http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-08-07
02:26:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 27954
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27954
Patch that fixes (or works around?) the problem
We have a relatively large expression to represent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2012-07-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #26 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
22:58:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> 185939 is the number of basic blocks that end up in livein. That is a bitmap,
> so most time is spent in traversing bitmap linked lists.
Oh, and this do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
Chip Salzenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip at pobox dot com
--- Comment #13 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #25 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
22:42:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The tree loop optimizers spend 285s out of 1360s total compile time (with my
> flatten hack and ifcvt patch applied) in compute_global_livein. That's 21%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54188
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-08-06 21:10:54 UTC ---
My conclusion in bug 52023 was that _Alignof should differ from
__alignof__ to meet the standard requirements (but really the standard
didn't have such strange ABIs i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-06 21:03:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > Related ToDos:
> > 1) check shape of dummy function results (in 'gfc_compare_interfaces')
> > 2) check shape of func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #24 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
20:55:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created attachment 27953 [details]
Needs this extra bit:
diff -u ira.c ira.c
--- ira.c (working copy)
+++ ira.c (working copy)
@@ -3539,7 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-06 20:36:23 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Aug 6 20:36:16 2012
New Revision: 190187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190187
Log:
2012-08-06 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
20:22:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 27953
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27953
Be memory friendlier in build_insn_chain
My first ever reload patch! :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54176
--- Comment #4 from Tommy Thorn 2012-08-06
19:42:45 UTC ---
FWIW, it works in 4.5.3. I can narrow down the range if that's helpful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54186
--- Comment #4 from Ionut Popescu 2012-08-06
19:38:37 UTC ---
I'm sorry for posting it wrong.
First, I can't use other compiler (a newer one), it not depends on me...
Second, I figured out where is the problem: realloc()!
The problem is that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #22 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
19:36:35 UTC ---
IRA/reload spends a rather significant amount of time here:
FOR_EACH_BB_REVERSE (bb)
{
bitmap_iterator bi;
rtx insn;
CLEAR_REG_SET (live_relevant_regs);
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54188
--- Comment #3 from Keith Thompson
2012-08-06 19:28:37 UTC ---
The results of the _Alignof operator (new in the 2011 ISO C standard)
are the same as for the __alignof__ operator (not surprisingly).
N1370 (C11 draft) 6.5.3.4 paragraph 3 says:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54036
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54036
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-06 18:06:46 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Aug 6 18:06:42 2012
New Revision: 190186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190186
Log:
2012-08-06 Paolo Carlini
* tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54036
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-06 18:00:11 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Aug 6 18:00:00 2012
New Revision: 190185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190185
Log:
2012-08-06 Peter Bergner
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54186
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-06
17:31:05 UTC ---
A testcase would be nice.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #6 from architectbum at hotmail dot com 2012-08-06 17:18:26 UTC ---
I don't have this_thread::sleep_for in my build, but presumably it wouldn't
help as the segfault comes inside the pthread_cond_wait function. The testcase
as written al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52005
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52005
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-06 16:38:52
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Aug 6 16:38:48 2012
New Revision: 190184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190184
Log:
2012-08-06 Marc Glisse
gcc/
PR tree-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-06 16:38:52
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Aug 6 16:38:48 2012
New Revision: 190184
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190184
Log:
2012-08-06 Marc Glisse
gcc/
PR tree-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
15:36:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Yay, it's always nice to be right the first time when diagnosing a problem.
