--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 07:20 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01013.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37495
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 07:26 ---
As of revision 140333, this bug is still not fixed although
patch for PR 37377 has been applied.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37450
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 07:31 ---
Subject: Bug 37500
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Sep 13 07:30:15 2008
New Revision: 140334
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140334
Log:
PR middle-end/37500
* pt.c (tsubst_decl): Do
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 07:45 ---
Subject: Bug 35770
Author: domob
Date: Sat Sep 13 07:44:36 2008
New Revision: 140336
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140336
Log:
2008-09-13 Daniel Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 08:01 ---
Fixed by my patch.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 08:51
---
This works fine now.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
With the __attribute__ __section__ it is possible to allocate variables to
different section than the default (
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html ). In case of the
following source code I would achieve to allocate both "foo bar" and "Hello
World!" strings into the .xxx_sect
Currently, one prints a simple message e.g. when deallocating already
deallocated memory:
Fortran runtime error: Attempt to DEALLOCATE unallocated memory.
if (a.data == 0B)
{
_gfortran_runtime_error (&"Attempt to DEALLOCATE unallocated
memory."[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1});
}
Expected: Eithe
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 09:23 ---
This shouldn't be too hard to do, I think. I'll look into this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37507
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 13, 2008, at 2:04 AM, "nm127 at freemail dot hu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
With the __attribute__ __section__ it is possible to allocate
variables to
different section than the default (
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html ). In
case o
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 09:49 ---
Subject: Re: New: attribute section is not working with constant strings
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 13, 2008, at 2:04 AM, "nm127 at freemail dot hu"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> With the __attribute__ __section__
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 10:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=16309)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16309&action=view)
config.log from intl with revision 140323
The problem appears to be somewhere else.
See these lines from the c
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 10:09 ---
Confirmed.
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
FdCgJwzNcxQrDIqPtwHTjpa
HLfOFdCgJwzNcxQr
gnatmake -P/home/jlv/Documents/ADA/test_tache.gpr -d
gcc-4.2 -c -I- -gnatA /home/jlv/Documents/ADA/test_tache.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu2) (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Assert_Failure
sinfo.adb:649|
| Error detected at test_t
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|C974013 gives exception |[4.4 Regression] C
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:25 ---
Invalid.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFI
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keyw
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GNAT Bug Box a- |[4.4 Regression] GNAT Bug
|ngcefu.adb:397 [regressi
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Summary|Scheduling pass 2 time |[4.4
FYI this works fine in GCC 4.3.x
Laurent
On Sat, 2008-09-13 at 13:50 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> gnatmake -P/home/jlv/Documents/ADA/test_tache.gpr -d
> gcc-4.2 -c -I- -gnatA /home/jlv/Documents/ADA/test_tache.adb
> +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37496
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:40 ---
Thus, invalid.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|U
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37491
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:41 ---
Did you made sure that this is not a ppc machine/cost description problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37490
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:43 ---
Fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37485
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC host tri
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:53 ---
*** Bug 37459 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37444
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 12:53 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37444 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |middle-end
Keywords||ice-on-val
gcc -O2 -c xx.i
xx.i: In function 'f':
xx.i:4: internal compiler error: in simplify_truth_ops_using_ranges, at
tree-vrp.c:6334
--
Summary: ICE in in simplify_truth_ops_using_ranges, at tree-
vrp.c:6334
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
S
--- Comment #1 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2008-09-13 12:57
---
Created an attachment (id=16310)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16310&action=view)
xx.i
gcc -c -O2 xx.i
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37508
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC target tri
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37505
--- Comment #2 from marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2008-09-13 13:38
---
Created an attachment (id=16311)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16311&action=view)
yy.i
(first attachment was wrong, sorry)
gcc -c -O2 yy.i
--
marcus at jet dot franken dot de changed:
--- Comment #2 from nm127 at freemail dot hu 2008-09-13 13:59 ---
This problem maybe related to bug #192.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37506
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 14:06 ---
Confirmed.
