[Bug libstdc++/45403] python pretty printer for std::string requires GDB 7.1

2010-09-15 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
--- Comment #5 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-09-15 07:52 --- there's one more issue with std::string pretty printing. with -gdwarf-4 enabled it fails on gdb-7.2 with runtime error: $1 = Traceback (most recent call last): File "/local/devel/toolchain45/x86_64-gnu-linux.mt_alloc/share

[Bug target/42070] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O3 -g -fprofile-use

2010-09-15 Thread mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 07:55 --- Fixed. -- mrs at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/45596] Implement simple static points-to analysis in Fortran FE

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 08:37 --- You're right, it doesn't call compute_spt_expr on all the actual arguments's ->expr. If/when it will use a generic walker, that will be fixed automatically, but I'll fix it in the meantime as well. -- http://gcc

[Bug preprocessor/45362] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro

2010-09-15 Thread t66667 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 08:56 --- Peeled this skin (164193) off and then blood comes running out. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362

[Bug c++/31584] [DR502] ICE on probably invalid code

2010-09-15 Thread numerical dot simulation at web dot de
--- Comment #9 from numerical dot simulation at web dot de 2010-09-15 09:03 --- Hi! Looks like http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#502 now has a resolution, namely that a type is dependent if it is a nested class or enumeration that is a member of the current i

[Bug c++/45665] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in grokdeclarator, at cp/decl.c:8797 on invalid code

2010-09-15 Thread paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:06 --- Subject: Bug 45665 Author: paolo Date: Wed Sep 15 09:06:32 2010 New Revision: 164299 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164299 Log: /cp 2010-09-15 Paolo Carlini PR c++/45665 * d

[Bug c++/45665] [4.4/4.5 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in grokdeclarator, at cp/decl.c:8797 on invalid code

2010-09-15 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-15 09:08 --- Fixed for 4.6.0. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/40959] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] FreeBSD/ia64 build fails: No rule to make target `/usr/ports/lang/gcc43/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd8.0/libgcc/crtfastmath.o', needed by `T_TARGET'.

2010-09-15 Thread mexas at bristol dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #21 from mexas at bristol dot ac dot uk 2010-09-15 09:20 --- Just to confirm that 45 now builds on ia64: gcc-4.5.2.20100909 The error for 46 is this: *skip* gmake[4]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd9.0/libgfortran' if [ -z "" ]; t

[Bug fortran/45676] Move array assignments out of loop

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:47 --- We can't hoist invariant control flow. Also print *,c is surely thought to be an escape point for c and thus may clobber it. I'd rate this impossible to do for the middle-end (and generally not worth the hassle to

[Bug middle-end/45663] [4.6 regression] New test failures

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- 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=45663

[Bug debug/45673] -fcompare-debug failure with minor difference in dumps

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:49 --- Another dumping artifact probably. At some point I'd like to dump all MEM_REFs as MEM[(...)p + cst] and drop the fancy ways. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45673

[Bug bootstrap/45672] [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure for powerpc-apple-darwin9: 'rs6000_units_per_simd_word' defined but not used

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:49 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug middle-end/45644] [4.6 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

2010-09-15 Thread vladimir dot a dot kharchenko at intel dot com
--- Comment #5 from vladimir dot a dot kharchenko at intel dot com 2010-09-15 10:11 --- When I run "./soplex -s1 -e -m45000 pds-50.mps" Seg fault is: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x004363a7 in size (this=0x7fffce40, ds=) at svector.h:174 174

[Bug libstdc++/45403] python pretty printer for std::string requires GDB 7.1

2010-09-15 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 11:21 --- (In reply to comment #5) > with -gdwarf-4 enabled it fails on gdb-7.2 with runtime error: I couldn't reproduce that with 4.5.2 20100909, can you give more details? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45

[Bug libstdc++/45403] python pretty printer for std::string requires GDB 7.1

2010-09-15 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
--- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-09-15 11:34 --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > with -gdwarf-4 enabled it fails on gdb-7.2 with runtime error: > > I couldn't reproduce that with 4.5.2 20100909, can you give more details? $ cat t.cpp #include int

