--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 07:02 ---
Probably you are right, though I think clarification on dwarf-discuss wouldn't
hurt. Can you raise it there?
I think 2.19 Static and Dynamic Values of Attributes is what matters here:
The value of these attributes i
the following (illegal code) loops and allocates memory until cc1plus aborts
-Wall gives you some hint, but else no diagnostic is given.
struct SomeType
{
const char *values[];
};
const char *temp[] = {"607", "612", 0};
SomeType vals[] =
{
{ values : temp, },
0
};
-
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 07:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=20392)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20392&action=view)
gcc46-pr43762.patch
Possible fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43762
--- Comment #2 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-04-16 07:36 ---
Subject: Re: [fortran-dev Regression] ICE: segmentation
fault in mio_expr
Janus,
I am looking at this and PR42274; I will be in a hotel room the
evenings of next week and hope to get fortra
--- Comment #18 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 07:46 ---
Looking at more dumps this morning with the testcase and you can see that
in the not working case all the "tmp" variables aren't marked as being
call-clobbered.
Alias information for set_integer
Aliased symbols
Source:
void p(int *a, int i)
{
__builtin_prefetch(&a[i]);
}
> gcc -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -S prefetch.c
_p:
movslq %esi, %rsi
leaq(%rdi,%rsi,4), %rax
prefetcht0 (%rax)
ret
leaq and prefetch should be merged.
--
Summary: x86 prefetch do
--- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 08:17 ---
Another case where the "if NULL" check is not needed before the "free" are
automatic arrays:
subroutine sub(n)
integer :: a(n)
a(1) = 0
end
Additionally, the dump looks overly complicated and a least two
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 08:59
---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassign
--- Comment #5 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 09:42 ---
Subject: Bug 41514
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Apr 16 09:42:32 2010
New Revision: 158404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158404
Log:
PR target/41514
* config/arm/arm.md (cbranchsi4
--- Comment #22 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2010-04-16 09:49 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.5 20100218 bootstrap compare fails on os x 10.6
At least I'll have a build, but no verification that at least the code I've
written is expressed the same way as it would be if the build were made o
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 10:00
---
Created an attachment (id=20393)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20393&action=view)
patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43572
--- Comment #6 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 10:05 ---
Subject: Bug 40603
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Apr 16 10:04:15 2010
New Revision: 158407
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158407
Log:
PR target/40603
* config/arm/arm.md (cbranchqi4
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 10:54
---
Created an attachment (id=20394)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20394&action=view)
patch for 4.5 branch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43572
--- Comment #5 from jue at jue dot li 2010-04-16 11:20 ---
Reopened the bug, because I'm still not convinced that the new behaviour of gcc
4.5 is correct.
With gcc 4.4 you have to explicit set arch optimization, usually done via
CFLAGS. If not set there's no optimization. That's the rea
--- Comment #7 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 11:23 ---
Fixed.
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 11:24 ---
Fixed.
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 11:37 ---
Currently we fail to recognize address_operand in the form of:
(prefetch (plus:DI (ashift:DI (reg:DI 60 [ i ])
(const_int 2 [0x2]))
(reg/v/f:DI 58 [ a ]))
(const_int 0 [0x0])
(const_int 3 [0x3]
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-16 12:07 ---
> PS> This will block any direct or first attempt to build gcc by Mac owners
> unless they try builds of intermediate versions of gcc.
Except for the "funny" state of my macbook before my last reboot, the failure
is
--- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-04-16 13:04 ---
The -ffixed-$reg option worked for MIPS up to r128346 but broke in r128347:
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Sep 10 15:21:18 2007
New Revision: 128347
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=3Dgcc&view=3Drev&rev=3D128347
Log:
g
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 13:22
---
Subject: Bug 43572
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 16 13:21:38 2010
New Revision: 158418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158418
Log:
2010-04-16 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
--- Comment #24 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2010-04-16 13:26 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.5 20100218 bootstrap compare fails on os x 10.6
In this case, I have found the bug consistently repeatable on multiple
machines, all running snow leopard up-to-date. When built on my desk-top
mach
--- Comment #25 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-04-16
13:52 ---
Could you try installing fink and then the gcc44 package (which will build
itself first). If this issue were really widespread, I would have had a ton of
bug reports for that package. Fink may give you som
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 13:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=20395)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20395&action=view)
fixed patch
The testcase doesn't reproduce the problem w/o the patch anymore.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
On Linux/ia64, revision 158417 gave:
/../src-trunk/libdecnumber -I. -c
../../src-trunk/libdecnumber/dpd/decimal128.c../../src-trunk/libdecnumber/dpd/decimal128.c:
In function 'decimal128ToString':
../../src-trunk/libdecnumber/dpd/decimal128.c:441:3: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
Ple
For the testcase in PR43571 when not disabling VRP complete unrolling can
not figure out the number of iterations because VRP jump threading destroys
proper loop form.
