--- Comment #45 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2007-11-11 09:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Quadratic behavior with many sets for
the same register in VRP
Because it costs more than it brings: compile time on average goes
_up_ with that patch.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 10:06
---
Created an attachment (id=14529)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14529&action=view)
Patch that marks $gp as being live on nonlocal jumps
"daney at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> write
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk 2007-11-11 10:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] MIPS: FAIL in nestfunc-6.c at -O3
Er, sorry, s/without nonlocal_goto/with nonlocal_goto/ in the patch's
comment.
Richard
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32406
The following code
void f(unsigned *_bss_start, unsigned *_bss_end)
{
unsigned *p;
for (p = _bss_start; p < _bss_end; p++)
*p = 0;
}
when compiled with
arm-elf-gcc -S -o - -fomit-frame-pointer -mcpu=arm7tdmi-s -Os t.c
produces (GCC 4.3.0 20071107)
f:
mov r3, #0
b
--- Comment #46 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 12:16
---
Note that on the mainline equiv processing can be completely turned off by
just tweaking add_equivalence () to do nothing.
There are a few missed optimizations if you do that, but I belive the important
kind of th
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 12:19
---
Well, gcc is able to optimize the two-element array case the same. Also you
still do default construction with the placement new (if Element has a default
constructor). Maybe Element is POD, in which case there i
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 12:20
---
Closing as invalid again ;)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 12:26 ---
Confirmed.
#1 0x009a1c1e in build2_stat (code=POINTER_PLUS_EXPR,
tt=0x2b9f0aa08e40, arg0=0x2b9f0ab5be80, arg1=0x2b9f0ab505a0)
at ../../trunk/gcc/tree.c:3113
3113gcc_assert (POINTER_TYPE_P (
The following program prints "foobar" 10 times:
#include
unsigned int x = -10;
int main()
{
for (;;)
if (x == -1)
break;
else {
printf("foobar\n");
x++;
}
return 0;
}
However, when replacing "unsigned int x" by "unsigned char x" or "unsigned
short x", it print
--- Comment #1 from sam at rfc1149 dot net 2007-11-11 12:35 ---
(compiled with -O on gcc 4.3.0 2007)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33988
--- Comment #1 from sam at rfc1149 dot net 2007-11-11 12:36 ---
(compiled with -O using gcc 4.3.0 2007)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34065
--- Comment #1 from sam at rfc1149 dot net 2007-11-11 12:54 ---
Bug has been fixed in trunk a few weeks ago.
--
sam at rfc1149 dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-11-11 13:41 ---
A value of type unsigned char or unsigned short is always subject to integer
promotions in an expression, and can never equal -1 on your platform.
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 13:54
---
Created an attachment (id=14530)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14530&action=view)
Proposed patch
Sorry, this is a long-latent bug exposed by the __divdc3 fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pa
I am unable to get GCC 4.3 (20071101) to compile some code involving typeid.
The testcase below compiles just fine with older GCC 4.1 and 4.2. The "name()"
call is just here so that older GCCs do not complain about the useless
statement. Even when the body of the function contains "typeid(int);" on
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-11 14:04 ---
*** Bug 34066 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-11 14:04 ---
This is already fixed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32260 ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 14:34
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Could you try the attached patch?
I am rebulding and will test it, but it takes quite some time...
By the way, I have posted the test results of mainline on mips-sgi-irix6.5 at
http://
--- Comment #10 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 16:49
---
This is a regression in reload.
(gdb) p debug_rtx (insn)
(insn 73 78 76 5 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 3 %r3)
(const_int 17888 [0x45e0])) [19 S4 A32])
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI 3 %r3)
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 16:56
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I am rebulding and will test it, but it takes quite some time...
Less than I thought! It fixes it, and no other regression has appeared.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #3 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-11-11 17:49 ---
I tried GCC 4.3 snapshot 20071109 and the compiler
still crashes.
It might be in the same area as
another bug, I don't think this is a duplicate.