[Bug target/45623] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #9 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 11:45 --- Created an attachment (id=21798) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21798&action=view) Reduced testcase Both issues Taras mentioned are actually separated. One is an actual bug in ffi (to be filed), the

[Bug target/45623] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #10 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 11:53 --- Please note this actually only happens on x86. (I would change the summary and target if I could) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623

[Bug target/45623] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #11 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 12:05 --- Created an attachment (id=21799) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21799&action=view) Reduced testcase Inlining JSVAL_TO_PRIVATE by hand still makes it break, and reduces the testcase further. --

[Bug target/45623] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #12 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 12:11 --- FWIW, it's still broken on a gcc trunk snapshot from the 28th of august. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623

[Bug target/45623] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 12:16 --- Confirmed and investigating. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libffi/45677] New: Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
The stack space allocated by ffi_call for the non-register arguments is not big enough (and not properly aligned) when calling the target function, and depending on what the called function does with the stack, it can end up overwriting ffi_call_unix64's stack. A case where this occurred is with a

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #1 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 12:21 --- Created an attachment (id=21800) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21800&action=view) Fix stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45677

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 12:31 --- You are accessing a pointer of type char *s1 via an lvalue of type void * (*data). Or speaking in C++, you are accessing an object of dynamic type void * (stored to via *data) by an lvalue of type char * (s1). Th

[Bug rtl-optimization/45678] New: gcc-4.4: crash on vector code with -m32 -msse

2010-09-15 Thread edwintorok at gmail dot com
This testcase crashes when compiled with gcc 4.4 -m32 -msse -O2, but not when compiled with 4.3 or 4.5. It doesn't crash when compiled as -m64. /* compile me with -O2 -msse -m32 */ #include typedef float v4sf __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))); int main(void) { float m4[4]; v4sf m3; f

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #15 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 12:47 --- Note that the original code doesn't use char *. I used char * to make it easily visible with a printf. Actually, just writing void foo(jsval_layout l, void *s2) { jsval_layout m; m.asBits = l.asBits; void *

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #16 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 12:52 --- The real code where this gets problematic: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/ctypes/CTypes.cpp#5615 The function it calls: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/ctypes/CTypes.cpp#5542

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:03 --- points-to analysis does not honor GCCs type-punning through union extension (it works on x86_64 because ptr and asBits match in size and thus SRA cleans the code up before pointer-analysis). So PTA sees ss1.0_1

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #18 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 13:14 --- (In reply to comment #17) > Thus, as a workaround you should make sure the asBits field matches > pointer-size (so for example use uintptr_t isntead of uint64_t). which is not possible in the original code, as the unio

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:24 --- Another workaround is to use -fno-tree-pta. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623

[Bug middle-end/45644] [4.6 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

2010-09-15 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:25 --- I have just sent a proposed fix to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01244.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #20 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 13:41 --- (In reply to comment #19) > Another workaround is to use -fno-tree-pta. Doesn't work here. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:50 --- (In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #19) > > Another workaround is to use -fno-tree-pta. > > Doesn't work here. For the original code? Then your reduced testcase is different from the original probl

[Bug fortran/45577] [4.6 Regression] Bogus(?) "... type incompatible with source-expr ..." error

2010-09-15 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:50 --- Subject: Bug 45577 Author: janus Date: Wed Sep 15 13:50:15 2010 New Revision: 164305 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164305 Log: 2010-09-15 Janus Weil PR fortran/45577 * reso

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #22 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 13:52 --- (In reply to comment #21) > For the original code? Then your reduced testcase is different from the > original problem. It doesn't work for the reduced testcase here, with gcc 4.5.1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug fortran/45577] [4.6 Regression] Bogus(?) "... type incompatible with source-expr ..." error

2010-09-15 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:52 --- Fixed with r164305. Closing. -- janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-09-15 13:56 --- Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break? On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, mh+gcc at glandium dot org wrote: > --- Comment #22 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 13:52 -

[Bug fortran/45674] [OOP] Undefined references for extended types

2010-09-15 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:57 --- Confirmed. From a quick glimpse it seems the patch goes in the right direction. Will have a closer look soon. -- janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:59 --- Created an attachment (id=21801) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21801&action=view) patch I am testing this patch (for 4.5 branch). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623

[Bug tree-optimization/45623] [4.5/4.6 Regression] GCC 4.5.[01] breaks our ffi on Linux64. ABI break?