--
Summary: VRP destroys loop form
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43767
Using -O1 (or higher) in the compile:
gnatmake -O1 -gnat05 -Wall -gnatwl -gnata -gnatVa -gnatf -gnatwr z9.adb
provokes a bug box:
gnatmake -O1 -v -save-temps -gnat05 -Wall -gnatwl -gnata -gnatVa -gnatf -gnatwr
z9.adb
GNATMAKE 4.3.4 20090804 (release) 1
Copyright (C) 1995-2007, Free Software Fo
--- Comment #1 from ve3wwg at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 14:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=20396)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20396&action=view)
gnatchop-able source code
You will need this source code to reproduce the bug box.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #26 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-16 14:34 ---
First a Note for Ralf Wildenhues: I have seen somewhere that libgomp have been
added to stage2 starting from some revision, but I am unable to find where. Do
you have a better memory?
I think it is after 4.4 (so noth
--- Comment #2 from ve3wwg at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 14:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=20397)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20397&action=view)
Makefile
This is a simple Makefile for your convenience:
make # will gnatchop and reproduce the bug box
make # clo
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 14:37 ---
Revision 158401:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00507.html
is the cause.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 14:44 ---
Use -fno-tree-sra as a workaround.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from dougsemler at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 14:53 ---
Right now in a cross environment, the target libraries, when built as DLLs, are
also installed in the host's bindir, due to the -bindir flag now being passed
to libtool. While this may be appropriate in a native compil
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:00
---
Fixed for 4.6, if you confirm the patch for the branch tested ok I'll apply
that
there.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:13 ---
What stage is that? stage1 or something later?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43767
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:15
---
Known problem in the SRA pass.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:17
---
Created an attachment (id=20398)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20398&action=view)
Potential, untested fix.
* tree-sra.c (bitfield_overlaps_p): If the length of the element is
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:20
---
Richard, do you think this kind of patches is worth installing on the branch at
this point? If no, we should mark the PR as WONTFIX, the workaround is easy.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #27 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2010-04-16 15:27 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.5 20100218 bootstrap compare fails on os x 10.6
Answer to 2: /Users/platt/install/GccSources/gcc-4.5.0.build2 $
../gcc-4.5.0/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran
Answer to 1:
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 15:32 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What stage is that? stage1 or something later?
>
It failed at the end of stage 2:
make[4]: *** [decimal128.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** [all-stage2-libdecnumber] Error 2
make[2]: *** [stage2
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-16 15:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in
bitfield_overlaps_p, at tree-sra.c:2937
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:20
>
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:35
---
> Yes, the patch looks like it can't make things worse and so is
> certainly fine (4.4 looks also affected? if not, how was it
> fixed there - maybe that fix should be backported instead)
Yes, 4.4 is very likely
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:35 ---
Subject: Bug 43762
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 16 15:34:47 2010
New Revision: 158430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158430
Log:
PR debug/43762
* dwarf2out.c (add_bound_info): Al
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:49 ---
Subject: Bug 30073
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Apr 16 15:48:40 2010
New Revision: 158431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158431
Log:
2010-04-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/30073
* trans-a
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:49 ---
Backported to 4.5. Patch does not apply cleanly
to 4.4. Closing as FIXED.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:53 ---
Subject: Bug 30073
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Apr 16 15:53:04 2010
New Revision: 158432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158432
Log:
2010-04-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/30073
* trans-a
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:55 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Subject: Bug 30073
>
> Author: kargl
> Date: Fri Apr 16 15:48:40 2010
> New Revision: 158431
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158431
> Log:
> 2010-04-16 Steven G.
