--- Comment #22 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 07:20 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created an attachment (id=21188)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21188&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch
>
> This patch should restore the use of the previous stage
--- Comment #7 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 08:22 ---
Subject: Bug 44862
Author: iains
Date: Sat Jul 17 08:22:09 2010
New Revision: 162275
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162275
Log:
2010-07-17 Jack Howarth
PR target/44862
* Ma
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 08:36
---
Not a bug.
The ARM ARM says that the shift must be in the range 1
If you want a vmovl instruction, then write one.
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 08:49 ---
Another failing example was reported by Andrew Benson in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-07/msg00222.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44065
--- Comment #4 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 11:16 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01407.html
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
Command line:
$ gcc -O2 -fcompare-debug testcase.c
Valgrind output:
$ valgrind -q --trace-children=yes
/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-16-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/bin/gcc -O2
-fcompare-debug testcase.c
testcase.c: In function '_XftCloseint':
testcase.c:21:3: warning: passing argument 1 of '_X
--- Comment #1 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-07-17 11:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=21234)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21234&action=view)
reduced testcase (from libXft sources)
The original testcase didn't have any implicit conversions from/to/between
poin
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 13:37 ---
It is caused by revision 161655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44971
(the choice of component is random)
When I compile this code (I am going to attach it immediatly) with g++ -O1 -c
test_api.cpp, I get:
test_api.cpp: In function boost::optional
construct_normal_offset_lines_isecC2():
test_api.cpp:129:15: internal compiler error: in
load_assign_lhs_subreplacemen
--- Comment #1 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-07-17 13:48
---
Created an attachment (id=21235)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21235&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44972
--- Comment #5 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 44418
Author: iains
Date: Sat Jul 17 14:51:20 2010
New Revision: 162277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162277
Log:
PR testsuite/44418
* gcc.target/powerpc/recip-1.
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 15:28 ---
On Linux/ia64, I got
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.o differs
gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
make[5]: *** [compare] Error 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 15:35 ---
At r162275, I'm neither seeing the ICE nor any valgrind errors. Can anyone
confirm this?
[My guess is that it has been fixed by the recent cleanup of generics, i.e.
r162125.]
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org change
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-17 15:47 ---
At revision 162276, I get
pr44868.f90:245.24:
tst_case => self%list(i)
1
Error: Pointer assignment target is neither TARGET nor POINTER at (1)
pr44868.f90:231.24:
ts
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-17 15:49 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10.4 bootstrap fails with
/bin/sh: line 1: 55341 Illegal instruction build/genattrtab
../../work/gcc/config/i386/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #4 from bdsatish at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 15:51 ---
Yes Janus, Dominique. The diagnosis is correct. The error messages are valid. I
think this PR can be closed.
(In reply to comment #3)
> At revision 162276, I get
>
>
> pr44868.f90:245.24:
>
> tst_case => s
--- Comment #3 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 15:53 ---
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
HJ, any chance you could run make check on the stage1 compiler on ia64 to find
a testcase?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 16:12 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> On Linux/ia32, revision 162270:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00624.html
>
> caused:
>
> make[6]: Leaving directory `/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld'
> Comparing stage
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-17 16:15 ---
> x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt
bootstrap fails at stage 1 with:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC
--- Comment #6 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 16:41 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent
> > today.
>
> With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt
> bootstrap fails at stage
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 16:56 ---
It also miscompiled 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 on
Linux/i386 with
-m32 -O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math -funroll-loops
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
I wanted to create a bugzilla bug report, but I seem to have forgotten
my password; moreover, it would seem that bugzilla isn't actually sending
out password-change emails.
Here's the build error:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o d
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:35 ---
The difference in recog.o is in peep2_find_free_register:
@@ -5271,8 +5271,8 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
4884: 74 5e je 48e4
4886: 8d 74 24 30 lea0x30(
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:39 ---
The patch uses uid of the insn. Will DEBUG_INSN affect
uid processing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:42
---
With stage3 gcc, I got
[...@gnu-29 stage3-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/
-isystem /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 18:07 ---
It is caused by revision 161655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-07-17 18:49
---
In case it may help, let me mention that other test programs for our library
show:
internal compiler error: in refs_may_alias_p_1, at tree-ssa-alias.c:1023
or:
warning: '#'mem_ref' not supported by dump_ex
--- Comment #13 from segher at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 19:04 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> What does the standard say here? What is the type in effect for aliasing
> when doing
>
> int i = va_arg (va, int);
>
> ? Is type-punning allowed when unpacking args?
