http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-08
08:05:54 UTC ---
I think it would be better to rewrite this using intrinsics than depending on
the register allocator.
You have 3 register inputs, 4 register outputs and 5 memory inputs.
I a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-08
08:29:53 UTC ---
I think it is obvious what is happening. The c++ front-end is propagating the
const vector.
Does a const int cause a similar issue if so the inline-asm is buggy i think.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55619
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-12-08 08:49:35
UTC ---
Indeed I got it down to this code, which fails just the same with an int
instead of a vector. I didn't know it was forbidden to pass constants with the
"m" constraint, I thought g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-08
10:28:07 UTC ---
Many thanks for your help!
Mike Stein stopped posting test results quite some time ago. Dunno why,
he does not respond to email.
avr.h defines R0_REG as register class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
André Wöbbeking changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Woebbeking at web dot de
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher 2012-12-08
12:12:59 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Sat Dec 8 12:12:50 2012
New Revision: 194322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194322
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/55158
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54814
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-12-08
14:08:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 28900
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28900
Candidate patch
Try this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-12-08 17:05:51
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/bad.cc
#include
int
main ()
{
int *buf = new int(30);
buf[30]=1;
return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ ./release/usr/gcc-4.8.0/bin/g++ -fsanitize=addr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|[asan] Wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-12-08 17:59:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 28901
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28901
-Weverything
A very basic implementation of -Weverything (I don't really understand that
cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55599
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab 2012-12-08 19:31:46
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-12/msg00595.html is based on
r191055.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55104
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55596
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55595
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55480
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55606
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||FIXME, rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55601
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55560
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55589
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-09
00:48:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 28902
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28902
Patch which might work
Can you try this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39900
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cookevillain at yahoo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55420
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55431
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-09
00:59:40 UTC ---
There seems like there are two different issues here. The first issue if musl
libc not following the same ABI as glibc. The second issues looks like maybe a
real one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55246
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-* x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54416
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-09
01:29:44 UTC ---
The first example is invalid C90 anyways:
t4.c:10:3: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wpedantic]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55440
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-09
01:34:15 UTC ---
> 1. plugin DSO is dlopened by linker, not GCC. Compiling it with asan may
> not work correctly. linker may not find asan DSO at run-time.
No this is testing the plugin to GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55457
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-09
01:39:39 UTC ---
The whole point of the gcc vector extensions is that you don't need to depend
on what the hardware can do under neath as it should produce good code in
either case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55516
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55530
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54951
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55083
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-09
02:23:48 UTC ---
It does not test if the directory exists but rather if the Makefile in the
directory exists.
test ! -f $(TARGET_SUBDIR)/libatomic/Makefile || exit 0; \
So I think this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54982
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55457
--- Comment #2 from Siarhei Siamashka
2012-12-09 02:33:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The whole point of the gcc vector extensions is that you don't need to depend
> on what the hardware can do under neath as it should produce good
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Version|u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55431
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker 2012-12-09 02:37:19
UTC ---
The ABI issue is a dependency on an undocumented part of glibc's ABI behavior
-- I don't see anywhere it's documented that __libc_stack_end points at "argc"
(i.e. the original pla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55089
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55107
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55146
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51343
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shankerwangmiao at 163 dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55222
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55085
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55083
--- Comment #4 from Perry Smith 2012-12-09 04:45:47
UTC ---
I can't remember much about this. Things may have changed since I reported it.
Is the Makefile created as the last step?
If not, then if something fails after the Makefile is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55083
--- Comment #6 from Perry Smith 2012-12-09 05:40:28
UTC ---
If it helps, here are the last messages from the make log:
checking for powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.0.0-gcc... /usr/work/build/gcc.git/./gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/work/build/gcc.git/./gcc/ -B
/gs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55621
Bug #: 55621
Summary: no gcc or g++ tests run for solaris2.11 target :
missing
$OBJDIR/gcc/testsuite/config/unix_{gcc,g++}.exp files
Classification: Unclassified
63 matches
Mail list logo