http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45261
ats changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||atstivalet at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from ats
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46930
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46930
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-15
06:03:45 UTC ---
Many thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40894
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46845
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46928
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 05:04:34
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Dec 15 05:04:30 2010
New Revision: 167842
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167842
Log:
Fix PR45948: add ssa defs from builtin partitions to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46845
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 05:04:52
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Dec 15 05:04:50 2010
New Revision: 167844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167844
Log:
Fix PR46845: handle scop parameters before scev anal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46928
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-15 05:04:43
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Wed Dec 15 05:04:40 2010
New Revision: 167843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167843
Log:
Fix PR46928: handle "A[p] == A[p]" in data dep analy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46954
Summary: FDEs possibly left unsorted in unwind-dw2-fde.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
Janis Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46924
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #53 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
03:19:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #51)
> > which I assume should have be a change to...
> >
> > ! base_section = darwin_text_section (weak);
>
> Ah, yes. Sorry for the typo. Does it ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46953
Summary: [4.6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #52 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
03:14:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22760
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22760
reduced patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
Summary: Spurious "recursive call" error with type bound
procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
02:08:44 UTC ---
should be ok now - I had configured with --enable-libstdcxx-time=rt which meant
I didn't need -pthread, so the tests passed for me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
02:07:11 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Dec 15 02:07:07 2010
New Revision: 167839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167839
Log:
2010-12-15 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
01:59:59 UTC ---
doh - I need to add -pthread to the dg-options - fix on the way...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
Hin-Tak Leung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.0, 4.5.1
--- Comment #3 from Hin-Tak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #51 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15 01:52:59
UTC ---
> which I assume should have be a change to...
>
> ! base_section = darwin_text_section (weak);
Ah, yes. Sorry for the typo. Does it make any difference?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44897
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-02 20:21:12 |2010-12-14 20:21:12
--- Comment #7 from Jan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-15 01:41:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> it only seems to fail on i686, this run failed too:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01246.html
I got this on Fedora 14/x86-64 with gcc configur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-15
01:37:50 UTC ---
it only seems to fail on i686, this run failed too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01246.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
Summary: 30_threads/future/members/45133.cc failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46893
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #50 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-15
01:18:18 UTC ---
I noticed that the proposed patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html also seems to have an
error here...
*** machopic_select_section (tree decl,
**
. -I../../../../gcc/libquadmath -g -O2 -m64 -MT math/frexpq.lo
-
MD -MP -MF math/.deps/frexpq.Tpo -c ../../../../gcc/libquadmath/math/frexpq.c
-
fno-common -DPIC -o math/.libs/frexpq.o
make[1]: *** [all-target-libada] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
d...@macpro-xp:~/gnu/gcc/objdir/prev-gcc$ ./xgcc -B./ -v
Reading specs from ./specs
COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=./lto-wrapper
Target: i686-apple-darwin9
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --build=i686-apple-darwin9
--host=i686-apple-darwin9 --target=i686-apple-darwin9 --with-tune=generic
--prefix=/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6.0 --with-gmp=/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6.0
--enable-debug=no --disable-nls
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-java-gc=boehm
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101214 (experimental) [trunk revision 167825] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:44:25 UTC ---
Filled in the GNU LD bug as
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12323
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31403
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima 2010-12-15
00:36:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I am getting the same error using gcc 4.4.5 20101112 (Red Hat 4.4.5-2),
> with Fedora 13 on an 64 bit machine/OS.
Which version of gcc do you use for sour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46930
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2010-12-15
00:35:20 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 15 00:35:17 2010
New Revision: 167834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167834
Log:
PR c++/46930
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Rej
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-15 00:28:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> Uh, this is getting confusing. We are really tracking 3 problems iteracting
> with each other (and prevosly hidding each other)
indeed.
> 1) darwin_text_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2010-12-15 00:15:24 UTC ---
It's weak, alias("...").
"At present, a declaration to which weakref is attached can only be static."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:12:54 UTC ---
... but obviously the problem still is that we don't devirtualize this early
enough for inlining. The low level code should be able to do so if FRE+CCP was
added as early pass or FRE w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:10:45 UTC ---
No, this is different, since OBJ_TYPE_REF is sitting here and it imply type
conversion in the way we implement it right now.
There is no type mismatch in between the original address an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46949
Summary: ICE when weakref is used on a definition (internal
compiler error: in function_and_variable_visibility,
at ipa.c:904)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #48 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-15
00:06:12 UTC ---
Uh, this is getting confusing. We are really tracking 3 problems iteracting
with each other (and prevosly hidding each other)
1) darwin_text_section returns unlikely_text section that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45631
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:52:45 UTC ---
I guess it is the simple algorithm we use to work out most common value.
We end up with
Trying transformations on stmt p_1(D) ();
Indirect call value:12 match:48 all:90.
The most commo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 23:51:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The patch I had in mind
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
With this patch applied on top of revision 167812 without any of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #46 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 23:44:20
UTC ---
a better prune
Index: gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
===
--- gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp(revision 167813)
+++ gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 23:43:04
UTC ---
the majority of fails are now:
warning: no debug symbols in executable (-arch x)
which is probably not good news ..
