[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor --- I believe that you need to set alignment of the type of MEM_REFs you create in replace_ref along the lines it is done in build_ref_for_offset in tree-sra.c. I wonder whether STRICT_ALIGNMENT has really any me

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor --- More specifically, if I am correct assuming that the MEM_REF replace_ref builds always accesses exactly the same memory as the previous access *expr does (and only the address is computed better) and that *exp

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor --- Created attachment 30587 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30587&action=edit x86_64-linux testcase To prove the point, this is an x86_64-linux testcase. I will bootstrap and test the patch

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #15) > Bernd, Mikael, Martin: Could you please test this on your respective > targets? Well, "my target" is x86_64 but yes, it works. (In reply to Bill Schmidt from

[Bug fortran/57987] Fortran finalizers considered extern-inline by middle-end

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- OK, so eventually I have posted the patch to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00074.html Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/57748] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748 --- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor --- I have submitted the patch to the mailing list for review: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00082.html (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #14) > What I mean is, maybe the defautlt for MAL

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org|jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #28 from Martin Jambor --- Thanks, for testing, I have submitted the patch for a review: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00224.html

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p

[Bug fortran/57987] Fortran finalizers considered extern-inline by middle-end

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED URL|

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #31 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #30) > Hi Martin, > > I have bootstrapped this patch for i686-pc-linux-gnu and have > seen some "excess errors" in your test script: > > /home/ed/gnu/gcc-4.9-2013072

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #32 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Tue Aug 6 15:08:59 2013 New Revision: 201530 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201530&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-08-06 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/58041 * gimple-ssa-str

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #35 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #34) > by the way the initializer of "struct s a = " > seems to generate warnings at -Wall, because some brackets are missing: > > changed that to > struct s a = {0,{

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 --- Comment #38 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #37) > this version fixes the warning: And I confirm that it still tests the bug. If you want to commit it yourself, go ahead, otherwise let me now and I'll do it be

[Bug middle-end/58041] Unaligned access to arrays in packed structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor --- Mine

[Bug middle-end/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- Created attachment 30708 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30708&action=edit Patch The problem is that the rdesc chain creation mechanism cannot handle the case where indirect inlining creat

[Bug ipa/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p

[Bug c++/58252] ice in gimple_get_virt_method_for_binfo with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor --- Created attachment 30718 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30718&action=edit Delta reduced testcase A fair bit smaller multidelta-delta reduced testcase. Requires -fpermissive in addition to

[Bug c++/58252] ice in gimple_get_virt_method_for_binfo with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- We are getting an integer instead of an expected ADDR_EXPR to a FUNCTIONN_DECL. Token is 3, known_binfo which is a binfo pertaining to (gdb) pge known_binfo->typed.type struct StructDef has the following vi

[Bug middle-end/57748] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748 --- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor --- Created attachment 30732 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30732&action=edit Another attempt at a fix I simply moved the decision whether to go the misalignp path or not a bit down in the f

[Bug ipa/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Sep 2 19:28:01 2013 New Revision: 202184 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202184&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-02 Martin Jambor PR ipa/58106 * ipa-prop.c (ipa_edge_d

[Bug ipa/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/58371] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in ipcp_verify_propagated_values, at ipa-cp.c:892

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58371 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/58389] [4.9 Regression] g++ ICE in ipa_find_reference

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ipa/58371] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in ipcp_verify_propagated_values, at ipa-cp.c:892

||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p ||atches/2013-09/msg00840.htm ||l Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- I

[Bug ipa/58389] [4.9 Regression] g++ ICE in ipa_find_reference

-optimization |ipa Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- Mine. I'm testing a fix.

