http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-17
20:45:37 UTC ---
> ... On darwin12 at least, this still leaves the failures in...
>
> obj-c++.dg/torture/strings/const-str-10.mm
> obj-c++.dg/torture/strings/const-str-11.mm
> obj-c++.d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-18
07:47:15 UTC ---
This seems related to pr48636. Could you try the patch in comment #20:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28456 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-18
19:01:34 UTC ---
The ICE appears at revision 192538 and requires gcc to be configured with
--enable-checking=yes (default). I don't see it for gcc configured with
--enable-checking=releas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54992
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-19
21:37:08 UTC ---
Revision 187190 is OK, revision 187198 is not -> likely r187192.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-19
22:15:09 UTC ---
The test libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c fails to execute with a bus error
on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 192538. Is it related to this PR or should
I open a ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-19
23:18:39 UTC ---
> Something I'm going to test:
It does not fix the ICE, at least on x86_64-apple-darwin10.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-10-20 11:22:16 UTC ---
If I understand correctly the patch, the default value for
max-inline-min-speedup is 20. This could be over-agressive: for fatigue.f90 the
threshold is between 94 (fast)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31119
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-20
15:43:13 UTC ---
> can someone fortran aware please double-check that the tests
>
>* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_9.f90: New test.
>* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_2.f90: New test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54901
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Bug #: 55006
Summary: [4.8 Regression] aermod.f90 is miscompiled with '-m64
-O2 -funroll-loops' after revision 192526
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-21
12:24:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 28499
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28499
Compressed archive for aermod
The attachment contains the files needed to compile an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
Bug #: 55021
Summary: [4.8 Regression] The tests
gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_5.F90 and
masklr_1.F90 are miscompiled with -flto after revision
192529
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-22
13:48:27 UTC ---
> I get
>
> > ./gfortran -B. -B ../x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/.libs t.f90
> > -ffree-line-length-none
> t.f90:20.28:
>
> call check_i8(i8**43_8,3_8**43_8)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
Bug #: 55022
Summary: [4.8 Regression] air.f90 is miscompliled with -m64 -O2
-fgraphite-identity after revision 190619
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55021
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-22
14:14:19 UTC ---
> I think your bisection is wrong ...
Indeed I meant r192559 (see /opt/gcc/gcc4.8p-192559/bin/gfortran in comment#0).
Thanks for the quick fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-22
14:24:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 28507
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28507
compressed archive for the test
The attachment contains the original source air_main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-23
13:35:44 UTC ---
It likely has started after revision 189156.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55037
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-23
21:23:10 UTC ---
After revision 192745 bootstrap fails with
...
../../work/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:583:1: error: unused parameter 'n'
[-Werror=unused-parameter]
cond_arg_set_in_bb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-10-23 21:26:13 UTC ---
The test gfortran.dg/pr54967.f90 fails because SUBROUTINE calc_S_derivs() is
duplicated.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-10-23 21:35:09 UTC ---
Jeffrey are you sure that r192746 is enough? cond_arg_set_in_bb is used with 3
arguments elsewhere in the file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55063
Bug #: 55063
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Thousands of failures in the
libstdc++-v3 tests after revision 192739
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55090
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |x86_64-*-*
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #89 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-17 14:08:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #88)
> Iain,
>Do you think the "no debug symbols" warnings in the partition2.C test case
> on darwin10 are the caused by the same issue (lack of pub sy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #91 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-17 14:31:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #90)
> ... In any event the two remaining issues need resolution -- I suspect they
> are
> causing fallout elsewhere.
> ... I just don't see the point in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #95 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-17 22:07:55 UTC ---
For the reasons given below, I have reached the conclusion that the failures
for g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C are not caused by the above patches, but
exposed by any patch fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42378
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34199
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-19 10:53:47 UTC ---
This PR seems to have been fixed at revision 168044 (likely r 168031). May be
pr46974 was a duplicate of this PR. Could someone check this and close this PR
if it is the case?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-19 13:37:17 UTC ---
> Could you try if this solves the problem?