Also we fail to see that the return value cannot be zero in the following
cases:
struct foo1 {
int i:1;
};
struct foo2 {
unsigned i:1;
};
int test1 (struct foo1 *x)
{
if (x->i == 0)
return 1;
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 14:08 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 14:34
---
Presumably, similar problems on Solaris have been fixed by:
2008-09-11 Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* reload1.c (alter_reg): Undo the BYTE_BIG_ENDIAN correction performed
by assign_stack_local o
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 14:39 ---
Subject: Bug 37392
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Sep 13 14:38:10 2008
New Revision: 140342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140342
Log:
PR tree-optimization/37392
* tree-inline.c (r
When __sync_fetch_and_xxx builtin functions are required to store the return
value the compiler generates an undefined reference during the link stage.
void main( void )
{
long a=0;
#ifndef SHOW_BUG
__sync_fetch_and_add(&a,1); /* works just fine */
#else
a=__sync_fetch_and_add(&a,1); /* cr
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 14:48 ---
First patch - completely untested/uncompiled:
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (Revision 140340)
+++ expr.c
@@ -3053 +3053,2 @@ gfc_check_pointer_assign
--- Comment #1 from timothy dot krause at shaw dot ca 2008-09-13 15:24
---
Tracing the parser suggests that the problem is in the
expand_sync_fetch_operation of optabs.c in gcc-4.3.2
--
timothy dot krause at shaw dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 15:45 ---
Subject: Bug 37495
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Sep 13 15:44:07 2008
New Revision: 140343
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140343
Log:
2008-09-13 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR testsuite/37495
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 15:48 ---
Subject: Bug 37489
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Sep 13 15:47:41 2008
New Revision: 140344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140344
Log:
gcc/
2008-09-13 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR rtl-optimi
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 15:58 ---
Subject: Bug 37448
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Sep 13 15:57:26 2008
New Revision: 140345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140345
Log:
2008-09-13 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR middle-
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 16:00 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
Hi,
On 68k amiga OS the last working GCC compiler is 3.4.3
The porting gcc for dummies is from 2000 and i see not that it help for
newer versions.
I like to get the gcc 4.3.2 compiler working for 68k amiga OS.
mostly i need better gcc for c++.Is it possible to use 4.3.2 g++ with 3.4.3
rest of
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 16:29 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 16:30 ---
Subject: Bug 30141
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Sep 13 16:29:22 2008
New Revision: 140346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140346
Log:
2008-09-13 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 16:32 ---
Any news here? What is the testcase that produces invalid gimple?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30164
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 16:38 ---
I think this was fixed by
2008-09-12 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* trans-intrinsic.c (gfc_conv_intrinsic_transfer): Use
build_fold_addr_expr to properly mark the argument
addressa
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 17:47 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 18:59 ---
Working on a patch. It's not a MODIFY_EXPR but an ADDR_EXPR with problematic
conversion.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 19:25
---
I am working on fixing this now. I will probably call for help on parts of
this.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
I just tried to build the Suse Linux package libebl-0.131-37 with the
most recent snapshot of gcc version 4.4, dated 20080912.
The compiler said
dwarf_begin_elf.c: In function 'dwarf_begin_elf':
dwarf_begin_elf.c:230: error: type mismatch in address expression
void (*Dwarf_OOM) (void)
void (*)
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-09-13 19:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=16312)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16312&action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37510
I just tried to compile the following C++ code with
most recent snapshot of gcc version 4.4, dated 20080912.
# include
# include
using namespace std;
int
main()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
{
cout << i << ' ' << sqrt( i) << '\n';
}
return 0;
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-09-13 19:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=16313)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16313&action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37511
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 19:58 ---
works for me. Honza, I guess you fixed this recently?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 19:59 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37418 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 19:59 ---
*** Bug 37510 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 13, 2008, at 12:58 PM, "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13
19:58 ---
works for me. Honza, I guess you fixed this recently?
I think this was fixed by the pt.c ch
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 20:04 ---
Subject: Re: ice for simple legal C++ code
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 13, 2008, at 12:58 PM, "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
class A;
typedef void (A::*pafn_t)(void);
void callfn (A* p, pafn_t pafn)
{
(p->*pafn)();
}
---
g++ -S -Os:
---
_Z6callfnP1AMS_FvvE:
.LFB2:
testb $1, %sil
movq%rsi, -16(%rsp)
movq%
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 21:40
---
Fixed by my patch.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 21:41
---
Subject: Bug 32581
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Sep 13 21:39:44 2008
New Revision: 140349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=140349
Log:
PR middle-end/32581
* tree-profile.c (add_a
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 21:42 ---
It also might be miscompilation of the first stage. profiledbootstrap is using
the stage1 compiler to build all stages and really expect things like 64bit
HOST_WIDE_INT.