(but possibly a dsymutil issue)...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 23:39:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 22758
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22758
merge between Honza's and Iain's patches
combined patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-14
23:35:29 UTC ---
I believe Richi's comment #14 in PR 46076 applies here as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44966
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-14
23:27:20 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:27:17 2010
New Revision: 167823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167823
Log:
2010-12-14 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/45
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:24:20 UTC ---
Note that the fix solves the problem just partly. We now have duplicate
definition of the symbol with -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=1to1
This is because the problem in can_prev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:22:27 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:22:23 2010
New Revision: 167822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167822
Log:
PR lto/46940
PR lto/44463
* lto-symtab.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:22:27 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:22:23 2010
New Revision: 167822
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167822
Log:
PR lto/46940
PR lto/44463
* lto-symtab.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #43 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
23:21:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The patch I had in mind
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
>
> The hunk
> Index: gcc/opts.c
> ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:17:13 UTC ---
Eh,
wanted to paste:
D.2236_10 = (int (*__vtbl_ptr_type) (void)) f;
OBJ_TYPE_REF(D.2236_10;D.2215_3->2) (D.2215_3);
I told ccp should IMO optimize it, but doesn't. I guess it is bec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
23:15:16 UTC ---
OK, main() code seems to optimize out that is an imrovement. Is it optimized
away with your patch pre-IPA too?
Derived() is also devirtualizable:
Derived::Derived() (struct Derived *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46948
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Undefined reference errors, LTO, and
visibility
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
nsupported tests1
=== g++ Summary ===
# of unsupported tests2
/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++ version 4.6.0 20101214
(experimental) [trunk revision 167812p3] (GCC)
I'll apply the Honza's patch and regtest during the night.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 22:46:09
UTC ---
> well, unless some interaction from the typo.. (possible) .. AFAICT most of the
> fallout is multiple definitions of .eh symbols...
Actually forcing hot&cold sections to coincide migh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46947
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46910
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-14
22:13:31 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 14 22:13:26 2010
New Revision: 167819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167819
Log:
2010-12-14 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46947
Summary: Segmentation Fault compiling templates with function
pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #40 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 21:37:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> I posted the fixes, but it should not affect
> -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition.
> Any idea what is going wrong here?
well, unless some interaction from t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
21:32:15 UTC ---
The patch I had in mind
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
The hunk
Index: gcc/opts.c
===
--- gcc/o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14
21:28:12 UTC ---
I posted the fixes, but it should not affect -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition.
Any idea what is going wrong here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46946
Summary: contradiction in docs for -Ofast and -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45330
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Froyd 2010-12-14
20:31:30 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Tue Dec 14 20:31:22 2010
New Revision: 167814
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167814
Log:
gcc/cp/
PR c++/45330
* cp-tree.h (suggest_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46520
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression]|[4.6 Regression]
|libqu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |*-apple-darwin{9,10}
Host|x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46891
Ralf Wildenhues changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 20:05:43 UTC ---
> fails in 28, 29 and 31 are still present.
On which platform do you see the failures in 28? I don't see them on
x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0 when doing a full test of g++.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #35 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 19:53:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
> the failures in comments #29 and #31.
no, you are correct - I think we now ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31403
--- Comment #8 from Stephen.Bartlett at opentv dot com 2010-12-14 19:48:20 UTC
---
I am getting the same error using gcc 4.4.5 20101112 (Red Hat 4.4.5-2),
with Fedora 13 on an 64 bit machine/OS.
Are you aware of a solution, or any limitations u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/unpack_zerosize_1.f90
FAILs with -ftree-vrp -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-fre
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46944
Summary: gcc should accept -fuse-linker-plugin only if linker
handles -plugin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-14 19:18:56
UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef struct
{
double z;
} Vector;
typedef struct
{
float *vertex;
float *normal;
} VertexArray;
typedef struct
{
Vector *vertex;
int num_vertex;
} Objec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 19:00:43 UTC ---
If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
the failures in comments #29 and #31.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44952
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 18:30:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I agree that this is better, though it still causes some regressions. I will
> now test the following variant:
>
> Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46943
Summary: Unnecessary ZERO_EXTEND
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-14 17:32:16
UTC ---
> minor update (this removes a test for reorder & partition + exceptions that is
> carried out too early)
This seem sane to me. I've also posted more fixed to function partitioning
tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-14 17:26:11 UTC ---
If the conclusion is that the callee can rely on the caller having done
the extension then you need to watch out for security issues in the kernel
syscall ABI when bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-14 17:24:39
UTC ---
I can see a different error than what reported:
glcells.c:846:12: internal compiler error: in chrec_component_in_loop_num, at
tree-chrec.c:758
I'm reducing the testcase using delta.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 17:16:39
UTC ---
minor update (this removes a test for reorder & partition + exceptions that is
carried out too early)
Tests for reorder + exceptions and reorder + unwind are carried out in opts.c
now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-14
17:13:19 UTC ---
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
unsigned long f1 (unsigned int a, int b, unsigned short c, short d, unsigned
char e, signed char f)
{
return (unsigned long) a + b + c + d + e + f;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45544
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2010-12-14
17:09:47 UTC ---
With the patch from comment 21 applied on x86_64-apple-darwin10, I am seeing...
FAIL: gcc.dg/darwin-weakimport-3.c scan-assembler-not coalesced
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr25376.c scan-assembler m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-14
17:09:50 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 14 17:09:33 2010
New Revision: 167806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167806
Log:
2010-12-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/46
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
Summary: x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini 2010-12-14 16:48:20
UTC ---
Yes, I agree that excessive peppering of the code with register asm causes
worse performance. The interpreter is only placing the very hot ip and sp
registers in hard-coded registers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 16:46:19
UTC ---
PASS: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g -I. (test for excess errors)
line #35
<
__GLOBAL__sub_I__GCC_gcc_live_trunk_gcc_testsuite_g__.dg_pch_system_1.C_867072EB_0966702C:
> __GLOBAL__sub_I_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-14 16:44:09 UTC ---
Partial tests (x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0) with the patch in comment #21 (with
the one in comment #7 reverted) show that the pr is fixed, but it introduces at
least one regressi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46654
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 16:41:02
UTC ---
more of a problem is:
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 assembly comparison
F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-14 16:39:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > Running /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
> > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
