--- Comment #16 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-13 13:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=11257)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11257&action=view)
A patch to nullify pointers in local variables
Tonto 1.0 has many local variables with uninitialized pointer
--- Comment #17 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-13 13:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=11258)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11258&action=view)
Another patch
This is another patch to initialize local variable and fix a typo.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27253
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-22 15:33 ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stage1-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -c -g -v /tmp/x.s -gstabs -gdwarf-2
Reading specs from ./specs
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/configure
--enable-clocale=gnu
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-24 16:24 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00917.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27274
on
178.galgel in SPEC CPU 2K
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build trip
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-28 17:52 ---
Failed:
gcc version 4.2.0 20060417 (experimental) [trunk revision 113003 clean]
Worked:
gcc version 4.2.0 20060416 (experimental) [trunk revision 112982 clean]
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27351
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-28 18:32 ---
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00537.html
causes this regression. But galgel doesn't fail on ia64 nor x86-64.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-28 18:38 ---
Even more interesting, gcc -m32 works fine on x86-64:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0001]$ /usr/gcc-4.2/bin/gfortran-ffixed-form
-ffixed-line-length-132 -m32 -O2 bifoag.f90 -S
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0001]$ /usr/gcc-4.2
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-28 21:28 ---
It looks that either the Fortran patch has a memory leak or it triggers a
memory leak since
gfc_add_modify_expr (&se->pre,
gfc_conv_descriptor_dtyp
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-28 22:01 ---
I am not sure if I can post galgel source. I can't find a small testcase.
In gfc_conv_array_transpose, we first got
708 gfc_conv_expr_descriptor (&src_se, expr, src_ss);
(gdb) p src_ss
$40 = (gfc_ss *) 0x987
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-28 22:47 ---
Does f951 call make_relative_prefix?
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-29 14:45 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
ot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27364
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-30 14:25 ---
Andrew, I tried my best to find a testcase. The best I can do so far is to
put a testcase in binutils so that when you build binutils with gcc 4.2 on
Linux/x86 and Linux/x86-64, you will get an "make check" failure
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-30 15:33 ---
Hi Jeff,
It looks like your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg01386.html
causes gcc 4.2 miscompiles binutils on Linux/x86 and Linux/x86-64.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-04-30 17:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=11350)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11350&action=view)
A testcase
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gas]$
/export/build/gnu/gcc-last/build-x86_64-linux/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/export/bu
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2006
: -O3 regression due to SEE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build tr
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-05 13:01 ---
There are several problems with the current SEE implementation:
1. SEE uses NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN to find adjacent insns to check if SEE
is safe. But with -g, NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN may point to a NOTE:
(note:HI 17 14 18 2
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denis dot nagorny at intel
||dot
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-05 15:49 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > There are several problems with the current SEE implementation:
> >
> > 1. SEE uses NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN to find adjacent insns to check if SEE
>
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-08 14:00 ---
It isn't fixed in 4.1.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RES
: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27576
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-16 16:32 ---
Hi Mark,
I realized that I had an updated patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00090.html
to address a concern from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00050.html
Can I update gcc/doc/invoke.texi
--- Comment #14 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-16 17:37 ---
I didn't see -fno-common in my build logs on Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64
and Linux/ia64. I am using:
../configure \
\
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld \
\
--e
ssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27633
: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27652
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-18 04:56 ---
The testcase only have 20 elements of 0. The real array has more than
800 elements of complex with different values. I am debugging a gfortran
bug. Since gdb isn't really useful, I am using "print *," to see
function return
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27662
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-18 18:24 ---
This testcase is derived from Tonto in SPEC CPU 2006.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-18 21:22 ---
I got
atmp.17.dtype = 538;
atmp.17.dim[0].stride = 2;
atmp.17.dim[0].lbound = 0;
atmp.17.dim[0].ubound = 1;
atmp.17.dim[1].stride = 0; <- Shouldn't it be 1?
atmp.17.dim[1].lbound = 0;
atmp.17.dim[1
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-18 21:54 ---
Also
atmp.6.dtype = 538;
atmp.6.dim[0].stride = 1;
atmp.6.dim[0].lbound = 0;
atmp.6.dim[0].ubound = 1;
atmp.6.dim[1].stride = 2;
atmp.6.dim[1].lbound = 0;
atmp.6.dim[1].ubound = 1;
atmp.6.data
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-18 22:21 ---
There are
2042 /* Zero the first stride to indicate a temporary. */
2043 tmp = gfc_conv_descriptor_stride (info->descriptor,
gfc_rank_cst[0]);
2044 gfc_add_modify_expr (&se-&g
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-18 23:02 ---
This hack works for the testcase. But I don't know if it is the correct fix
or not.
2006-05-17 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran/27662
* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_function_call) Restor
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27673
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-19 01:14 ---
Gcc is configured with
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/configure \
\
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld \
\
--enable-shared \
--enable-threads=posix
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-20 22:21 ---
I applied the same patch to gcc 4.1 redhat. Now I can build and run SPEC CPU
2006 successfully with gcc for the first time. The only issue is I have to
apply 2 patches to tonto in SPEC CPU 2006. I am not 100% sure that if
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27694
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 00:16 ---
This bug only shows up after this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00057.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 00:48 ---
This patch does pass my initial test. I will rebuild the whole benckmark
to double check it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 06:58 ---
It is the same as PR 27449.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27449 ***
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 06:58 ---
*** Bug 27633 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 06:59 ---
It also happens on Linux/ia64.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 16:57 ---
The proposed patch works Linux/ia64:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-05/msg01188.html
The visual inspection shows memcpy is used instead of ld8.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27449
--- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-21 17:42 ---
I have verified that the proposed patch fixes the C++ run-time problem on
Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592
--- Comment #12 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-23 17:15 ---
Are you using Tonto in SPEC CPU 2006? It is slightly different from Tonto 1.0
on SF. The problem in Tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 is it uses something like
integer, pointer :: d
...
if (associated(d)) call abort()
But nullify is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] build-i686-linux]$
--
Summary: "make install-info" no longer works
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27774
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-26 17:57 ---
"make install-info" doesn't work in gcc/intl in 3.4, 4.0, 4.1. But it used to
work in src/intl. After merging intl from gcc to src, "make install-info" no
longers in src/intl.