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:59 ---
I believe that this is a duplicate of PR 31059.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39994
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:05 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Newly created test case. Expected:
> * Extend (size) should be printed for "a = f()", as NAG f95 does
>
> (I'm not sure that "different shape" is correct for the current a=b message;
> addit
checking dynamic linker characteristics... (cached) GNU/Linux ld.so
checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
checking whether the GNU Fortran compiler is working... no
configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working; please report a bug in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla, attachin
--- Comment #1 from wang-xi05 at mails dot thu dot edu dot cn 2010-04-16
16:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=20400)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20400&action=view)
/data2/share/gcc/gcc-4.4.3/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/config.log
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:14 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Newly created test case. Expected:
> > * Extend (size) should be printed for "a = f()", as NAG f95 does
> >
> > (I'm not sure that "different shape" is correct f
On Solaris 8 i386 I tried a bootstrap with GCC 4.4.3 as the working
compiler in /usr/local thus :
$ which gcc
/usr/local/gcc4/bin/gcc
$ gcc --version
gcc (Blastwave.org Inc. Sun Apr 4 06:2453 GMT 2010) 4.4.3
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:31 ---
/data2/share/gcc/gcc-4.4.3/host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/f951: symbol
lookup error: /data2/share/matlab2007/bin/glnxa64/libmpfr.so.1: undefined
symbol: __gmp_get_memory_functions
Do you have the right GMP and MPF
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:35 ---
Set target milestone.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milesto
--- Comment #3 from wang-xi05 at mails dot thu dot edu dot cn 2010-04-16
16:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> /data2/share/gcc/gcc-4.4.3/host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/f951: symbol
> lookup error: /data2/share/matlab2007/bin/glnxa64/libmpfr.so.1: undefined
> symbol: __gmp_get_memory_
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:38 ---
Taking the code in comment #1, and changing the initialization to
an assignment.
program fred
implicit none
real :: JTEJ(0:100,0:6000,6)
real :: pT(1:2, 6)
JTEJ = 1.0
pT = 2.0
write(*,*) JTEJ(0,1000,:) * pT
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:39 ---
Set target milestone.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Mileston
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 16:47 ---
Change the severity to normal.
It appears you have more than 1 version of mpfr install
and you're picking up the wrong library. I suspect that
you do not want data2/share/matlab2007/bin/glnxa64/libmpfr.so.1,
but rath
--- Comment #5 from wang-xi05 at mails dot thu dot edu dot cn 2010-04-16
16:59 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Change the severity to normal.
> It appears you have more than 1 version of mpfr install
> and you're picking up the wrong library. I suspect that
> you do not want data2/share
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 17:00 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > I get an error at compile time with gfortran 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.4.0, and trunk
> > (intel-darwin9). Is this PR valid?
>
> Good question - I get now the same error for comment 0, which makes
--- Comment #29 from danp57 at optonline dot net 2010-04-16 17:06 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.5 20100218 bootstrap compare fails on os x 10.6
I have one more comment to add. Perusing the log file, I noticed that it was
not building what I expected. I was not looking for -m32's. I re-ran
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 17:24 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Assuming 'i = -4' is missing in the programming
Well, almost any number would do, but "i = -4" is fine.
> why is the runtime bounds check not a sufficient error message?
Because:
Fortr
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 17:28 ---
Indeed looks fixed; thus, I closed it.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-16 17:38 ---
The run time error for
i = 0
a(i:1) = b(0:4)
is
At line 9 of file pr31538_db_2.f90
Fortran runtime error: Array bound mismatch, size mismatch for dimension 1 of
array 'a' (2/5)
for
i = 0
a(i:1) = f(b)
it is
At
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 17:41 ---
That's actually the very beginning of stage2 (i.e. what crashes is stage1 gcc,
not stage2 gcc).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43767
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 17:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=20401)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20401&action=view)
gcc46-pr43767.patch
And here is untested fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|R
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 18:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=20402)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20402&action=view)
Proposed patch.
Proposed patch generates:
p:
movslq %esi, %rsi
prefetcht0 (%rdi,%rsi,4)
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-16 18:08 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=20401)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20401&action=view) [edit]
> gcc46-pr43767.patch
>
> And here is untested fix.