>From C99, 7.15
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-17 19:05
---
Created an attachment (id=21236)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21236&action=view)
Draft patch for the original testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44969
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-17 19:14
---
I attached a draft which fixes the original testcase as a SFINAE issue. Seems
to me rather straightforward and consistent with existing practice in typeck.c,
just passes down complain to build_x_compound_expr_f
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last re
--- Comment #5 from jason at redhat dot com 2010-07-17 20:53 ---
Subject: Re: [C++0x] std::is_constructible broken
for fundamental types.
> irrespective of complain. Jason, should complete_type_or_else be something
> different when tf_none?
Perhaps, but we shouldn't be dealing with
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-17 21:09
---
Great, thanks a lot.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44969
--- Comment #5 from John dot Tytgat at aaug dot net 2010-07-17 21:24
---
Patch attachment 21195 fixes reported problem as well (4.6 cross with target
arm-unknown-eabi). Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44902
On sh4-unknown-linux-gnu,
r162270 | bernds | 2010-07-17 08:47:46 +0900 (Sat, 17 Jul 2010) | 26 lines
caused a build failure during compiling libjava:
../trunk/libjava/verify.cc: In member function 'void
_Jv_BytecodeVerifier::merge_into(int, _Jv_BytecodeVerifier::state*)':
../trunk/libjava/verify
--- Comment #1 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=21237)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21237&action=view)
Potential fix
Does this fix it?
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:34 ---
Ideally, the code would look at the CFG instead, like the loop above it, that
uses FOR_EACH_BB_REVERSE. But most of the postreload.c code ignores the CFG,
unfortunately...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #11 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=21238)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21238&action=view)
Potential fix
Yeah, I think it trips over DEBUG_INSNs. I'm testing this fix, does it help in
any way?
--
b
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:51 ---
Subject: Bug 44805
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Jul 17 22:51:34 2010
New Revision: 162278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162278
Log:
PR target/44805
* config/pa/pa.h (CONSTANT_AL
--- Comment #54 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:55 ---
FIXED in r162047.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:56 ---
Jakub, please do not forget about this one for stage1 GCC 4.6.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:57 ---
Not mine anymore.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 23:00 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 23:27 ---
Confirmed with r162278. Scheduling after reload (which is bundling for the ia64
backend) seems to cause this:
$ ./xgcc -B. -O2 vector-2.c -fno-inline -fPIC ; echo Testing ; ./a.out
Testing
Aborted
$ ./xgcc -B. -O2
--- Comment #12 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 23:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=21239)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239&action=view)
Better patch.
Here's something that's a little more likely to work.
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org change
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 00:32
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=21239)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239&action=view) [edit]
> Better patch.
>
> Here's something that's a little more likely to work.
4.6.0 20100713 r162159 cross, target arm-unknown-eabi, newlib 1.18
Compile:
arm-unknown-eabi-gcc -O1 -S -o bug.s bug.c
With bug.c:
--8<--
extern void foo1 (int status) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
extern void _Exit (int status) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
extern void foo3 (int status)
When there are no functions being called by the C code, gcc decides to use
negative offsets in the stack instead of sub'ing rsp. But if there's a call
inside an inline asm, it will trash the "stack" with a return pointer, and that
might lead to random code being run, for example:
$ cat main.c
void
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 04:40 ---
Well this is called the red zone as GCC assumes anything that does not call a
function is a leaf function.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44975
--- Comment #2 from ramiro dot polla at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 05:14
---
Thanks. Is there anything that can be done in the code to say that is not a
leaf function, or at least to tell gcc that a call is being made inside the
inline asm?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
short variables do not get vectorized the same as unsigned short variables
--
Summary: short variables do not get vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
--- Comment #1 from roy dot 1rosen at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 05:22
---
Created an attachment (id=21240)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21240&action=view)
preprocessed file
For the following code, if ts is short it does not get vectorized.
If ts is unsigned short
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 06:15 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Does this fix it?
Yes. With it, the failure go away and my cross sh-linux
build has just completed successfully.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44973
[reg...@bethe tmp603]$ current-gcc -O2 small.c -c
small.c: In function 'int329':
small.c:31:38: warning: assignment makes integer from pointer without a cast
[enabled by default]
small.c:24:5: internal compiler error: in propagate_rhs_into_lhs, at
tree-ssa-dom.c:2728
Please submit a full bug report
55 matches
Mail list logo
