http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50441
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-18
06:28:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I'd like to have some help about the best way to figure out whether the target
> supports __int128_t and __uint128_t: is __CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__ >= 64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 08:52:56 UTC
---
Thanks.
Data dependence analysis can't determine dependence between src and dst
although they have _restrict_, and it works fine on x86_64-suse-linux for
example... Does darwin have a kno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-18 08:59:58 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Sep 18 08:59:52 2011
New Revision: 178940
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178940
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50412
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 10:17:12 UTC
---
Right. The data-refs analysis fails for the bit assignment, and SLP marks this
statement as not vectorizable and continues with the vectorization of other
statements, which is incorrect be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-18
10:41:09 UTC ---
> Does darwin have a known problem with restrict?
None I am aware of. BTW what is the difference between '*__restrict__' and '*
__restrict' (or '* __restrict__')?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-18
10:45:08 UTC ---
Note that the test succeeds if I replace '* __restrict' with '*__restrict__'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 10:48:43 UTC
---
Looks like there is a difference ;)
I guess it succeeds with the patch to avoid loop vectorization and the fix of
restrict together?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-18
10:54:14 UTC ---
> Looks like there is a difference ;)
> I guess it succeeds with the patch to avoid loop vectorization and the fix of
> restrict together?
Here is the patched test that gives
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #10 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-18 10:55:19 UTC
---
Thanks, I'll commit it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
--- Comment #5 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-18 11:36:22 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Sep 18 11:36:15 2011
New Revision: 178941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178941
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50414
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #11 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-18 11:41:48 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Sep 18 11:41:43 2011
New Revision: 178942
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178942
Log:
PR testsuite/50435
* gcc.dg/vect/b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
--- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-18
12:22:58 UTC ---
See also http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2008-12/msg9.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50446
Bug #: 50446
Summary: [avr] Implement rotate patterns with offset 1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50446
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50446
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-18
12:36:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 25310
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25310
rotate.c
Some test cases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50447
Bug #: 50447
Summary: [avr] Better support of AND, OR, XOR and PLUS with
constant integers for 16- and 32-bit values
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50447
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-09-18 13:11:59 UTC ---
> Thanks, I'll commit it.
Thanks for the quick fix. I'ld like to leave this pr open until someone figure
out what's wrong with darwin and __restrict.
Note that I have replac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50448
Bug #: 50448
Summary: [avr] Missed optimization accessing struct component
with known, absolute address.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50448
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50449
Bug #: 50449
Summary: [avr] Loading some 32 constants not optimal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50449
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50450
Bug #: 50450
Summary: /usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_set.h ifdef
__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCON
ges=c,c++,lto
--with-win32-nlsapi=unicode --enable-tls --disable-bootstrap --enable-shared
--disable-sjlj-exceptions --enable-gomp --enable-cloog-backend=isl
Thread model: win32
gcc version 4.7.0 20110918 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-D' 'HAVE_MKSTEMP' '-D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50450
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50451
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50451
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50451
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-18
16:53:07 UTC ---
This is not a duplicate of pr50343 since this pr is present at revision 178942.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-18
17:38:10 UTC ---
The following produces a Segmentation fault in gfc_conv_structure (r178925)
type t
integer g
end type
type(t) :: u=t(1)
data u%g /2/
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-18
18:20:57 UTC ---
The problem for the code in comment #2 seems different:
it gives a segmentation fault with 4.6.1 and trunk and an ICE with 4.4.6 and
4.5.3:
f951: internal compiler error: in fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-18
22:00:57 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Sep 18 22:00:52 2011
New Revision: 178944
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178944
Log:
PR target/50091
* config/rs6000/rs6000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-18
22:02:01 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Sep 18 22:01:56 2011
New Revision: 178945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178945
Log:
PR target/50091
* config/rs6000/rs6000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou 2011-09-18
22:02:31 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Sep 18 22:02:27 2011
New Revision: 178946
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178946
Log:
PR target/50091
* config/rs6000/rs6000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-18 22:32:35
UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
>
> --- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-09-17 21:42:57 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > (In reply to comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35261
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-09-18 23:54:58 UTC ---
4.3 is not maintained -- should this bug be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50432
--- Comment #2 from xunxun 2011-09-19 00:46:03
UTC ---
It's strange that after I update to gcc4.6.2.20110916, the issue is gone.
I review my earlier build process, and I found that the issue only came out if
you built your gcc with "-flto".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50452
Bug #: 50452
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Internal compiler error:
verify_flow_info failed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50452
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-09-19 00:57:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 25313
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25313
Backtrace in GDB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50452
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-09-19 00:58:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 25314
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25314
Another testcase (compile with -O2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50452
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-09-19 00:59:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 25315
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25315
Another backtrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48120
--- Comment #5 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 05:39:11 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Sep 19 05:39:05 2011
New Revision: 178951
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178951
Log:
2011-09-19 Joey Ye
Backport r171
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terry.guo at arm dot com
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46934
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 06:17:58 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Sep 19 06:17:45 2011
New Revision: 178953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178953
Log:
2011-09-19 chengbin
Backport r174035
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43920
--- Comment #15 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 06:17:54 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Sep 19 06:17:45 2011
New Revision: 178953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178953
Log:
2011-09-19 chengbin
Backport r17403
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48250
--- Comment #6 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 06:17:55 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Sep 19 06:17:45 2011
New Revision: 178953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178953
Log:
2011-09-19 chengbin
Backport r174035
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43872
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 06:17:57 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Sep 19 06:17:45 2011
New Revision: 178953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178953
Log:
2011-09-19 chengbin
Backport r174035
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48689
--- Comment #4 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 06:17:54 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Sep 19 06:17:45 2011
New Revision: 178953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178953
Log:
2011-09-19 chengbin
Backport r174035
50 matches
Mail list logo
