--- Comment #6 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 09:41 ---
Subject: Bug 41843
Author: olga
Date: Tue Dec 8 09:41:13 2009
New Revision: 155084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155084
Log:
2009-12-07 Olga Golovanevsky
PR middle-e
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 14:43 ---
Subject: Bug 39806
Author: olga
Date: Mon Nov 30 14:42:54 2009
New Revision: 154811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154811
Log:
2009-11-30 Olga Golovanevsky
PR middle-e
--- Comment #6 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 16:57 ---
Subject: Bug 39960
Author: olga
Date: Fri Nov 20 16:57:35 2009
New Revision: 154374
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154374
Log:
2009-11-17 Olga Golovanevsky
PR middle-e
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-13 15:40 ---
Subject: Bug 35041
Author: olga
Date: Thu Mar 13 15:40:09 2008
New Revision: 133171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133171
Log:
2008-02-19 Alon Dayan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #67 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 10:26 ---
(In reply to comment #66)
> I looked wo_prof_global_var.c. The test passes with the above options.
> The floating point convert operations look similar to those with
> -fipa-struct-reorg. However, there&#
--- Comment #65 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 14:48 ---
(In reply to comment #64)
Oh, it's just what I suspected! Please look at the PR 34534 comment #4.
If so, there is still question why the tests do not fail without struct-reorg.
Or they fail? Can you please che
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 15:18 ---
The following test fixes the problem. Under the testing now.
Index: ipa-struct-reorg.c
===
--- ipa-struct-reorg.c (revision 131976)
+++ ipa-struct
--- Comment #3 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 15:11 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Eh, how is this a regression? Was struct-reorg in 4.2?
Of course not.
Olga
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #39 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 13:33 ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> With patch form comments #11 and #31, the executable for
> gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_mult_field_peeling.c segfault with -m64. I have used the
> 32 bit mode for -fprofile-generate
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 09:07 ---
Subject: Bug 34701
Author: olga
Date: Mon Jan 21 09:07:12 2008
New Revision: 131689
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131689
Log:
2008-01-21 Alon Dayan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #36 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 17:03 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Note that the test gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_mult_field_peeling.c pass for 32 and
> 64 bit modes on i686-apple-darwin9, so I am not sure that what follows will
> help.
Sorry, I meant
--- Comment #10 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> olga,
> even if the test case does not normally ice on your system, you be able to see
> the bug if you run the test with valgrind.
Kenny,
Thank you a lot for information. I was
--- Comment #34 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 13:28 ---
Dave, Dominique,
As I have no such execution failures on any one of machines, would you please
help me debugging the execution failures?
I am actually need the place where it fails and assembly files. The most
--- Comment #31 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-15 14:11 ---
I gave it another push. The following is a patch solving inconsistency of the
data structures in struct reorg, and releasing comparison with 0. Please try it
together with the Richard's patch. It should give
--- Comment #9 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 13:48 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Would you please try the Alon's patch from PR 34701?
I am not sure but may be it's related.
Thank you,
Olga
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34534
--- Comment #28 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 13:38 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
Would you please try the Alon's patch for PR 34701.
I am not sure but maybe it's related.
Thank you,
Olga
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34483
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 13:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok to submit this patch?
It looks good. Please bootstrap and submit along with the testcase.
Olga
> Alon
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34701
--- Comment #17 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-30 12:19 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I think this is related to PR 34472 and PR 34534
true.
Would you please see the comment #4 for PR 34534, and try it on your machine?
Thank you,
Olga
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-30 12:07 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Is the last 'if' always should be true? I mean on any system...
true->false, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34534
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-30 11:52 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=14802)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14802&action=view) [edit]
> Dump files
I looked a bit at the dump files you
--- Comment #12 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-28 19:28 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=14838)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14838&action=view) [edit]
> Patch for double free and iteration bug
> I'm seeing a
--- Comment #1 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-20 09:32 ---
Would you please provide me with the following:
-dump files for all failures (as you did for PR34472)
-configuration options you use
-at least initial debugging (where it fails)
Thank you,
Olga
--
http
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-19 18:57 ---
Thank you for debugging! Now I see approximately where it fails. Although I am
not sure that the following patch solves the issue, please try it, and let me
know whether it helps.
Thank you a lot,
Olga
Index: ipa
--- Comment #1 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-17 15:15 ---
Thank you a lot for debugging!
As I have not hpux system, and cannot reproduce this dug on x86 or ppc machine,
would you please help me to debug it?
In gcc/gcc/ipa-struct-reorg.c file, please comment out line 3915
--- Comment #1 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-17 14:08 ---
Unfortunately I cannot reproduce this failure on x86_64-linux system I have,
so I'll highly appreciate your help in debugging it.
If you could please comment out the following line from
wo_prof_malloc_size_var.c
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at rfc1149 dot net
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 22:06 ---
Two patches were provided by Samuel Tardieu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01427.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01426.html
Slightly modified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |olga at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #9 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-27 22:41 ---
FIXED.
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
29 matches
Mail list logo