--
dcb314 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
With revision 130081 the following tests fail:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_cshift_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_cshift_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_eoshift_2.f90 -O3
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline:
template struct A
{
typedef int X;
A() { T().~X(); }
};
A a;
bug.cc: In constructor 'A< >::A()':
bug.cc:4: error: there are no arguments to 'T' that depe
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34068
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline:
==
template struct A;
template struct A > {};
A > b;
==
bug.cc:5: internal compiler error: in unify, at
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34069
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 21:27
---
The testcase from comment #1 still crashes, but this problem is tracked in
PR34069.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32128
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #22 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-11-11 22:18 ---
FX,
> I made a build of the patched compiler that you can download from
> http://www.coudert.name/tmp/gfortran-i686-linux-20071110.tar.gz
I successfully recompiled the app with OpenMPI enabled, which uses
several COMMON blo
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 22:27 ---
Subject: Bug 34068
Author: jakub
Date: Sun Nov 11 22:27:18 2007
New Revision: 130087
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130087
Log:
PR c++/34068
* semantics.c (finish_pseudo_destruc
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 22:28 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 22:30
---
There's only one non-trivial Fortran change in the 130037-130081 range: it's
rev. 130072. I don't see how it could be realted, but if you could revert this
patch and confirm, then it's probably an optimizer proble
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk 2007-11-11 22:59
---
Subject: Re: Segfault in mips_cannot_change_mode_class
"fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Could you try the attached patch?
>
> I am rebulding and will test it, but it takes quite
--- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-11 23:28
---
When delete_output_reload is called, we have:
(gdb) p debug_rtx (insn)
(insn 86 91 89 7 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 3 %r3)
(const_int 17900 [0x45ec])) [20 S4 A32])
(plus:SI (reg/f:SI
--- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:18
---
Reduced further:
$ cat m.f90
logical :: a(1)
a = .true.
write(*,*) foo(merge((/ 1 /), 1, a))
end
$ gfortran m.f90
m.f90: In function MAIN__:
m.f90:2: internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_create_temp_arr
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:28 ---
Subject: Bug 8570
Author: manu
Date: Mon Nov 12 00:28:41 2007
New Revision: 130092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130092
Log:
2007-11-12 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:29 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.3
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:39 ---
Subject: Bug 17557
Author: tromey
Date: Mon Nov 12 00:38:48 2007
New Revision: 130093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130093
Log:
gcc/cp
PR c++/17577:
* lex.c (handle_pragma_imp
--- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:39 ---
Subject: Bug 17577
Author: tromey
Date: Mon Nov 12 00:38:48 2007
New Revision: 130093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130093
Log:
gcc/cp
PR c++/17577:
* lex.c (handle_pragma_im
--- Comment #12 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:40 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
--- Comment #7 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 00:46 ---
These no longer ICE for me.
Instead I just get the expected errors.
Adding -Iclasses to the builds makes it work as expected.
So, I'm closing this.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|R
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-12 00:52 ---
Hi Tom, we still have this rather old P2 (ans also 30294), was wondering
whether you would be interested...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30293
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 01:14
---
I don't see how this can be a regression wrt g77, which doesn't have
assumed-shape arrays or even UBOUND!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31346
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 01:14 ---
*** Bug 33160 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 01:14 ---
This looks exactly like bug 5310 or at least, both will be fixed in the same
way.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5310 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-11-12 03:27 ---
>From "info gcc",
`fastcall'
On the Intel 386, the `fastcall' attribute causes the compiler to
pass the first argument (if of integral type) in the register ECX
^^^
--- Comment #25 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-12 05:44
---
This is now:
[Bug libc/5268] huge and denornal reads and writes for long doubles
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5268
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24685
--- Comment #23 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-12 05:55 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 30285
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00552.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-12 05:56 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/8570
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00581.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #21 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-11-12 05:56 ---
Subject: Bug number PR33162
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00598.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
50 matches
Mail list logo
