https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm sorry, I don't understand how to get the information from the recent
changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/?id=0562e17bd04b65aebff4721db05631b9f34af146
and
https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
This is the change I made to report warnings when was
maybe_complain_about_tail_call called:
heine:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline/gcc> git diff
diff --git a/gcc/calls.cc b/gcc/calls.cc
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #12 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> We can't just warn on all calls, most of them obviously aren't in tail call
> positions and such warning would have extreme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #8 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
What I have in mind is along the lines of the patch I proposed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626368.html
That adds a warning to -Wdisabled-optimization for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
What initially got me investigating this is that
(a) these tail calls were not optimized by GCC 14 and I got segfaults, so
(b) I added musttail and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #3 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Originally I understood musttail to be "It's crucial that this call be
optimized, fail and tell me why if you can't do it", without changing whether a
call is optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 61068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61068&action=edit
test file
This is the file with the single incident of __attribute__((musttail)).
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lucier at math dot purdue.edu
Target Milestone: ---
I built the Gambit Scheme system with this compiler:
/pkgs/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #35 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #33)
> > It is my understanding that with the set of patches related to this PR, GCC
> > 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #33 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Sorry, I screwed up and fired off my comment before it was finished. Here's
the rest:
(c) With today's GCC mainline head, those tail calls *are* optimized, as
confirmed with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||feeley at iro dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #10 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 60738 [details]
> gcc15-pr116545.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
I built and minimally tested this patch, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #11 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 60745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60745&action=edit
Test summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #8 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 60738 [details]
> gcc15-pr116545.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
I don't know how to apply this patch to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>
> does that for C.
I built mainline with these changes, and the resulting compiler builds Gambit
without complaint or error.
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
A pre-release of GCC 15 is now in Fedora Rawhide, and building Gambit Scheme
fails with this issue: https://github.com/gambit/gambit/issues/949
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #33 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I don't know what the issues are about whether to support __attribute__,
whether the notation is obsolete or nonstandard.
If gcc doesn't support this notation, it might lead to jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #31 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Are there plans to support the __attribute__((musttail)) notation for C code?
It appears that with
heine:~/programs/gambit/gambit> clang -v
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.0-1ubuntu1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #30 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks.
I asked for some help in testing this new attribute at gcc-help:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2024-August/143676.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #45 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I confirm that I no longer have this problem with
> gcc-12 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-12
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/12/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #146 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Here are a few memory and time statistics picked from report-compiler4 that
seem to be more extreme than the others
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #145 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 54424
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54424&action=edit
CPU and Memory usage reports for mainline 13.0.1 (mainline)
Thank you for looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #141 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 52027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52027&action=edit
CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #17 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #16)
> Created attachment 52026 [details]
> CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
Sorry, added comment to wrong PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 52026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52026&action=edit
CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #140 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #139)
> Does anyone have recent #s on this testcase?
I downloaded all.i.gz from
https://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/gcc/test-files/bugzilla/1/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #58 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks. Brad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #54 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
After an update to Fink's dejagnu, I got similar results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #51 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm running fink:
i expect 5.45-206Tool for automatic interactive applications
i dejagnu 1.6.1-1 Framework for testing other programs
i tcltk 1:8.6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #49 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
> > and "make; make -k check".
>
> Which, presumably, succeeded [repeatably?] (also presumably with some
> failing tests, since we don't have a clean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #47 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I downloaded
[Bradleys-Mac-mini:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline] lucier% git log -1 --oneline
2254b3233b5 (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD) PR
middle-end/100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #25 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks, I'll just use an older compiler for building Gambit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #23 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
With the mainline compiler
git log -1 --oneline
0c0bdcc60cf (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90: Fix omp_depend_kind
the Gambit bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #18 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I can't see to build mainline on this machine, it fails with
../../../gcc-mainline/gcc/rtl.h:4547:42: error: use of undeclared identifier
'TARGET_ISA_64BIT'
&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I have figured out how to build and then run the app in lldb to reliably
reproduce the error.
To configure and build Gambit, the Scheme->C compiler:
51 8:56mkdir gambit-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> the values of rbp. r10 and esi would be interesting too.
I'm not really familiar with assembler, don't know what register esi is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #12 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #11)
> is this specific to macOS? (or is it unknown if the effect would also show
> on Linux)?
It does not show up on Linux with gcc-10.3.0.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #10 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> >
> > > yes please - also the origi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #9 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> >
> > > yes please - also the origi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #7 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> yes please - also the original source, if that's OK?
It's highly macrofied C code with a lot of "includes"; is the .i file not
enough?
Brad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #5 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I didn't have this trouble with 10.2 or 9.3; should I add these to the "Known
to work" field?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50639
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50639&action=edit
Gzipped assembly file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50638
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50638&action=edit
preprocessed source file
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lucier at math dot purdue.edu
Target Milestone: ---
With this compiler:
[Bradleys-Mac-mini:~] lucier% /usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #37 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50352&action=edit
Smaller parameterized test file
This file is generated from a single copy of the fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #35 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50345&action=edit
Parametrized input files for test coverage testing.