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #25 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 14:01 --- Oh, I was trying with -O2, yes, it works with -O1 -fno-tree-pta. Let me try on the original code, too. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623

[Bug rtl-optimization/45678] gcc-4.4: crash on vector code with -m32 -msse

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 14:10 --- No longer crashes in 4.5/4.6 since r147980, aka SRA rewrite. The only difference in *.optimized is though that before r147980 we have: m3.3_3 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(m2); m3.5_4 = m3.3_3 * { 5.0e+0, 1.5e+1, 2.5e+1, 3.

[Bug rtl-optimization/45678] [4.4 Regression] crash on vector code with -m32 -msse

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|gcc-4.4: crash on vector|[4.4 Regression] crash on |code with -m32 -msse

[Bug rtl-optimization/45678] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] crash on vector code with -m32 -msse

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 14:23 --- Actually typedef float V __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))); V g; int main () { float d[4] = { 4, 3, 2, 1 }; V e; __builtin_memcpy (&e, &d, sizeof (d)); V f = { 5, 15, 25, 35 }; e = e * f; g = e; return

[Bug fortran/45674] [OOP] Undefined references for extended types

2010-09-15 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 14:46 --- (In reply to comment #0) > Index: fortran/interface.c > === > --- fortran/interface.c (revision 164288) > +++ fortran/interface.c (working copy) > @@ -142

[Bug lto/45679] New: ICE at lto1: error: edge points to wrong declaration while compiling povray

2010-09-15 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
~/trunk-install/bin/g++ -O3 -fwhopr a.ii b.ii -r -nostdlib leads to unit size align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x77ed8498 precision 32 min max pointer_to_this > QI size unit size align 8 symtab 0 alias se

[Bug lto/45679] ICE at lto1: error: edge points to wrong declaration while compiling povray

2010-09-15 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 15:16 --- Created an attachment (id=21802) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21802&action=view) first part of testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45679

[Bug lto/45679] ICE at lto1: error: edge points to wrong declaration while compiling povray

2010-09-15 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 15:17 --- Created an attachment (id=21803) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21803&action=view) second part of testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45679

[Bug fortran/45659] LTO / function pointers with iso_c_binding

2010-09-15 Thread Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch
--- Comment #6 from Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch 2010-09-15 15:17 --- OK, fixed with using CVS binutils... ld -v GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.20.51.20100915) 1.10 -- Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch changed: What|Removed |

[Bug bootstrap/45658] [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-15 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-15 15:34 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC A reghunt identified the responsible patch: 2010-09-10 Jan Hubicka * tree-ssa-ccp.c (fold_const_aggre

[Bug fortran/45674] [OOP] Undefined references for extended types

2010-09-15 Thread dietmar dot ebner at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from dietmar dot ebner at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 15:36 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Actually I think this patch is ok. Are you interested in committing it > yourself? [Note that you'll need an FSF copyright assignment, if you don't > already have one.] Otherwise I can

[Bug bootstrap/45658] [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-15 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 15:37 --- Jan, this is the second of your recent patches (after PR bootstrap/45612) to break Ada/SPARC bootstrap. Could you please have a look? Thanks. Rainer -- ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Remov

[Bug c++/45635] [4.6 regression] Failed to bootstrap on Linux/ia64

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 15:40 --- Subject: Bug 45635 Author: jakub Date: Wed Sep 15 15:39:57 2010 New Revision: 164311 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164311 Log: PR c++/45635 * class.c (build_vtbl_initializer):

[Bug tree-optimization/45633] [4.6 regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 15:43 --- Subject: Bug 45633 Author: jakub Date: Wed Sep 15 15:42:41 2010 New Revision: 164312 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164312 Log: PR tree-optimization/45633 * tree-cfg.c (verify_

[Bug c++/45635] [4.6 regression] Failed to bootstrap on Linux/ia64

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 15:54 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/45644] [4.6 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

2010-09-15 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 16:00 --- Subject: Bug 45644 Author: jamborm Date: Wed Sep 15 15:59:27 2010 New Revision: 164313 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164313 Log: 2010-09-15 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/45644