Would be possible to re-try this on current m
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-09-13 22:07
---
Host / Target / Build please...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-09-13 22:25
---
To be clear, I suspect you are on something like i?86-*, and in that case for
the default arch (-march=i386) this is the expected behavior...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37509
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 22:29 ---
Yes, it is almost definitly same problem.
Honza
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 22:38 ---
Fixed by my patch.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #37504 +++
gfortran rightly rejects the following program, however, the error message is
misleading:
PROTECTED at (1) only allowed in specification part of a module
module m
implicit none
integer, pointer, protected :: protected_pointer
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-13 22:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=16314)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16314&action=view)
Patch of the second attempt
What I did for the second attempt; fails as written in comment 0 plus requires
some
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-09-13 22:59 ---
It is a C++ bug. A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01041.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
gcc.c-torture/execute/20021120-1.c execution fails with -m4 -ml -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer on sh-elf. gf[0] is wrongly set to 1.0
by foo. It started to fail after the IRA merge.
--
Summary: [4.4 Regression] Wrong code generated for 20021120-1.c
with -O3 -fomit-fra
--- Comment #1 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 00:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=16315)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16315&action=view)
a test case
I've attached a slightly reduced testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3751
--- Comment #2 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 00:38 ---
Here is the problematic part of the generated code:
mov.w .L240,r7
add #4,r1
mov.w .L241,r6
add #4,r3
add r15,r7
fmov.s @r7,fr14
add r15,r
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 00:51 ---
I'd like to add Vlad to the CC list.
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:17 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:17 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 37500.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37500 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:17 ---
*** Bug 37511 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:22 ---
This is a garbage collection bug.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:31 ---
This is the same fall out from the tuplification as I mention at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00460.html just now we are getting it for
all NeXT runtime testcases. I am going to work on this. It is just a m
--- Comment #8 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:45 ---
This starts when collecting a cgraph node:
#345 0x10049f1c in gt_ggc_mx_cgraph_node (x_p=0x31b4fa00) at gtype-desc.c:171
#346 0x10053290 in gt_ggc_m_P11cgraph_node4htab (x_p=0x300fba00)
at gtype-desc.c:2065
#347 0x1
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=16316)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16316&action=view)
Patch which I am testing to fix this and all tuplification related failures
This fixes the issue by just removi
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:49 ---
And yes we still get -O0, a call:
call_objc_msgSend
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 01:51 ---
and I think related to static constructor/destructor functions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37057
--- Comment #10 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 02:01 ---
I'm not sure if I am tracking this back correctly, but:
#0 ggc_free (p=0x301631b8) at /farm/dje/src/src/gcc/ggc-page.c:1380
#1 0x1033fb54 in cgraph_release_function_body (node=0x31932300)
at /farm/dje/src/src/gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 02:01 ---
Fixed on the trunk by the new register allocator (IRA):
__Z6callfnP1AMS_FvvE:
LFB0:
pushq %rbp
LCFI0:
testb $1, %sil
movq%rsi, %r11
movq%rsp, %rbp
LCFI1:
movq%r
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 02:03 ---
This is invalid, it is the issue which Paolo mentioned. I tried this on
PowerPC Linux and it works correctly.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #11 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 02:04 ---
Honza,
I may not be analyzing this correctly, but it looks like
cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes() may be removing something that is not dead.
Is cgraph handling constructors and destructors on non-ELF systems correctl
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 02:44 ---
Since stage1 is over closing as done.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
This metabug is used to track all the patches which have been written during
Stage 3 of GCC 4.4 (or before) but do not qualify for that stage, and are
waiting for Stage
1 of GCC 4.4 to be applied.
Please, do not attach the patches to this bug. Open a new bug report, and mark
it as "blocking" th
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37515
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-14 02:54 ---
Fixed on the trunk by IRA. There are no more unnecessary mov instructions.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