[Bug ipa/58371] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in ipcp_verify_propagated_values, at ipa-cp.c:892

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58371 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Sep 12 12:15:15 2013 New Revision: 202522 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202522&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-12 Martin Jambor PR ipa/58371 * g++.dg/ipa/pr58371.C:

[Bug ipa/58371] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in ipcp_verify_propagated_values, at ipa-cp.c:892

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58371 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/58388] [4.9 Regression] LTO profiledbootstrap fails in stage feedback for tree-ssa-structalias.c with "internal compiler error: in try_make_edge_direct_simple_call, at ipa-prop.c:2606"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58388 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ipa/58389] [4.9 Regression] g++ ICE in ipa_find_reference

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/58389] [4.9 Regression] g++ ICE in ipa_find_reference

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389 --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Sep 12 15:20:05 2013 New Revision: 202532 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202532&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-12 Martin Jambor PR ipa/58389 * ipa-prop.c (remove_des

[Bug ipa/58389] [4.9 Regression] g++ ICE in ipa_find_reference

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p

[Bug bootstrap/58388] [4.9 Regression] LTO profiledbootstrap fails in stage feedback for tree-ssa-structalias.c with "internal compiler error: in try_make_edge_direct_simple_call, at ipa-prop.c:2606"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58388 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p

[Bug bootstrap/58388] [4.9 Regression] LTO profiledbootstrap fails in stage feedback for tree-ssa-structalias.c with "internal compiler error: in try_make_edge_direct_simple_call, at ipa-prop.c:2606"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58388 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Fri Sep 13 12:04:54 2013 New Revision: 202563 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202563&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-13 Martin Jambor PR bootstrap/58388 * ipa-prop.c (try_

[Bug bootstrap/58388] [4.9 Regression] LTO profiledbootstrap fails in stage feedback for tree-ssa-structalias.c with "internal compiler error: in try_make_edge_direct_simple_call, at ipa-prop.c:2606"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58388 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/57134] [4.9 Regression] ICE with -mstrict-align and inline assembly on ppc64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57134 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- I suppose this has been fixed by r200086 ?

[Bug middle-end/57748] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748 --- Comment #37 from Martin Jambor --- Created attachment 30854 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30854&action=edit Testcase for both the assignment and read issues For the record, this is a slightly extended original x86_64 tes

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-08-31 17:17:27 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed Aug 31 17:17:19 2011 New Revision: 178386 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178386 Log: 2011-08-31 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/49

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-02 12:46:10 UTC --- 4.6 version of the patch posted to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00140.html

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-02 14:30:49 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Fri Sep 2 14:30:34 2011 New Revision: 178482 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178482 Log: 2011-09-02 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/49

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/49911] SRA + DOM + VRP + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911 --- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-05 16:35:21 UTC --- Created attachment 25199 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25199 Patch preventing SRA from creating enumeration type replacements I'm currently testing this patch w

[Bug middle-end/50301] [4.7 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2011-09-06 Host||x86_64-linux-gnu AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | Ever

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-06 15:09:18 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Tue Sep 6 15:09:10 2011 New Revision: 178599 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178599 Log: 2011-09-06 Martin Jambor Revert 2011-

[Bug middle-end/50301] [4.7 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-06 18:04:59 UTC --- Proposed fix submitted to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00427.html

[Bug tree-optimization/50287] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/vsnprintf-chk.c compilation, -O2 -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-06 18:19:57 UTC --- Created attachment 25207 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25207 Testcase for i686 (and probably x86_64 too) Testcase that fails on i686-linux for me.

[Bug tree-optimization/50287] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/vsnprintf-chk.c compilation, -O2 -flto

-linux-gnueabi |arm-linux-gnueabi, ||i686-linux Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at

[Bug middle-end/50295] [4.6 Regression] ICE (segfault) in expand_debug_expr at cfgexpand.c:2380

suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-06 18:27:30 UTC --- I have reverted the patch causing this on the 4.6 branch. As far as trunk is concerned, I'll track it in a duplicate of thi

[Bug tree-optimization/50287] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/vsnprintf-chk.c compilation, -O2 -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fr

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/49911] SRA + DOM + VRP + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911 --- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-07 14:25:45 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed Sep 7 14:25:39 2011 New Revision: 178639 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178639 Log: 2011-09-07 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimiz

[Bug middle-end/50301] [4.7 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-07 14:31:46 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed Sep 7 14:31:40 2011 New Revision: 178640 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178640 Log: 2011-09-07 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/50

