--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-08 18:53 ---
FWIW, Solaris 10 had the same problem and cause, and is now also fixed.
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-15 20:28 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37517 ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-15 20:28 ---
*** Bug 36714 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-*-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
mpfr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
BugsThisDependsOn: 35107
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38263
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-25 23:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Subject: Re: New: [4.4 regression] GCC components unnecessarily link with
> shared gmp/mpfr
> Here is a patch from Dwarak for fixing this.
> He will send this to review on gcc-p
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-26 19:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] GCC components unnecessarily link with shared
> gmp/mpfr
> Thanks for catching the missing parts.
> Here is the updated patch. Does this patch
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-27 16:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you use ./contrib/gcc_update to update your gcc source tree
> so that we can tell which revisions you are using? Thanks.
Done, however it only works for 4.3 and trunk, not 4
--- Comment #32 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 01:10 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> How can this be a regression bug if there's not a single known-to-work
> revision?
When I originally opened this PR, my opening comment noted that the java
failures I encou
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-12 22:31 ---
I can narrow it down on mainline to somewhere between revisions 142545 and
142574 according to my testsuite results below:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-12/msg00786.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-23 01:18 ---
I reverified the bug on the 4.3 branch today, checking results for x86_64-linux
posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-12/msg02099.html
The logfile shows the same error:
bitfield-1.mm:113
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 02:50 ---
Reconfirming for (x86 && pic):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-01/msg01601.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #17 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 02:56 ---
Reconfirming that gcc.dg/pr30957-1.c still XFAILs for me on x86_64.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 03:03 ---
Reconfirming...
I can see on a linux-gnu box that it's compiling the libiberty testsuite with
stage1 gcc. That masks the error of missing libgcc bits used in stage3
libiberty, but still it should be using the s
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 03:36 ---
Reconfirming the problem with (x86 && pic), e.g.:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-01/msg01601.html
Jan, any comments?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40302
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-01 06:02 ---
Remember to update the webpage:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
Add the MPC library dependency in the "Caveats" section, and add the benefits
of using MPC in the "General Optimizer Improv
results
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-01 08:35 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Kaveh,
> After looking into the problem, I think (nan + i nan) is
> an acceptable result for z = (-0.1,-2.2)/(0.0,0.0)
> because of the standard definition of complex divisi
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-01 17:45 ---
Remember to upload the MPC tarball (whatever version we settle on) to:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40302
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-01 18:14 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> If MPC returns inf or (inf + i inf) and the MPC developers do not consider
> this to be a bug in their library, then gfortran will need to handle the
> division by zero during
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-02 15:16 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> What is disturbing is Example 2 in G.5.1 on page 470! Does gcc's runtime
> implementation of complex division mirror Example 2? I can understand
> the need to avoid under
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 15:46 ---
This is a problem with mpc-0.6, fixed in the MPC svn repo.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01157.html
Testing with mpc-0.6 is still useful because it exercises major changes in the
fortran frontend
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-27 06:23 ---
Delete all the cpp HAVE_mpc goo.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40302
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 18:14 ---
Make sure to re-enable the commented out tests in
gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_4.f90. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-06/msg00288.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40302
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-17 07:43 ---
Fixed as part of this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg00815.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-21 17:20 ---
Joseph - I'm working on this one, but I'd appreciate it if you could help
compile a list of good test inputs beyond the one in the first comment. I.e.
especially for the annex G stuff. That way I c
--- Comment #26 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-06 19:54 ---
The patch fixed the bb-reorg.c and pr34999.c testsuite failures on my x86_64
box on mainline. However I still see the failures on the 4.4 branch.
Jakub - Is your patch suitable for 4.4?
If so, will you please
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-12 22:28 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Joseph - Thanks for your reply and testvalues.
> There are also cases for exact rounding where you'd expect MPC to produce
> the right results but would *not* expect operations
When doing transformations on builtins, if the builtin results in a function
call that has an inline expansion, GCC emits a library call not the inline
function body. E.g. glibc defines an inline for fputc_unlocked. Given this
code:
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
#define MAX 1
int main (
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 04:28 ---
I'm not convinced it's the same issue. With regard to 17402, comment #6 by
Joseph there refers specifically to static inlines in that builtins shouldn't
generate calls to "file-scope statics&q
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 01:00 ---
Builtin fputs{_unlocked} et al. are transformed via fold_builtin as well as
expand. AFAICT folding is done rather early, so perhaps this can be fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24729
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 03:27 ---
Updated patch installed on mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01575.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
eywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25022
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 16:51 ---
This happens because the replacement functions are obtained in builtins.c from
the array implicit_built_in_decls. This array is initialized to null when the
replacement function is an "extension" builtin,
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 17:03 ---
Here's a version of the testcase that doesn't rely on _unlocked functions since
25022 inhibits the unlocked transformations. Compile at -O2 with and without
-DPUTCHAR_DIRECT to see the effect. Using putcha
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 01:25 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Nov 26 01:25:20 2005
New Revision: 107535
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107535
Log:
PR middle-end/25022
* bu
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 01:31 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Nov 26 01:31:54 2005
New Revision: 107536
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107536
Log:
PR middle-end/25022
* bu
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 14:47 ---
4.0 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01845.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
t;.