[Bug tree-optimization/45633] [4.6 regression] internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 16:06 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/45644] [4.6 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

2010-09-15 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 16:06 --- Fixed. -- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread dwitte at mozilla dot com
--- Comment #2 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-15 16:17 --- I'd recommend upstreaming things directly to the maintainer, Anthony Green (that's what I do). If you'd like, close this out, and post the patch to libffi-disc...@sourceware.org and CC gr...@redhat.com? -- dwitte at m

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread dwitte at mozilla dot com
--- Comment #3 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-15 16:18 --- (Oh, and please include a description of your change in ChangeLog -- makes his job easier.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45677

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 17:07 --- That patch looks wrong. The padding for alignment must be done before the arguments, not after them. Say if bytes is 24 at the start of one iteration, cif->arg_types[i]->alignment is 32 and cif->arg_types[i]->size is

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread dwitte at mozilla dot com
--- Comment #5 from dwitte at mozilla dot com 2010-09-15 17:24 --- Yeah, that sounds right to me. The final alignment really wants to be the alignment of whatever comes next, right? Which happens to be cif->flags, so 8 is fine. I wonder if just assuming 8 is fragile, but since we'll only

[Bug bootstrap/45680] New: [4.6 regression] cc1 fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: min_insn_size missing

2010-09-15 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
Between 20100908 and 20100915, mainline failed to bootstrap on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: cc1 doesn't link any more due to an undefined referenced to min_insn_size. This is most likely from this patch 2010-09-09 Reza Yazdani * config/i386/i386.c: Include sched-

I know it is roaring at the gods, Waiting t

2010-09-15 Thread Donel Hazell
Em bare And gripped the ground and grasped the air, Staggered, and strove to stand. He bent them back with spear and spade, With desperate dyke and wall, With foemen leaning on his shield And roaring on him when he reeled; And no help came at all. He broke them with a broken sword A little toward

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 17:51 --- No, the 8 in the final ALIGN is because that's the stack word size, everything smaller than that is passed as low bits of the whole 64-bit word. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45677

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread mh+gcc at glandium dot org
--- Comment #7 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-09-15 18:13 --- Nice catch. BTW I read recently that gcc 4.5 assumes 16 bytes stack alignment, is that x86 only or does that apply to x86-64 too ? (in which case we'd need to be careful about that as well) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bug

[Bug fortran/45681] New: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1297

2010-09-15 Thread jteg68 at gmail dot com
ICE on buggy? code. #cat buggy.f integer function fcall(c,n) character*(n) c integer n character c2 c2=c(1) return end #gfortran buggy.f --save-temps buggy.f: In function ‘fcall’: buggy.f:1: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1297 Ple

[Bug bootstrap/45680] [4.6 regression] cc1 fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: min_insn_size missing

2010-09-15 Thread reza dot yazdani at amd dot com
-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:28 AM To: Yazdani, Reza Subject: [Bug bootstrap/45680] New: [4.6 regression] cc1 fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: min_insn_size missing Between 20100908 and 20100915, mainline failed to bootstrap on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as

[Bug bootstrap/45680] [4.6 regression] cc1 fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: min_insn_size missing

2010-09-15 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 18:21 --- (In reply to comment #0) > This is most likely from this patch FYI, this patch also introduced the same build failure when building cc1 from linux to cygwin cross. Before this patch, cc1 build went just fine even without

[Bug lto/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

2010-09-15 Thread Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch
--- Comment #4 from Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch 2010-09-15 18:25 --- If realspace_grid_type%r is declared as pointer instead of allocatable, the testcase can be compiled, and a similar workaround in CP2K allows an LTO build of CP2K to finish (after updating binutils to

[Bug bootstrap/45680] [4.6 regression] cc1 fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: min_insn_size missing

2010-09-15 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 18:26 --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > > This is most likely from this patch > > FYI, this patch also introduced the same build failure when building cc1 from > linux to cygwin cross. Before this patch,

[Bug fortran/45681] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1297

2010-09-15 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 18:30 --- Thanks for the bug report. The problem appears to be fixed in gcc version 4.6.0 20100913 (experimental) (GCC) and gcc version 4.5.1 20100728 (prerelease) (GCC). It is unlikely that this will be fixed in 4.4.x becaus