The patch in comment #14 fixed the problem on x86_64-apple-darwin10 (I cannot
say anything for AMD). I have run the polyhedron test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29057
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-*.c scan-rtl-dump-times sms "SMS
succeeded" *
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46950
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-19
20:20:16 UTC ---
The same revision caused pr46916. Could you try the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22787 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-20 08:57:32 UTC ---
The patch in comment #14 fixed the problem on x86_64-apple-darwin10, but causes
the following regressions:
FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/outer-2.c scan-tree-dump-times parloops "parall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #97 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-20 09:05:05 UTC ---
The patch in attachment 22787 fixes also a "Stage 3 ada bootstrap error on
i686-apple-darwin9", see comment #3 of pr46950.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-20
10:21:37 UTC ---
Thanks for looking at the problem. Do you understand why the tests pass on
*86*-*-* and not on powerpc*-*-*?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45965
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-20
10:25:46 UTC ---
These failures have disappeared between revisions 168021 and 168044 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01606.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45965
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47013
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-20
10:59:26 UTC ---
> Yes, the dump file is checked only for powerpc*-*-* and spu-*-*:
>
> /* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump-times "SMS succeeded" 1 "sms" { target
> powerpc*-*-* spu-*-* } } } */
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres
2010-12-21 10:46:06 UTC ---
For the record I have also tested the patch in comment #14 on
powerpc-apple-darwin9 at revision 168070. Without the patch I get
[karma] lin/test% gfc -Ofast -funroll-loops -ft
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.ang...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at rr dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41146
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-23
12:34:27 UTC ---
An updated patch has been posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01765.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-23
13:36:40 UTC ---
> ... so I would not expect this.
Why?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-23
15:13:46 UTC ---
I have raised a similar question in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-11/msg4.html answered in the following
posts in this thread.
The relevant part of the standard (from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47054
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-12-23
19:33:04 UTC ---
> What compilation error?
For me it is
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc -fcray-pointer pr47054.f90
pr47054.f90:23.29:
pointer (paxg_8, G_xg_8(G_ni))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47057
Summary: FAIL/XPASS
gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-outer-fir.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
14:02:15 UTC ---
Did somebody test the patch in comment #3?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
18:18:34 UTC ---
Compiling revision 168524 gives:
../../work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c: In function 'gfc_trans_class_assign':
../../work/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:6172:42: error: 'vtab' may be us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47180
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
18:41:36 UTC ---
> Simple solution:
>
> - gfc_symbol *vtab;
> + gfc_symbol *vtab = NULL;
This is the fix I have also reached and it allows gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c to
be compiled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05
22:31:14 UTC ---
> * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for the
> first *).
I don't think this cover x86_64-*-*, this is why I have tested *86*-*-*
> * The comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47195
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-06
21:09:58 UTC ---
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/interface_33.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
This is fixed by the following patch:
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/interface_33.f902011-01-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-07
19:42:43 UTC ---
Confirmed on x86_64-apple-darwin10.6.0. After reverting revision 168569
bootstrapping succeeds.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25361
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-09
11:19:53 UTC ---
objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t026_main.m seems to pass on all platforms I
have looked at. The other tests pass on several platforms, except Intel/AMD
ones (see pr45989).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-09
11:24:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 22934
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22934
updated patch
> Indeed, had forgotten about that. In that case, we should do as
> everywhere
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46912
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-09 15:31:09 UTC ---
> Thomas posted his patch at:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-01/msg00067.html
With this patch, the test in comment #6 still gives an ICE: Segmentation fault.
The backtr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46904
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47244
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-11
14:06:26 UTC ---
Is pr39968 related (a duplicate) of this pr?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-11
14:21:26 UTC ---
> > Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
> > ...
> > continue;
>
> ... this produces loads of regressions.
Confirmed;-(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-11
21:38:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > ...
> > ... this produces loads of regressions.
>
> ... but the following variant doesn't:
> ...
Confirmed, however the following code
[macbook]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-12 20:59:31 UTC ---
> sorry, I can not reproduce this at r168655 (plus patch from comment #7), at
> least not on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Do you only get this error with the
> patch, or also with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-12 22:18:35 UTC ---
> I can reproduce this with a clean trunk on x86-64-linux with both -m32 and
> -m64.