>
It passed the failed
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 18:25 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The run time error for
>
> i = 0
> a(i:1) = b(0:4)
>
> is
>
> At line 9 of file pr31538_db_2.f90
> Fortran runtime error: Array bound mismatch, size mismatch for dimension 1 of
> array 'a
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 18:36 ---
Subject: Bug 43621
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 16 18:35:50 2010
New Revision: 158440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158440
Log:
PR c++/43621
* pt.c (maybe_update_decl_type): Che
--- Comment #10 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 18:36 ---
Subject: Bug 43641
Author: jason
Date: Fri Apr 16 18:36:12 2010
New Revision: 158441
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158441
Log:
PR c++/43641
* semantics.c (maybe_add_lambda_con
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-04-16 19:54 ---
I think the problem is related to the fact that IRA is trying to figure out if
the store of lx1 can be eliminated and lx1 may be uninitialized. The only
place lx1 is set is in an if statement in a loop. If we don't exec
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-16 20:15 ---
When compiled with -O2 -Wuninitialized, the reduced test of comment #3 gives
...
pr42169.f90: In function 'moment':
pr42169.f90:15:0: warning: 'lx' may be used uninitialized in this function
pr42169.f90:16:0: warning
The following inocent looking C function:
void KWayNodeRefine__(int nparts, int *gpwgts, int *badminpwgt, int
*badmaxpwgt)
{
int i;
for (i=0; ihttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
[au...@mc1 experiences]$
Note that there is no such error with -O2 or without options or when gcc 4
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 21:16 ---
Confirmed, it is crashing in the vectorizer (vect_analyze_slp).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2010-04-16 21:19 ---
Works with x86-64.
Checking -m32, the same thing happens with or without the patch:
_p:
subl$12, %esp
movl20(%esp), %eax
sall$2, %eax
addl16(%esp), %eax
addl
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 21:36 ---
Fixed for 4.5.1.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|AS
/* compile with: gcc -Werror -Wlogical-op */
#include
# define BOT INT_MIN
# define TOP INT_MAX
int main(void)
{
int i=42;
i = (i > BOT && i < TOP); //OK
i = (i >= BOT+1 && i <= TOP-1); //OK
i = (i >= BOT && i <= TOP); //Oops!
}
--
Summary: Errant -Wlogical-op wa
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 21:43 ---
Subject: Bug 43767
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 16 21:43:36 2010
New Revision: 158450
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158450
Log:
PR bootstrap/43767
* alias.c (memrefs_conflict_p)
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 22:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=20403)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20403&action=view)
patch to stop error cascade
This patch fixes the repeated error; it turns out I was wrong about this being
relat
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 22:24 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created an attachment (id=20403)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20403&action=view) [edit]
> patch to stop error cascade
>
> This patch fixes the repeated error; it turn
--- Comment #17 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-04-16 22:29 ---
Is there any reason none of the patches created for this bug have been checked
in? I still get a 'section type conflict' on IA64 with the test case from
Comment #2.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
--- Comment #7 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 22:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=20404)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20404&action=view)
A bit reduced test case
It seems that we see a yet another corner case for find_barrier.
Also it looks latent o
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 22:41 ---
This one also should be added to
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/diagnostics/diagnostics.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
-Wcoverage-mismatch doesn't seem to work. GCC 4.4.3 compiles pgo mozilla
successfully.
c++ -o nsStringObsolete.o -c -I../../../dist/system_wrappers -include
/home/taras/work/mozilla-central/config/gcc_hidden.h
-I../../../dist/stl_wrappers -DMOZILLA_INTERNAL_API
-DOSTYPE=\"Linux2.6.18-164.15.1\" -
--- Comment #21 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 23:03
---
Closing, no further information available
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from law at redhat dot com 2010-04-16 23:05 ---
Most of the h8_enhancement patch has been applied. Unfortunately, one aspect
of that change (reordering alternatives in the logical and, ior, xor patterns)
causes codesize & performance regressions and has not been installe
--- Comment #6 from ddesics at gmail dot com 2010-04-17 00:28 ---
Has any work been done on this enhancement? I'm using gcc 4.3.2, and I noticed
that there is still limited use of SSE instructions for complex arithmetic.
Unless I'm missing something in my understanding, wouldn't the
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-04-17 02:55 ---
Ouch. ParMetis is one of the most widely used libraries in the
parallel scientific computing area...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43771
compiling the following code with -O2, the program will core dump.
I check the assembly code output, it seems the 'strlen' function call is
replaced by the 'builtin strlen' funciton and will read the first four byte on
a invalid memory page.
And if i replace the mmap with malloc and run under the V
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 03:53 ---
The output with my patch is
wa.C:2:38: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use
-ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating struct
X<-0x00018>
wa.C:2:38: instantiated from
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 03:54 ---
Fixed.
--
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-17 04:00 ---
It is caused by revision 154667:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-11/msg00890.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 06:55 ---
You should make the struct packed, because otherwise you are accessing it
unaligned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43774
95 matches
Mail list logo