[Bug middle-end/45230] gcc.c-torture/execute/strncmp-1.c ICEs with -fgraphite-identity

2010-09-15 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #12 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-09-15 18:39 --- You are right, it still fails in the graphite branch, though with different ICE: (r164299, x86_64-linux) $ gcc gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/strncmp-1.c -Os -m32 gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute

[Bug c++/45605] Missed devirtualization

2010-09-15 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 18:42 --- Well, it turns out that fold_stmt_1 is never called on that statement (neither with -O -finline or -O2 or -O3). Where is it supposed to be called from? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605

[Bug fortran/45681] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1297

2010-09-15 Thread jteg68 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from jteg68 at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 18:57 --- Hi, as it's already fixed in newer versions, please don't spend any more time on this. /Jörgen -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45681

[Bug debug/45682] New: missing namespace parent die when using -gdwarf-4

2010-09-15 Thread dje at google dot com
For the example below, when using gcc 4.5 and svn head, gcc -gdwarf-4 is not emitting the class definition in an enclosing namespace parent die. foo.cc: namespace thread { class Executor { public: static Executor* CurrentExecutor(); }; } namespace thread { Executor* Executor::CurrentExecut

[Bug c++/45605] Missed devirtualization

2010-09-15 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-09-15 19:09 --- Subject: Re: Missed devirtualization On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 18:42 > --- > Well, it turns out that fold_stmt_1

[Bug bootstrap/45680] [4.6 regression] cc1 fails to link on Solaris 9/x86 with Sun as: min_insn_size missing

2010-09-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- 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=45680

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 19:21 --- Yes, x86-64 requires 16 byte stack alignment, but alloca should ensure that. Can you come up with a small testcase which was misbehaving before? It would be great to add it to the libffi testsuite. -- http://gcc

[Bug c/45683] New: Segmentation fault on large unsigned integer values in C99 mode

2010-09-15 Thread mail at rink dot nu
The attached tiny program gives the following: $ gcc -m32 -std=c99 -c faal.c faal.c:18:50: warning: integer constant is so large that it is unsigned faal.c:20:13: warning: integer constant is so large that it is unsigned faal.c: In function ‘main’: faal.c:18: internal compiler error: Segmentation

[Bug c/45683] Segmentation fault on large unsigned integer values in C99 mode

2010-09-15 Thread mail at rink dot nu
--- Comment #1 from mail at rink dot nu 2010-09-15 20:40 --- Created an attachment (id=21804) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21804&action=view) Failing code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45683

[Bug c/45683] Segmentation fault on large unsigned integer values in C99 mode

2010-09-15 Thread mail at rink dot nu
--- Comment #2 from mail at rink dot nu 2010-09-15 20:40 --- Created an attachment (id=21805) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21805&action=view) .i file -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45683

[Bug target/43118] vld4 and vst4 intrinsics are not handled correctly

2010-09-15 Thread generalruzzmo at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from generalruzzmo at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 20:54 --- this bug is bugging me too.. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43118

[Bug target/45683] Segmentation fault on large unsigned integer values in C99 mode

2010-09-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 20:56 --- D.1837_4 = () D.1836_3; Looks like the support 128bit integer is not fully there for x86. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/45684] New: Internal compiler error when compiling gcc-4.5.1 from source

2010-09-15 Thread kjetil1001 at gmail dot com
my system: kje...@familien:~/git/incanter$ lsb_release -rd Description:Ubuntu maverick (development branch) Release:10.10 my gcc version: (standard version from ubuntu Maverick): kje...@familien:~/git/incanter$ gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu3) 4.4.5 Copyright (C) 20

[Bug c++/43085] Make profiledbootstrap fails with cc1plus catching SIGSEGV

2010-09-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 21:00 --- *** Bug 45684 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug gcov-profile/45684] Internal compiler error when compiling gcc-4.5.1 from source with profilebootstrap

2010-09-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 21:00 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43085 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug libffi/45677] Bad stack allocation for ffi function calls on x86-64

2010-09-15 Thread dwitte at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from dwitte at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 21:01 --- Created an attachment (id=21806) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21806&action=view) testcase Here you go. This passes at -O0 but fails at -O2. Note that the testcase requires >= 7 args to the test funct

