--- Comment #38 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-03 15:52
---
Fixed on 4.3 and 4.2.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #37 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-26 19:56
---
Subject: Bug 29516
Author: rakdver
Date: Fri Jan 26 19:56:05 2007
New Revision: 121214
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121214
Log:
PR tree-optimization/29516
* tree-ssa-addre
--- Comment #36 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 21:19
---
Patch for 4.2: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01941.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #35 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-01-19
03:02 ---
It appears that r118856, r119854 and r120156 be backported for the context of
the patch for r120695 to be correct in gcc 4.2 branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #34 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-01-17
23:38 ---
Also as the gfortran developers have pointed out, this bug is currently has a
target milestone 4.2.0 which implies it was intended to be fixed in gcc 4.2
branch as well. Unfortunately, I am having trouble
--- Comment #33 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-17 19:13 ---
I think 4.2 would be a better release with this patch in it, could we push this
into 4.2, thanks. Any concerns about the satefy of the patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #32 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 00:18
---
Subject: Bug 29516
Author: rakdver
Date: Fri Jan 12 00:17:50 2007
New Revision: 120695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120695
Log:
PR tree-optimization/29516
* tree-ssa-addre
--- Comment #31 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-11 09:02
---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00970.html
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-10 02:51 ---
Testing looks good:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00414.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #29 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 00:55
---
Created an attachment (id=12876)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12876&action=view)
A fixed patch.
Not quite, I forgot to rewrite several occurences of addr to addr_off in the
function. Here i
--- Comment #28 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-10 00:48 ---
Testing with:
--- tree-ssa-address.c.~2~ 2007-01-09 16:26:28.0 -0800
+++ tree-ssa-address.c 2007-01-09 16:34:10.0 -0800
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@
tree
tree_mem_ref_addr (tree type, tree mem_ref)
{
- tree
--- Comment #27 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-10 00:30 ---
Breaks the build:
../../gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-address.c: In function 'tree_mem_ref_addr':
../../gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-address.c:272: warning: 'addr' is used uninitialized in
this function
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #26 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-10 00:19 ---
Spinng a testsuite run now of Zdenek's patch...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #25 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 00:08
---
For -fPIC testcases, you should do:
/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #24 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-10 00:04
---
Created an attachment (id=12875)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12875&action=view)
A patch
I am testing the attached patch. It would be great if someone could test it on
i386-apple-darwin.
--- Comment #23 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2007-01-09 23:49 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran miscompiled
> So I'm wondering, does:
>
> Doing diffs in .:
> --- ./tree-ssa-address.c.~1~2006-12-22 21:07:11.0 -0800
> +++ ./tree-ssa-address.c2007
--- Comment #22 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-09 23:34 ---
So I'm wondering, does:
Doing diffs in .:
--- ./tree-ssa-address.c.~1~2006-12-22 21:07:11.0 -0800
+++ ./tree-ssa-address.c2007-01-09 15:30:42.0 -0800
@@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ addr_to_parts (aff_tree *a
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 20:52
---
Ok, a cross-compiler to i386-apple-darwin8.8.1 and -O -ftree-vrp -fPIC
reproduces the bug. Defering to Zdenek for a fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #20 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-09 20:46 ---
You have to add -fPIC to see the bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #19 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 20:45
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (which gcc version are the dumps created with?)
>
> First IVOPTs should not create pointer multiplication. Really. Second, the
> problem is probably in tree-vrp.c:adjust_range_with_sc
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 20:32
---
So what else is special about darwin? I built a --enable-targets=all compiler
and am using
./cc1 -quiet -O2 t.i -fdump-tree-ivopts -march=nocona -mtune=generic
can you report how you configured gcc and how you a
--- Comment #17 from mrs at apple dot com 2007-01-09 20:11 ---
Thanks delta:
$ ./xgcc -B./ -c -O t.i -fdump-tree-all && grep ' * 4294967292B;'
*.087t.ivopts
D.2035_3 = D.2034_2 * 4294967292B;
$ cat t.i
typedef struct gfc_se { int pre; } gfc_se;
typedef struct gfc_ss_info { int dim[7]
--- Comment #16 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 18:21 ---
Dumps from today's mainline (r120620) are at
http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tobias.schlueter/dump2.tar.bz2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #15 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 14:37 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (which gcc version are the dumps created with?)
Should be the trunk from 2006-11-25. Thanks for looking into this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29516
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 13:42
---
(which gcc version are the dumps created with?)
First IVOPTs should not create pointer multiplication. Really. Second, the
problem is probably in tree-vrp.c:adjust_range_with_scev () or SCEV itself -
I guess SCE
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 13:33
---
The problem is definitely the following overflowing mutliplication
which is introduced by ivopts (I'm looking at Tobias dump files):
D.27347_74 = (union tree_node * *) n_30;
D.27348_76 = D.27347_74 * 429496729
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 13:14
---
Do we know why this only fails on darwin? If it is a VRP bug we should be able
to produce a generic testcase.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.3.0 4.2.0
Last reconfirmed|2006-10-19 22:24:34 |2007-01
--- Comment #11 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 19:42 ---
We should maybe install the workaround if the optimizer bug doesn't get fixed
soon, as a Fortran FE that produces wrong code for most Fortran 90 codes is
probably not something we want.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-02 14:46
---
Hi Eric, any news on that one? It really is a pain, because it's apparently a
target-specific middle-end bug that miscompiles gfortran on a platform where
people are really starting to use it for production...
J
30 matches
Mail list logo
