http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33426
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35700
Michael Savisko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||savisko at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35700
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49764
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-17
09:54:56 UTC ---
I see on the arduino forum that you've figured out how to run the compiler
outside the IDE
Now you can add -E to the end of the command, and attach the output file to
this bug repo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49764
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-17
09:57:25 UTC ---
Oops, ignore that - I didn't see your last reply here where you've already
confirmed the command and the minimal testcase that produces the error. Thanks
for providing that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49764
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #27 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-07-17
10:18:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> Could this be related to that bug?
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=633754
I can't say for sure, but the symptoms aren't identical.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49768
Summary: C99 style union initializations does not work as
expected with optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46043
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-17
11:45:53 UTC ---
Or we can mark it as duplicate of c++/49488... or viceversa.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49769
Summary: Configuration mismatch -- extra parts
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34657
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49768
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-07-17
12:47:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24780
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24780
reduced test case
This reduced test case doesn't use any union, just a struct with two one-bit
f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49769
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49488
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46043
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49624
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-17
14:52:50 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jul 17 14:52:46 2011
New Revision: 176370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176370
Log:
2011-07-17 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49624
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49732
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-17
15:06:39 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Jul 17 15:06:36 2011
New Revision: 176371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176371
Log:
PR middle-end/49732
* tree.c (walk_tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49732
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-17
15:08:46 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Jul 17 15:08:44 2011
New Revision: 176372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176372
Log:
PR middle-end/49732
* tree.c (walk_tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49732
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34657
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2011-07-17
15:24:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The patch causes two "regressions".
The first one, in interface_3.f90, triggers because the error message
from this patch takes precedence over the "ambiguou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49769
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-17
16:37:48 UTC ---
this is fantastic - thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49545
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 17:26:15
UTC ---
Compiling with current mainline, I got:
pr47744.c:5:1: internal compiler error: in create_mem_ref, at
tree-ssa-address.c:806
Please submit a full bug report,
for all three examples he
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 17:26:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Apparently, current mainline does not survive tree passes yet ...
gcc version 4.7.0 20110717 (experimental) [trunk revision 176373] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49768
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 18:28:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
>
> > Apparently, current mainline does not survive tree passes yet ...
>
> gcc version 4.7.0 20110717 (ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49767
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-07-17
19:44:53 UTC ---
I can reproduce this with gcc-4.3.2 on i686-linux / FC13, however 4.3.3 and
newer appear to be fixed.
Please note that upstream support for gcc-4.3.x has ended.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34657
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-17
19:57:13 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jul 17 19:57:10 2011
New Revision: 176375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176375
Log:
2011-07-17 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/34
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 20:02:40
UTC ---
Looking at the example in Comment #0, RTX expansion pass generates:
;; D.2794_77 = &q + D.2793_76;
(insn 84 83 85 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 173)
(plus:DI (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 20:07:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Looking at the example in Comment #0, RTX expansion pass generates:
>
> ;; D.2794_77 = &q + D.2793_76;
>
> (insn 84 83 85 (parallel [
> (set (r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49770
Summary: [4.7 Regression] wrong code with -fno-tree-forwprop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34657
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-17
20:17:42 UTC ---
FIXED on the trunk (4.7). Thanks for the bug report - and sorry that it took 3
years to fix it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49770
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2011-07-17 20:19:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 24782
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24782
original testcase (preprocessed)
Output:
$ g++ -O2 -std=gnu++0x -fno-tree-forwprop moveable.ii
$ ./a.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 20:26:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Looking at the example in Comment #0, RTX expansion pass generates:
>
> ;; D.2794_77 = &q + D.2793_76;
>
> (insn 84 83 85 (parallel [
> (set (reg:D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
Summary: [4.7 Regression] wrong code with -ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49772
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in ipa_pta_execute, at
tree-ssa-structalias.c:6790 with -fipa-pta
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49772
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24784|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 21:14:05
UTC ---
Following patch to original ix86_decompose_address solves all failures for me:
--cut here--
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 21:21:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Following patch to original ix86_decompose_address solves all failures for me:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: i386.c
> ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #23 from John David Anglin 2011-07-17
21:27:01 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Jul 17 21:26:59 2011
New Revision: 176377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176377
Log:
PR target/49746
Revert:
2010-12-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 21:28:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Following patch to original ix86_decompose_address solves all failures for me:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: i386.c
> ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #24 from John David Anglin 2011-07-17
21:30:35 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Jul 17 21:30:33 2011
New Revision: 176378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176378
Log:
PR target/49746
Revert:
2010-12-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #25 from John David Anglin 2011-07-17
21:32:59 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Jul 17 21:32:56 2011
New Revision: 176379
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176379
Log:
PR target/49746
Revert:
2010-12-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #26 from John David Anglin 2011-07-17
21:36:39 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Jul 17 21:36:36 2011
New Revision: 176380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176380
Log:
PR target/49746
Revert:
2010-12-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #19 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 22:04:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> This is the same as
>
> ---
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index c728c51..414b528 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 22:12:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
>
> > This is the same as
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> > index c728c51..414b528 100
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49767
--- Comment #2 from waffle.bai at gmail dot com 2011-07-17 22:14:33 UTC ---
Thanks for noting, Mikael!
(In reply to comment #1)
> I can reproduce this with gcc-4.3.2 on i686-linux / FC13, however 4.3.3 and
> newer appear to be fixed.
>
> Please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #21 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 22:17:31
UTC ---
Ah, I see. So:
case SUBREG:
if (SUBREG_REG (op) != REG)
return 0;
Works OK, too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49770
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 22:44:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Ah, I see. So:
>
> case SUBREG:
> if (SUBREG_REG (op) != REG)
> return 0;
>
> Works OK, too.
Did you mean
case SUBREG:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 22:48:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
>
> case SUBREG:
> if (GET_CODE (SUBREG_REG (op)) != REG)
> return 0;
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-17 22:55:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
>
> >
> > case SUBREG:
> > if (GET_CODE (SUBREG_REG (op)) != REG)
> > return 0;
>
> Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #25 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-17 22:59:39
UTC ---
> It doesn't work. I got
Yeah, I found the problem, we have to allow only non-eliminable registers.
Please try this:
case SUBREG:
if (TARGET_X32
&& !regis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-18 00:02:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> > It doesn't work. I got
>
> Yeah, I found the problem, we have to allow only non-eliminable registers.
>
> Please try this:
>
> case SUBREG:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-18 04:17:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> It works much better. But it still caused a few regressions on x32 branch:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/character_array_constructor_1.f90 -O1 (internal compiler
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34657
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
63 matches
Mail list logo