[Bug fortran/45681] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1297

2010-09-15 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 21:08 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Hi, > > as it's already fixed in newer versions, please don't spend any more time on > this. > OK. Once again thanks for sending a bug report. -- kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.6

2010-09-15 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment #47 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-09-15 21:16 --- Per the email Ian sent a few minutes ago, we will upgrade Bugzilla this Friday, September 17, for three hours starting at 18:00 GMT (11:00 PDT). So *please* give a try at our test installation, and report any problem

[Bug c++/45605] Missed devirtualization

2010-09-15 Thread hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-09-15 22:39 --- Subject: Re: Missed devirtualization > We fold a stmt only if it is propagated to (by ccp, copyprop, forwprop, > dom or by inlining). Well, since fold_stmt is stornger than what fe does, I guess we should fold each stmt at

[Bug rtl-optimization/45593] [4.5/4.6 regression] segfault with -Os

2010-09-15 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
reorg.c (relax_delay_slots): Use emit_copy_of_insn_after to re-emit insns that were in delay slots as stand-alone insns. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20100915-1.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/reorg.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog --

[Bug ada/45568] [4.6 Regression] stack overflow (or erroneous memory access) building gnattools

2010-09-15 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 22:49 --- Bug returns in build with revision 164294. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug rtl-optimization/45593] [4.5/4.6 regression] segfault with -Os

2010-09-15 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
reorg.c (relax_delay_slots): Use emit_copy_of_insn_after to re-emit insns that were in delay slots as stand-alone insns. Added: branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20100915-1.c - copied unchanged from r164318, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2010

[Bug rtl-optimization/45593] [4.5/4.6 regression] segfault with -Os

2010-09-15 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 22:57 --- Thanks for the reduced testcase. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug libstdc++/45403] python pretty printer for std::string requires GDB 7.1

2010-09-15 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 23:43 --- Hmm, OK, I can reproduce that with a current 4.5.2 build, but not with a snapshot from last week. Please file a separate bug for that, component=c++ - thanks! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45403

[Bug libstdc++/45403] python pretty printer for std::string requires GDB 7.1

2010-09-15 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
la GDB 7.2 build (with python support!) moria:shm$ cat pr45403.cc #include int main() { std::string s( "foo" ); s.size(); } moria:shm$ ~/gcc/4.5/bin/g++ pr45403.cc -v 2>&1 | fgrep 'version 4.5' gcc version 4.5.2 20100915 (prerelease) (GCC) GNU C++ (GC

[Bug rtl-optimization/45685] New: GCC optimizer for Intel x64 generates inefficient code

2010-09-15 Thread ekuznetsov at divxcorp dot com
I've attached two copies of a simple function. They are identical except for the type of the internal variable (one uses 'int64_t', the other uses 'int'). When compiled with GCC 4.4.3 on a x64 platform using -O3 optimizations, the assembly code for the first version will contain a conditional move

[Bug rtl-optimization/45685] GCC optimizer for Intel x64 generates inefficient code

2010-09-15 Thread ekuznetsov at divxcorp dot com
--- Comment #1 from ekuznetsov at divxcorp dot com 2010-09-16 01:18 --- Created an attachment (id=21807) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21807&action=view) Sample code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685

[Bug fortran/45081] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:4208

2010-09-15 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 05:11 --- Created an attachment (id=21808) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21808&action=view) A fix for this PR Bootstraps and regtests on FC9/x86_64. It is clear that many other array intrinsics fail with

[Bug other/45686] New: Building rev. 164285 fails with --enable-checking=all

2010-09-15 Thread aanisimov at inbox dot ru
I've configured GCC with following options: ../gcc-current/configure --prefix=/home/artem/testing/gcc46 --enable-shared --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libs

[Bug c/45687] New: possible wrong code bug

2010-09-15 Thread regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: ../configure --with-libelf=/usr/local --enable-lto --prefix=/home/regehr/z/compiler-install/gcc-r164319-install --program-prefix=r164319- --enable-languages=c,c++ Thread model: posix gcc version 4.6.0 20100915 (experime

  1   2   >