--
Summary: [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2] builtin printf/fprintf is confused by
-fexec-charset
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code, missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 15:52 ---
This is the same bug as PR 18785 and probably has a similar solution. I'm
working on a patch.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 16:59 ---
Yes same conceptual problem, but entirely different GCC location. This bug
lies in builtins.c and PR 20110 lies in c-format.c.
What I mean is that they be fixed separately and should not have any bugzilla
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-27 17:01 ---
builtin sprintf (and _chk friends) also have the problem, changed summary to
reflect that.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25120
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 02:45 ---
*** Bug 20109 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 02:45 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25120 ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 03:16 ---
Andrew, any progress on this one?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7098
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 03:23 ---
Getting stdout wrapped in an inline function is not hard. I can create
something fixincl or whatever to capture that. The part I don't know how to do
is expand that inline function's body into the code s
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 03:36 ---
4.0 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01918.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25120
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 20109
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:20 2005
New Revision: 107652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107652
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:17 ---
Subject: Bug 25120
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:20 2005
New Revision: 107652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107652
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 20109
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:56 2005
New Revision: 107653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107653
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 25120
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:17:56 2005
New Revision: 107653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107653
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 25120
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:18:13 2005
New Revision: 107654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107654
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 05:18 ---
Subject: Bug 20109
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Nov 29 05:18:13 2005
New Revision: 107654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107654
Log:
PR middle-end/20109
PR middle-e
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 13:55 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01889.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 14:03 ---
Fixed in 4.0.3 and later by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01889.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19227
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 14:25 ---
These two patches fixed the problem on mainline/4.1 and need to be backported:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02322.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02828.html
I'll do it after te
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 21:46 ---
Hmm this is convoluted, but I think I know what's going on:
We're running the builtin fprintf check. I recently added a small sanity check
to ensure that fprintf_unlocked also works. Now we're gettin
mal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25169
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 00:44 ---
Based on the date it started failing, I'm guessing it was this patch that
triggered it:
2005-11-07 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c/24599
* c-typeck.c (build_c_cast): Try usi
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25169
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:04 ---
Subject: Bug 19275
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Nov 30 18:04:46 2005
New Revision: 107729
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107729
Log:
PR testsuite/19275
Backport from
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:06 ---
Subject: Bug 19275
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Nov 30 18:06:01 2005
New Revision: 107730
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107730
Log:
PR testsuite/19275
Backport from
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 18:41 ---
Patch backported to 3.4 and 4.0.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:38 ---
3.4 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:40 ---
3.4 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:56 ---
Patch installed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:58 ---
Patch installed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 00:00 ---
Patch installed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02163.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 00:05 ---
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02127.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 02:31 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Dec 1 02:31:49 2005
New Revision: 107762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107762
Log:
PR middle-end/25158
* bu
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 02:33 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Dec 1 02:32:58 2005
New Revision: 107763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107763
Log:
PR middle-end/25158
* bu
cking, ssemmx
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25203
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25203
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 14:05 ---
My results from last night confirm it's fixed now, thanks.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 22:24 ---
Fixed, clean test results here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00028.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-01 22:45 ---
Updated 4.0 patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00089.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
arget
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25213
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.5
Known to work||4.0.3
Target
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25214
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||23224
nThis||
Known to
mmary: [4.0/4.1/4.2] -fpic/-fPIC failure in gcc.dg/20050503-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi a
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:33 ---
On i686-pc-linux-gnu with the 3.4 branch, I'm getting a failure in the
following testcase when running with -fpic or -fPIC:
FAIL: gcc.dg/i386-local2.c scan-assembler-not sub[^n]*sp
Current testsuite repo
t org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
OtherBugsDependingO 23224
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25216
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.3 4.1.0 4.2.0
Target Milestone
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:48 ---
Rth thinks it's an actual bug requiring investigation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01899.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25216
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 00:50 ---
testsuite logfile says:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
.../gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c:18: error: can't find a register in class
'GENERAL_REGS' while
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 02:12 ---
Subject: Bug 18491
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 02:12:15 2005
New Revision: 107860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107860
Log:
2005-12-01 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAI
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25158
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:05:09 2005
New Revision: 107891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107891
Log:
2005-11-30 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 14:05 ---
Subject: Bug 25022
Author: ghazi
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:05:09 2005
New Revision: 107891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107891
Log:
2005-11-30 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
iority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25242
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 19:39 ---
I configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl however I don't think that's
necessary to trigger the error. I see another report without checking here
that fails the test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresul
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-03 19:41 ---
Here's a reduced testcase, compile it with cc1 targetted to
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
cc1 -fpreprocessed i386-sse-2.i -quiet -dumpbase i386-sse-2.c -msse -mtune=k8
-auxbase-strip i386-sse-2.s -O0 -version -o i38
1 - 100 of 633 matches
Mail list logo
