[EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ gfortran f2c.F90 -fno-underscoring -c
cc1: warning: command line option "-fno-underscoring" is valid for F95 but not
for C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$
Where f2c.F90 is an existing file. -v output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tests]$ gfortran f2c.F90 -fno-underscoring -c -v
Using b
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
00:31 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I reckon this is already fixed by tree-ssa, or we'll be fixed by the incoming
> TARGET_MEM_REF work. Zdenek?
It is fixed via neither of the above but is fixed on the tree-profili
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
00:34 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18452 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
00:34 ---
*** Bug 20374 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
00:40 ---
Subject: Bug 17671
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-08 00:40:33
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-phiopt.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
00:41 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
Bug 17652 depends on bug 17671, which changed state.
Bug 17671 Summary: PHI-OPT is not smart enough
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17671
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 14442 depends on bug 17671, which changed state.
Bug 17671 Summary: PHI-OPT is not smart enough
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17671
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
01:21 ---
The testcase given above is already optimizated on the mainline via some of the
aliasing code on the
tree level but still needs to be more, witness 19905 or even the following
testcase which is basically
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
void g();
int
f(int s, int *a)
{
static int i;
for (i = 0; i < 800; i++)
{
g();
s += a[i];
}
return s;
}
But all of this needs to be on the tree level to be really effective.
This particular case is trivial to fix inside the tree optimizers.
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 01:36
---
Subject: Re: alias analysis doesn't take into
account that variables that haven't their address taken can't alias arbitrary
MEMs
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> void g();
> int
> f(int s, int *a)
>
The following C++ testcase, compiled on ia64-hp-hpux11.23 with -mlp64, yields
the following ICE (a regression in 4.0/4.1 relative to 3.4). This seems
to be target-specific.
t.cc: In member function 'virtual void*& c::f(float, u, ...)':
t.cc:9: internal compiler error: in assign_parm_find_entry_rt
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
01:54 ---
This could either be a target bug or a middle-end bug.
I am aiming for a target bug:
/* We assume at most one partial arg, and it must be the first
argument on the stack. */
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20375
--- Additional Comments From tprince at computer dot org 2005-03-08 02:18
---
Subject: Re: 20021014-1.c fails on account of
unsupported build option
At 07:10 AM 3/7/2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
>org 2005-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
02:24 ---
: Search converges between 2004-03-01-trunk (#446) and 2004-04-01-trunk (#447).
: Search converges between 2004-03-15-3.4 (#3) and 2004-04-01-3.4 (#4).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2033
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
02:31 ---
The diagnostic changed when the new parser was merged in (between 20021213 and
20021228).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20293
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
02:32 ---
: Search converges between 2002-10-15-trunk (#105) and 2002-10-16-trunk (#106).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20209
Induction variables are variables whose successive values form an arithmetic
progression over a loop. Induction variables are often divided into bivs
(basic induction variables), which are explicitly modified by
the same constant amount during each iteration of a loop, and gives (general
induct
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
03:13 ---
Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
Because variable i is static.
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:16
---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Why isn't the tree level loop I
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
Because variable i is static.
I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
-- Pinski
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-03-08
03:18 ---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new
rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> pinskia at g
Andrew Pinski wrote:
I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
Indeed. I misread 20376 as 20367. Sorry about that.
--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:20
---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
>
Inde
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 03:18 +, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
> 2005-03-08 03:18 ---
> Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the
> new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performan
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
03:30 ---
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of
general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause
performance degradation.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 03:18 +, pinskia at physics
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:44 ---
I just checked in a patch which should fix this problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
03:47 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--
Bug 17652 depends on bug 18133, which changed state.
Bug 18133 Summary: computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it
is found that they are not computed gotos at all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18133
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 18134 depends on bug 18133, which changed state.
Bug 18133 Summary: computed gotos are not folded back to regular gotos when it
is found that they are not computed gotos at all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18133
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
03:47 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
03:47 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http:/
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:49 ---
Fixed with today's checkin. I'll add a test to the testsuite too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18134
--- Additional Comments From renierm at us dot ibm dot com 2005-03-08
03:59 ---
I am experiencing the same exact problem with our project
http://openhpi.sf.net.
gcov_exit() segfaults when the project is compiled with -fprofile-arcs and
-ftest-coverage using gcc-3.4.x, and unit t
Environment : i686-pc-linux-gnu
Compiler Version : GCC 2.96
Kernel Version: 2.4.20-8 (Redhat 9)
I am not able to do the installation of GCC 2.96 on Redhat 9.
Configuration is happening successfully. But, while giving the make, it is
failing with the below given error message.
make[1]:
Environment : i686-pc-linux-gnu
Compiler Version : GCC 2.96
Kernel Version: 2.4.20-8 (Redhat 9)
I am not able to do the installation of GCC 2.96 on Redhat 9.
Configuration is happening successfully. But, while giving the make, it is
failing with the below given error message.
make[1]:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
04:11 ---
Well 2.96 is dead so closing as such, also the problem is that you are using
the wrong version of
autoheader.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
04:11 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20377 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
04:11 ---
*** Bug 20378 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20377
--- Additional Comments From ramya dot chandar at wipro dot com 2005-03-08
04:42 ---
Subject: Re: GCC 2.96 installation fails on Redhat 9 version
Are we not supposed to use GCC 2.96 ???
If we can use GCC 2.96, what is the version of autoheader needs to be
used and where will be avail
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
04:49 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: GCC 2.96 installation fails on Redhat 9 version
>
>
> Are we not supposed to use GCC 2.96 ???
No, it was a snapshot and not an official release version of GCC. Als
--- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
05:08 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The testcase given above is already optimizated on the mainline via some of
the aliasing code on the
> tree level but still needs to be more, witness 19905 or even the following
t
--- Additional Comments From ramya dot chandar at wipro dot com 2005-03-08
05:42 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Environment : i686-pc-linux-gnu
> Compiler Version : GCC 2.96
> Kernel Version: 2.4.20-8 (Redhat 9)
>
> I am not able to do the installation of GCC 2.96 on Redhat 9
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
05:49 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Please do clarify me.
I will help you for one million US dollars.
On a more serious note, 2.96 is not supported at all by the FSF. Either pay me
or pay someone else like
redhat
--- Additional Comments From uros at kss-loka dot si 2005-03-08 06:29
---
Patch for mainline awaiting review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00644.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17688
--- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 06:47
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20280] hoist indirect_ref out of addressable cond_exprs
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:04 -0800, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your reading is logical, but it depends on exactly what
--- Additional Comments From tsandnes at atmel dot no 2005-03-08 07:07
---
Subject: Re: Overflowed address in dwarf debug line information
> I applied the GCC and binutil patches to ensure that my gcc is the same as
> that
> used in WinAVR Feb14/05 distribution. I then built libc1.
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08
07:24 ---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
On Mar 7, 2005, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (a) we should never use "==" to compare types, because there's
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-08 07:45
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> So think of it this way: if we adopted COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPR like
> you're inclined to do, we'd ha
101 - 151 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
