--- Comment #6 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 08:19 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > As it turns out, the ICE only manifests in a parallel build. I tried make
> > > -j 8,
> > > my default and make -j 3.
> > > For a
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 08:41 ---
Hmm, I am confused. With my patch for pure constructor removal I get
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB9:
.cfi_startproc
movss .L
--- Comment #3 from gerald at pfeifer dot com 2010-08-21 09:03 ---
Thanks, Eric. I do not have access to a such a system but will try to
get a backtrace.
A log showing the problem (though not from this very build) is at:
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/sparc64-errorlogs/e.8.2010
--- Comment #7 from rainer at emrich-ebersheim dot de 2010-08-21 09:08
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > > As it turns out, the ICE only manifests in a parallel build. I tried
> > > > make -j 8,
> >
--- Comment #8 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 09:26 ---
Ok, let us close it.
--
ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 09:46 ---
Subject: Bug 17736
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Aug 21 09:46:15 2010
New Revision: 163439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163439
Log:
PR c++/45307
PR c++/17736
* cgraph.h
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 09:46
---
Subject: Bug 45307
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Aug 21 09:46:15 2010
New Revision: 163439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163439
Log:
PR c++/45307
PR c++/17736
* cgraph
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 09:46 ---
We now remove pure constructors
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 09:48
---
Empty constructors are now optimized away. We still should get removal of
write only global vars.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45307
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 10:13 ---
Subject: Bug 36158
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Aug 21 10:12:53 2010
New Revision: 163440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163440
Log:
2010-08-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/36158
--- Comment #35 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 10:13 ---
Subject: Bug 33197
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Aug 21 10:12:53 2010
New Revision: 163440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163440
Log:
2010-08-21 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/36158
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 10:28 ---
FIXED on the 4.6 trunk.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #36 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 10:35 ---
TODO (carried on):
- NORM2 (L2 norm).
For size-2, one should simply call HYPOT.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33197
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 11:57 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Hello Paul,
>
> I think the patch you committed to 4.5 causes a regression for normal
> loops, which are now handled as overlapping.
Thomas,
I did not commit anything but I tried it out.
--- Comment #4 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-08-21 12:17 ---
Subject: Re: Array-valued calles to elementals are not simplified
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2
--- Comment #7 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 12:18 ---
Subject: Bug 45084
Author: rwild
Date: Sat Aug 21 12:18:02 2010
New Revision: 163441
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163441
Log:
Fix misquoting in stdint.m4.
config/:
PR target/45084
t: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mrestelli at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.6.0 20100821 (experimental)
GCC host triplet: AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile Technology ML-32 AuthenticAMD
GNU/Linux
http://g
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 12:51 ---
Is this now fixable using the default pointer initialization?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44541
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-08-21 13:11 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10.4 I need the following adjustments:
--- /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f902010-08-21
12:30:29.0 +0200
+++ bessel_6_db.f90 2010-08-21 15:05:20.0
On Linux/ia32, I got
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
Version|4.5.3 |4.6.0
http://
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-21 14:22 ---
Is this safe to backport it to gcc 4.5/4.4?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45315
--- Comment #4 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-21 14:36 ---
Well something in -g processing is a CPU hog. On my Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82
laptop (2.2GHz x 2 cores) with 32-bit kernel and vanilla gcc-4.5.1
(--enable-checking=release) I get:
> time gcc -m32 -O0 -c pr45364.i
1.220u 0.
--- Comment #2 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 14:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=21536)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21536&action=view)
Potential fix
Can you try this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45355
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 44863
Author: janus
Date: Sat Aug 21 14:50:57 2010
New Revision: 163445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163445
Log:
2010-08-21 Janus Weil
PR fortran/45271
PR for
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 45271
Author: janus
Date: Sat Aug 21 14:50:57 2010
New Revision: 163445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163445
Log:
2010-08-21 Janus Weil
PR fortran/45271
PR fo
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 14:51 ---
Subject: Bug 45290
Author: janus
Date: Sat Aug 21 14:50:57 2010
New Revision: 163445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163445
Log:
2010-08-21 Janus Weil
PR fortran/45271
PR for
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 14:59 ---
r163445 adds comment #1 to the testsuite, because it uncovered a regression in
my recent patch for PR 45271 (thanks to Dominique for noticing).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44863
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 15:00 ---
Fixed with r163445. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 15:14 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Is this now fixable using the default pointer initialization?
At least pointer initialization enables us to initalize the $def_init pointer
component. But still we will need a default-initia
--- Comment #5 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-21 15:44 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Well something in -g processing is a CPU hog. On my Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82
> laptop (2.2GHz x 2 cores) with 32-bit kernel and vanilla gcc-4.5.1
> (--enable-checking=release) I get:
Same machine
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 15:56 ---
On the trunk this takes (--enable-checking=release)
time ./cc1 -g -O2 -quiet directx.i
real2m49.038s
user2m48.489s
sys 0m0.268s
here. As InitAdapters is quite large, with more than thousand calls in it,
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:21 ---
Comment #6 is fixed by r163445, but comment #5 is still open.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45290
the form...