These are the .i files that go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #34 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I decided to approach this a bit more methodically by generating a series of
synthetic programs, each twice as long as the previous, and to measure the
compilation time. I'll attac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #32 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I don't know precisely what you're saying, but it compiles fine without the
instrumentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #30 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm coming back to this project.
I naively thought "Well, I don't need arc profiling, I'll just set
-ftest-coverage without -fprofile-arcs" but it appears that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84829
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #23 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I tried the mainline compiler with the smaller input file on a similar machine
to the one in the original report.
I don't know whether I've configured the compiler incorrectly or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #132 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 37763
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37763&action=edit
Detailed time/memory report when compiling _num.i
Generated with
heine:~/Downloads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #131 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 37761
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37761&action=edit
time/memory report compiling _num.i with -O2
This bug, perhaps related,
https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
The problem does not appear with this compiler:
maclaurin-271% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #5 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 34681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34681&action=edit
_io.i.gz: larger test file
With this compiler:
firefly:~/Downloads/gambit/lib>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #4 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
On 02/03/2015 04:32 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Note phase opt and generate is a toplevel time area.
> The passes which take
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 34660
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34660&action=edit
Input file for bug
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lucier at math dot purdue.edu
With this compiler:
firefly:~/Downloads/gambit/lib> /pkgs/gcc-4.9.2/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
This was fixed by the patch for PR61106 and backported to 4.8 and 4.9, so it
should be closed as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41176
--- Comment #15 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2013-01-08 00:49:30 UTC ---
I can't build today's mainline:
libtool: compile: /homes/lucier/programs/gcc/objdirs/mainline/./gcc/xgcc
-shared-libgcc -B/homes/lucier/programs/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37448
--- Comment #46 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2012-10-26 02:05:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 28534
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28534
memory and time statistics for compiling lgwam.c
With today's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32719
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32537
--- Comment #3 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2012-01-21 05:22:40 UTC ---
It seems bootstrap fails at a earlier place.
With this compiler:
godel-257% /homes/lucier/pkgs/gcc-4.6.2-64/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/homes/lucier
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32537
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2012-01-20 16:26:26 UTC ---
I found a PPC64 machine, so I'll test it.
Brad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32719
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2012-01-14 00:26:46 UTC ---
I no longer have a machine to test it on.
Brad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-08 20:54:18 UTC ---
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 20:37 +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
>
> --- Comment #12 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #10 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-08 18:32:56 UTC ---
Near the end of section 5.3.2 of
Book E:
Enhanced PowerPC Architecture
Version 1.0
May 7, 2002
it says
Any instruction that generates a QNaN as the result of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #9 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-08 17:05:43 UTC ---
Table 4.7 of the
AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual Volume 1:
Application Programming
has a footnote 3 that says
3. The floating-point indefinite value is a QNaN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-08 14:31:23 UTC ---
PS: I don't know whether IEEE says anything about the sign bit, but I doubt
it.
Brad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #5 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-08 14:30:00 UTC ---
Re:
Do the architecture manuals say anything about the sign of the qnan?
Amazingly enough, they do!
I downloaded the combined x86-64 manuals from
http
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #3 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-07 21:07:09 UTC ---
I've looked through the code in real.c a bit (and perhaps the component of this
bug report should be changed).
It appears that do_divide, when given 0.0/0.0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-12-07 19:55:32 UTC ---
I don't understand what you're saying.
On my linux box
heine:~/Downloads> uname -a
Linux heine 3.0.0-13-generic #22-Ubuntu SMP Wed Nov 2 13:27:26 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
Bug #: 51446
Summary: -fno-trapping-math generates NaN constant with
different sign
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #122 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-04-02 17:05:10 UTC ---
Just to be clear, the command to do the test is
gsi/gsi -e '(define a (expt 3 1))(set! *bench-bignum-fft* #t)(define b
(* a a))'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #121 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-04-02 16:58:16 UTC ---
I'm inclined to close this as "Fixed" for 4.6.0.
I've taken the file mentioned in the previous comment and followed the
instructions in the read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #120 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 22:00:22 UTC ---
At
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/bugzilla/15/
I've put a tarfile and instructions that allow one to build Gambit-C in
a way that splits out the FFT code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #119 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 19:55:54 UTC ---
It's nearly impossible to examine the assembly code responsible for the FFT in
the package I set up in the previous comment. If you want a runtime benchmark
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #118 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-10 18:50:12 UTC ---
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:59 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hm, there doesn't seem to be a runtime testcase attached to this bug, so I
> ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
--- Comment #116 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu 2011-03-04 16:09:13 UTC ---
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:59 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
>
> --- Comment #115 from Richard
82 matches
Mail list logo