--
hjl
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-26 18:49 ---
I didn't see intl in my gcc 3.3. My gcc is configured with
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/configure \
\
--enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld \
\
--enable-s
--- Comment #22 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-30 16:08 ---
Tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 should work now with gcc 4.1 and 4.2.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-30 16:10 ---
Yes, tonto-1.0-nullify-1.patch in PR 26106 is the one.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-05-31 17:31 ---
Last time when I tried it on x86 and x86-64 with SPEC CPU 2000, it didn't
do anything useful. I will try it again with SPEC CPU 2000 and 2006.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-06-07 15:51 ---
This testcase doesn't use -Os on SSE registers:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stack]$ cat m.c
#include
extern char *e1 (void);
int
main ()
{
printf ("%s\n", e1 ());
return 0;
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stack]$ cat x.c
#
: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28074
--- Comment #27 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-06-29 02:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=11777)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11777&action=view)
An integer loop
I changed the loop from double to long long. The 64bit code generated by gcc
4.0
is 10% slower t
: Message typos in i386 backend
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24738
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24764
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24765
: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24766
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24879
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-11-16 17:35 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01195.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
oduct: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24927
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25303
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-07 21:49 ---
It could be. After adding -ffast-math to gcc 4.1, eon is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25303
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 01:46 ---
-ffloat-store fixed eon for gcc 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25303
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 01:56 ---
It looks like a regression. Gcc 4.0.2 20050912 works fine.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 02:04 ---
Gcc 4.0.3 20051007 is also OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 02:11 ---
Gcc 4.0.3 20051103 is also OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 03:16 ---
Gcc 4.0.3 20051108 is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 03:28 ---
Gcc 4.0.3 2005 is OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 03:30 ---
Gcc 4.0.3 20051113 is bad. So this regression was introduced between 2005
and 20051113.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 06:55 ---
I have verified that
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00874.html
is the cause. Since gcc 4.1 and 4.2 are OK, the problem may be in the backport.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #8 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-08 07:32 ---
Revert
@@ -293,7 +292,7 @@ write_block (int length)
{
char *dest;
- if (!is_internal_unit() && current_unit->bytes_left < length)
+ if (current_unit->bytes_left < length)
{
generate_er
e);
fatal_error ("can't create %s: %m", class_file_name);
}
There are at least 2 problems:
1. All processes use the same temporary_file_name. If 2 processes try to write
to the same class file, we are in trouble.
2. errno returned from rename is accessed after remove call which
may change errno.
--
Summary: A race condition in write_classfile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25330
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-10 01:48 ---
I got another one:
/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/gcj
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libjava/
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -Wno-deprecated
--encoding=UTF
--- Comment #10 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-12 15:04 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00594.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-12 15:05 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00794.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25397
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-13 21:03 ---
Backout
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00899.html
seems to fix this failure.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-13 21:33 ---
I believe so.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25397
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-13 22:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=10477)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10477&action=view)
A testcase
I got
gnu-13:pts/7[26]> ./xgcc -B./ unwind-dw2.i -S -fPIC -O2
/export/gnu/src/gcc-blended/gcc/gcc/
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25435
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-16 07:22 ---
It is very very annoying now. I can no longer do
# cd gcc
# make restage3
I got
...
+ echo stage3_build
make LANGUAGES="c gcov gcov-dump c++ fortran java objc" BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2"
stage3_build
make[1]
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-16 07:37 ---
I made a change to i386.c. I just want to rebuild the final compiler with the
stage 2 compiler. I don't want to rebootstrap the whole gcc. What should I do?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25435
--- Comment #12 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-19 14:40 ---
Can you tell me which check in fixes this bug for 4.0?
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-20 06:22 ---
Shouldn't that case also be added to 4.1 and mainline to prevent this bug
from happening there?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
--- Comment #21 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-20 14:44 ---
Steven, see comment #1. I was talking about the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25305
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-29 01:01 ---
I have identified that
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01261.html
causes the unaligned access in SPEC CPU 2K on ia64. We are working on a small
testcase.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-29 01:18 ---
The difference between good and bad assembly outputs are
--- good.s 2005-12-28 17:06:29.0 -0800
+++ bad.s 2005-12-28 17:16:11.0 -0800
@@ -37339,11 +37339,11 @@ uvset_:
.mmi
mov r1
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-29 02:23 ---
For my case, the unaligned access happens in HORDFC.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC build triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-30 17:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=10571)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10571&action=view)
A testcase
I got
/usr/gcc-4.2/bin/gfortran -O -fschedule-insns -o bar bar.f
./bar
PROGRAM XSTART 201.0
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-30 18:41 ---
Reopen it.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-30 18:42 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25603 ***
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-30 18:42 ---
*** Bug 25585 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25603
, but
soname is the same
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2005-12-30 18:55 ---
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00057.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 1141 matches
Mail list logo