The tree loop optimizers spend 285s out of 1360s total compile time (with my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54190
Bug #: 54190
Summary: TYPE(*)/assumed-rank: Type/rank check too relaxed for
dummy procedure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-06
14:30:31 UTC ---
Thanks very much. For this sort of test it doesn't need to fail every time, the
GCC testsuite is run often enough on a wide enough variety of systems that even
if the test only fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53701
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #3 from architectbum at hotmail dot com 2012-08-06 14:20:03 UTC ---
Because the problem is in thread-handling code, it's impossible to create a
completely deterministic testcase; however, the newly-attached testcase.cc
(compiled with 'g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #2 from architectbum at hotmail dot com 2012-08-06 14:19:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 27952
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27952
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54189
Bug #: 54189
Summary: ICE (segfault) with invalid assumed-size dummy
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-08-06 12:20:47 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-08-02
> 15:17:25 UTC ---
>> If I replace only the ld from GNU Binutils 2.21.x with the ld from 2.20.x
>> then
>> the co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-06
11:58:07 UTC ---
Looks good to me (aka, ok if it bootstraps & regtests). Thanks for fixing
this.
Yes, the PTA dumps in -pre are annoying (PTA is triggered by a TODO here ...).
I'll put it on my TO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54150
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27929|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-06
11:41:27 UTC ---
There is no straight-forward place to handle transform of
:
if (i_2(D) != j_3(D))
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
D.1715_4 = i_2(D) - j_3(D);
:
# D.1715_1 = PHI
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47489
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #30 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
10:49:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27950
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27950
Split insn-emit.c into four separate files
Untested, etc., and doesn't apply to GCC 4.7 because i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10360
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Keith.S.Thompson at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54188
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54186
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-06
10:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I hope I posted ok.
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-06
10:01:49 UTC ---
I don't see in the testsuite something identical to Jason's Comment #3, thus to
be safe I'm adding it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54165
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54165
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54165
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-06 09:49:45 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Aug 6 09:49:39 2012
New Revision: 190175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190175
Log:
/cp
2012-08-06 Marc Glisse
Pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54161
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54188
--- Comment #1 from Keith Thompson
2012-08-06 09:33:43 UTC ---
Forgot to mention: I compiled and executed the demo program as follows:
gcc alignof_bug.c -o alignof_bug && ./alignof_bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54188
Bug #: 54188
Summary: Inconsistent __alignof__(long long)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
wbrana changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #29 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-06
09:10:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Actually, I'm more interested in seeing if insn-emit.c can be reduced in size
> by avoiding duplicate functions (see e.g. gen_swapdi/gen_swapsi/gen_swapx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #20 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-08-06 09:09:02 UTC ---
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> Ick, I suppose similar issues exist on the tree level for passes that
> think that memory / compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
--- Comment #2 from wbrana 2012-08-06 08:57:43 UTC ---
Executables are smaller and loads faster with -fvisibility=hidden.
Since which version -fvisibility=hidden is enabled by default?
4.7.2 pre doesn't use -fvisibility=hidden by default.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
wbrana changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-06
08:45:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > if-conversion : 177.26 (but due to loop_optimizer_init)
>
> Hmm, this is not loop_optimizer_init. All time i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #28 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-06
08:42:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> Well, when I read on the documentation page
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
>
>
> --enable-build-with-cxx
> Build GCC using a C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53986
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-06 08:37:51 UTC ---
> This tentative patch fixes the problem. I'm currently testing it, let's see if
> I run into any trouble.
Committed in r190168.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54182
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54170
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-06
08:32:28 UTC ---
I think those errors indicate you don't have Flex installed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54186
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-*-linux
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
--- Comment #4 from Arnaud Charlet 2012-08-06
08:12:18 UTC ---
Author: charlet
Date: Mon Aug 6 08:12:10 2012
New Revision: 190163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190163
Log:
2012-08-06 Vincent Pucci
PR ada/54125
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54187
Bug #: 54187
Summary: liblto_plugin.so broken with -fvisibility=hidden
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54170
--- Comment #8 from bekenn at yopmail dot com 2012-08-06 08:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> If submitter can try current 4_7-branch or mainline, it would be easy for him
> to double check.
I installed mint in a virtual machine to test tho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54186
Bug #: 54186
Summary: PowerPC: Double free, same malloc address for two
pointers after free
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53901
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54170
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
80 matches
Mail list logo