I confirm that the ICE is not due to the patch.
> Regarding the test case: I think it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47281
Summary: [4.6 Regression] error: non-trivial conversion at
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47240
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-13 18:43:27 UTC ---
> I have never said that it was valid (it is not mine and you have probably
> recognized the style!-). Nevertheless there was no ICE at revision 168625 (I
> saw it at revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31249
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31249
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-14 13:27:24 UTC ---
I have forgotten to give the optimization levels:
-O1 -O3
> gfc sincos_o.f904.23s8.32s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47307
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-15
21:50:05 UTC ---
> In fact, the array 'lopt' is not initialized in the code, however, the
> compiler
> does not give warning about that. I try the same code with g95, it give a
> warning messag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41146
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47359
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-19
20:44:27 UTC ---
> I know this is sort of a contrived case but seems that gfortran is getting
> confused in this case leading to syntactically invalid assembler.
I don't see the invalid assembl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47402
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40737
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-22 22:37:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Isn't this the same as PR34640?
I think so, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46339#c11 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 08:44:45 UTC ---
According to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-01/msg00375.html
revision 169136 caused a bootstrap failure on powerpc-apple-darwin9.8.0:
/Users/regress/tbox/nativ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-23
10:57:05 UTC ---
> Another test case, from ...
It is pr47399.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 11:17:32 UTC ---
>From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01607.html the bootstrap
failure seems rather due to revision 169131. Note that revision 169142
bootstrapped on x86_64-apple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 11:43:09 UTC ---
Concerning the timings in comment #27 they may reflect the fact the the inliner
is not aggressive enough for fortran codes and that it is worsen when using
-flto:
For rnflow.f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #31 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 12:06:00 UTC ---
The relevant pr for comment #30 is pr45810 comment #9. The threshold for
fatigue.f90 was322 before revision 169136 and is now 1520 (~x5).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #35 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 15:02:43 UTC ---
> Do you know what function we fail to inline?
It is generalized_hookes_law.
I have looked to fatigue.f90 in more details. With revision 168741, I see the
transitions:
9.25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 16:32:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 23089
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23089
-finline-limit=321 revision 168741
bzip2 fatigue.f90.048i.inline generated at revision168741
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #40 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 16:33:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 23090
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23090
-finline-limit=322 revision168741
bzip2 fatigue.f90.048i.inline generated at revision168741
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #41 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 16:35:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 23091
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23091
-finline-limit=321 revision 169142
bzip2 fatigue.f90.048i.inline generated at revision 16914
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 16:36:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 23092
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23092
-finline-limit=322 revision 169142
bzip2 fatigue.f90.048i.inline generated at revision 16914
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 17:04:07 UTC ---
After removing the comments, generalized_hookes_law reads
function generalized_hookes_law (strain_tensor, lambda, mu) result
(stress_tensor)
!
real (kind = LONGrea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 19:38:30 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #15 and -finline-limit=300, I get
Date & Time : 23 Jan 2011 20:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-23 23:20:34 UTC ---
> This makes hookes_law estimate to be 91 instructions, so -finline-limit=183
> should be enough.
With the patch in comment #19, I rather find a threshold of -finline-limit=25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-24 09:29:00 UTC ---
I have regtested my working tree (with other patches) with the patch in comment
#15 and got 180 new failures (likely 90 for both -m32 and -m64), but I have not
checked that car
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-24 18:16:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> That FRE pass should be after pass_sra_early (certainly after
> pass_build_ealias).
Moving pass_fre after pass_sra_early does not fix the failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-01-25 19:06:04 UTC ---
> I sorted out increasing large function growth ratio as most safe way
> to deal with (easier half of) this problem. Unlike the parameters for
> inline limits it won't caus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40979
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-26
10:23:12 UTC ---
This pr is not fixed at revision 169261 (gfc). AFAIU -ftree-loop-linear is now
implemented through graphite. This leads to a sort of regression with respect
to revision 169227(g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.ang...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47042
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
501 - 600 of 7788 matches
Mail list logo