Executing on host: /sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20100821/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-
4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20100821/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c",
diagnostic=0x7fff5fbfe7f0) at ../../gcc-4.6-20100821/gcc/langhooks.c:369
369 {
(gdb)
370 if (diagnostic_last_function_changed (context, diagnostic))
(gdb)
372 const char *old_prefix = contex
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-21
16:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=21537)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21537&action=view)
bzip2 of complete trace from after 348th break on get_alias_set
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
I will upload a file, type_bound_demoP.f90. When I compile it, I see the
following messages:
type_bound_demoP.f90:187.8:
associate (pt1 => point_1%pt2d_t, pt2 => point_2%pt2d_t)
1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
type_bound_demoP.f90:188.10:
x_dist = pt1 % Get (X_
--- Comment #1 from clerman at fuse dot net 2010-08-21 16:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=21538)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21538&action=view)
code that allow the bug to be reproduced
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45369
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:42
---
Created an attachment (id=21539)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21539&action=view)
Proposed patch
This patch adds the padding requested. Output of test case matches a few of the
other compile
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-21
16:46 ---
This also appears to be causing the testsuite failures of...
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/921013-1.c compilation, -O2 (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/921013-1.c compilation, -O2 -fl
--- Comment #3 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-21
16:47 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
the above was with use of...
Index: opts.c
===
--- opts.c (revision 162966)
+++ opts.c (working copy)
@@
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:57 ---
I only get a limited set of errors:
test.f03:188.10:
x_dist = pt1 % Get (X_COORD) - pt2 % Get (X_COORD)
1
Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
test.f03:189.10:
y_dist = pt1 % Get (Y_C
--- Comment #11 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:57 ---
*** Bug 45369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:58 ---
Thanks for the test-case, I'll check against it when this will be implemented.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45369
--- Comment #12 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-21 16:58 ---
See also PR 45369 which has a rather complicated test-case for association to
derived-types (as is currently not yet working).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38936
--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-21 17:06
---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01669.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-21 17:28 ---
Didn't Carrot's r163184 fix this PR and its dupe PR43461?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44999
The testcase 'gfortran.dg/subref_array_pointer_2.f90 -O2' fails when
-fgraphite-identity is used. The failure is of the form...
0/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20100821/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/subref_array_pointer_2
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-08-21 18:08 ---
Could you try the following patch
--- /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 2010-08-21
12:18:37.0 +0200
+++ bessel_6_db.f90 2010-08-21 15:05:20.0 +0200
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
impl
/deque/modifiers/swap/3.cc execution test
FAIL: 23_containers/vector/modifiers/moveable.cc execution test
The assertions are (in order)...
./1.exe
Assertion failed: (__gnu_test::object_counter::count == 10), function test01,
file
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20100821/libstdc++-v3
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-08-21 21:32 ---
For powerpc-apple-darwin9, I need the following patch
--- /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bessel_6.f90 2010-08-21
12:22:33.0 +0200
+++ bessel_6_db.f90 2010-08-21 23:23:43.0 +0200
@@
--- Comment #4 from clerman at fuse dot net 2010-08-21 21:35 ---
Subject: Re: problem with the associate statement
Thank you very much. I use the associate construct a great deal; it can really
clarify your code.
Norm
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
=
-
just a warning, not an error
bootstrapping from non-gcc
"/home/jay/src/gcc-4.5.1/gcc/coverage.c", line 174: warning: initializer does
not fit or is out of range: -1
"/home/jay/src/gcc-4.5.1/gcc/coverage.c", line 330: warning: initializer does
not fit or is out of range: -1
-bash-3.00$ uname -a
--- Comment #1 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-08-21 22:13
---
clarification, where I assert what gives no warning, I was just testing with
like:
-bash-3.00$ cat 1.c
unsigned a = (unsigned)-1;
unsigned b = (0u - 1u);
I didn't yet test changing coverage.c.
--
http://gcc
My machine is running 64bit Ubuntu, and GCC was configured with this line:
/opt/v850/gcc-4.4.4/configure --target=v850-elf --enable-targets=all
--prefix=/opt/v850 --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c --without-headers
--disable-nls --disable-threads --disable-shared --disable-libmudflap
--disabl
--- Comment #1 from trap15 at raidenii dot net 2010-08-21 23:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=21540)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21540&action=view)
the .i file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45373
--- Comment #2 from trap15 at raidenii dot net 2010-08-21 23:47 ---
I tested both 4.4.4 and 4.4.0 and they both generate the wrong code.
--
trap15 at raidenii dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-22 01:26 ---
Fixed.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #3 from trap15 at raidenii dot net 2010-08-22 02:47 ---
This actually appears to be the same problem when comparing in the other
direction as well. If I change the source from i < 8 to i > 8, then it uses
``cmp 8, iter; bgt 0xf00'', which is also wrong, since we want 8 < iter
--- Comment #4 from carrot at google dot com 2010-08-22 04:34 ---
Both have been fixed. But I don't have the permission to close PR43461.(In
reply to comment #3)
> Didn't Carrot's r163184 fix this PR and its dupe PR43461?
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44999
--- Comment #53 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-22
04:56 ---
gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c only uses
__deregister_frame_info_bases (image->fde);
out of the non-functional unwinder calls for SL's libunwind.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
61 matches
Mail list logo
