing then I say both frontends should behave the
same but if the
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-29 16:36 ---
Subject: Re: New: Break in increment expression of "for"
statement inconsistent with g++
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, doug dot gregor at gmail dot com wrote:
> g++ seems to have the right behavior here, and in any case
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:30 ---
Fixed on the trunk, unfixed on the branch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:28 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=21040)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21040&action=view)
gcc46-pr43801.patch
Untested fix.
I think for !DECL_ONE_ONLY decls we can put the virtual clone in the same
sect
The following program exhibits different behavior with gcc vs. g++:
dgregor$ cat t.c
#include
int main()
{
int i;
for( i = 0; i < 3; )
for( ; ; ({ i++; break; }) )
printf( "%d\n", i );
}
With gcc, the break in the statement expression applies to the outer "for"
loop, so we get jus
--- Comment #4 from froydnj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:57 ---
Subject: Bug 44713
Author: froydnj
Date: Tue Jun 29 15:57:06 2010
New Revision: 161540
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161540
Log:
PR bootstrap/44713
* config/i386/i386.c (type
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:43 ---
Fixed then.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIR
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:24 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:20 ---
also, please check whether this is the same issue as Bug 43819 (did you search
for existing bugs with "cannot compute suffix" before entering a bug?)
It's likely you need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH so that libgmp etc can b
--- Comment #11 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:15 ---
I can reproduce now. It's also the non-bootstrapped compiler failing with
the testcase, thanks for that. I'm on it.
--
matz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:09 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> sudo make
There's no need to build as root.
> Then I found out I needed GMP, MPFR, and MPC installed. I downloaded the
> packages to my desktop and built and installed them, several times si
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 14:57 ---
> Yes, but I'm asking if it was a bootstrapped compiler (in difference to one
> built with configuring with --disable-bootstrap) or not.
>
> If it was a bootstrapped compiler, are you saying that bootstrap fails with
--- Comment #9 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:48 ---
Yes, but I'm asking if it was a bootstrapped compiler (in difference to one
built with configuring with --disable-bootstrap) or not.
If it was a bootstrapped compiler, are you saying that bootstrap fails with
r161501 (
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 14:36 ---
> Is /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc a bootstrapped compiler or one created without
> bootstrapping?
Sorry for the confusion. /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc was built with revision
161462 and the patch of revision 161496 (see
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 14:31 ---
More errors/warnings on i386.c:
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function
'ix86_function_arg_advance':
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:6086:5: error: passing argument 3 of
'function_arg_advance_64'
I am trying to install the new version of gcc and am getting an error in the
process.
Version of gcc: 4.5.0
System type: Ubuntu 10.04
I downloaded the package gcc-4.5.0.tar.gz from
ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/languages/gcc/releases/gcc-4.5.0/ and extracted the
file to my Desktop directory and I t
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:19 ---
My build fails with (x86_64):
libbackend.a(i386.o): In function `ix86_setup_incoming_varargs':
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:7050: undefined reference
to `function_arg_advance'
collect2: ld r
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:15 ---
The patch also misses doc/tm.texi pieces.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44713
On Linux/x86, revison 161530:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01448.html
caused:
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c: At top level:
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:30995:8: error: initialization from
incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:30
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=21039)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21039&action=view)
gcc46-pr44694.patch
Updated patch that actually passed bootstrap/regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux. When
--- Comment #2 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:56 ---
Mine.
Patch 0005 of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02250.html
fixes exactly this problem. I have not yet worked on correcting the patch
as Richi asked.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:47 ---
Is /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc a bootstrapped compiler or one created without
bootstrapping?
The initial comment didn't reveal it, so maybe my assumption that it's a
miscompiled cc1 is wrong. So, just to be crystal clea
--- Comment #14 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:44 ---
Subject: Bug 43902
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Jun 29 13:43:57 2010
New Revision: 161533
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161533
Log:
PR target/43902
* config/arm/arm.md (maddsidi4
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 13:30 ---
The backtrace for the reduced test of comment #5 is
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address: 0x0022
0x0001007c320a in execute_vrp ()
(g
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-06-29 13:25 ---
Subject: Re: New: Debug info for partially inlined
functions
Thanks for opening PR on this. One thing I was planning to look into soon is
to make
progress at least reversible - i.e. find way to declare the fact th
Thanks for opening PR on this. One thing I was planning to look into soon is
to make
progress at least reversible - i.e. find way to declare the fact that function
is part
of another in GCC and make inliner to produce the problem block tree after
inlining
them back together.
I wonder what the r
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 13:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=21038)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21038&action=view)
reduced test
The reduced test gives an ICE:
[macbook] f90/bug% /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc -c -O2 genmodes.c
genm
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:16 ---
4.5 patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02896.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43905
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:10 ---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44133
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 29 13:08:46 2010
New Revision: 161532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161532
Log:
2010-06-29 Martin Jambor
Backport from mainline
/* { dg-options "-g -O2" } */
extern void abort (void);
extern void exit (int);
extern int printf (const char *, ...);
static int
foo (int x)
{
typedef int T;
T z = 2 * x;
if (x <= 0)
{
printf ("foo\n");
printf ("foo\n");
printf ("foo\n");
exit (0);
}
return
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 12:24 ---
Fixed on the trunk. Probably not worth to fix on the branch though as it
is a checking-only ICE.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 12:12 ---
Subject: Bug 44667
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 29 12:12:10 2010
New Revision: 161527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161527
Log:
2010-06-29 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/44667
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 12:07 ---
Note that the issue is that PRE pessimizes code by transforming
if (D.3841_10 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
goto ;
:
pos_11 = i_24 + 1;
:
# pos_1 = PHI
# limit_4 = PHI
i_13 = i_24 + 1;
to
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 12:06 ---
On revision 161462 with the patch of revision 161496 I have located the problem
in:
static void
create_modes (void)
{
/* make_int_mode ("BI", 1, 1, "../../work/gcc/machmode.def", 176); */
make_int_mode ("QI", -1U, 1
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