[Bug middle-end/50301] [4.7 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/49911] SRA + DOM + VRP + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911 --- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-07 15:43:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #22) > Thanks! > > > * testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr49911.C: New test. > > I think you forgot to add -fstrict-enums to the command line in the test. Thanks

[Bug tree-optimization/50287] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/vsnprintf-chk.c compilation, -O2 -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-08 13:09:43 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Sep 8 13:09:38 2011 New Revision: 178688 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178688 Log: 2011-09-08 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimiza

[Bug tree-optimization/49911] SRA + DOM + VRP + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911 --- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-08 13:58:39 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Sep 8 13:58:30 2011 New Revision: 178693 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178693 Log: 2011-09-08 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimiz

[Bug tree-optimization/49911] SRA + DOM + VRP + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911 --- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-08 17:21:15 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Sep 8 17:20:52 2011 New Revision: 178701 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178701 Log: 2011-09-08 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimiz

[Bug tree-optimization/49911] SRA + DOM + VRP + -fstrict-enums incorrectly remove predicate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/50287] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/vsnprintf-chk.c compilation, -O2 -flto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50287 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/50052] [4.6/4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-2.c scan-tree-dump eipa_sra

||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-09 11:45:01 UTC --- Thanks for filing a bug for the issue which is a problem for all

[Bug bootstrap/50326] [4.7 regression] ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:456

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/50326] [4.7 regression] ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:456

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-19 11:43:04 UTC --- Thanks for letting me know about this. However, as described in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 the whole XFAIL will go away after I commit the patch today.

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-19 13:27:00 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Sep 19 13:26:50 2011 New Revision: 178973 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178973 Log: 2011-09-19 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/4

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug bootstrap/50326] [4.7 regression] ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:456

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326 --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-19 18:21:25 UTC --- The compilation before and after the patch seems to diverge at expand time and only in one instruction when processing this particular gimple statement: MEM[(struct prop_value_d *)&

[Bug bootstrap/50326] [4.7 regression] ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:456

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-21 12:18:46 UTC --- The different alias set (4 instead of 10) is then just carried along in the RTL dumps not causing any different behavior until tree-ssa-ccp.c.192r.postreload where we get the following

[Bug bootstrap/50326] [4.7 regression] ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:456

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/45632] const function pointer propagation issues with inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45632 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-10-21 14:07:53 UTC --- Is the second call to func() in main we pass the pointer p again, p2 being basically thrown away, I think that is a mistake because this way, there isn't actually any call to b_foo in

[Bug tree-optimization/51012] [4.7 Regression] ICE: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:1897 with -fno-early-inlining and passing incompatible function ptr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51012 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-11-08 13:06:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > > What about WPA stage? I think we don't "fixup" inlinable status of > edges at the beginning of ltrans (or inline transform). Do we? No. And unless thi

[Bug tree-optimization/50605] ice in ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result with -O3

||2011-11-09 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2011-11-09 16:19:35 UTC --- Confirmed, the problem is that

[Bug tree-optimization/50605] ice in ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50605 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-11-10 10:28:03 UTC --- Created attachment 25776 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25776 Simple testcase Simplified testcase, -O3 -fno-early-inlining required, fails for me at i686 but will

[Bug lto/52605] LTO -g ICE when looking up context of VMTs of classes defined within functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-05-02 19:50:40 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed May 2 19:50:37 2012 New Revision: 187063 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187063 Log: 2012-05-02 Martin Jambor PR lto/52605

[Bug target/53209] New: tree check ICE: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in comp_template_args_with_info, at cp/pt.c:7038

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209 Bug #: 53209 Summary: tree check ICE: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in comp_template_args_with_info, at cp/pt.c:7038 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug lto/52605] LTO -g ICE when looking up context of VMTs of classes defined within functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-05-03 17:00:48 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu May 3 17:00:32 2012 New Revision: 187109 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187109 Log: 2012-05-03 Martin Jambor PR lto/52605

[Bug lto/52605] LTO -g ICE when looking up context of VMTs of classes defined within functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/53209] [4.7/4.8 Regression] tree check ICE: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in comp_template_args_with_info, at cp/pt.c:7038

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-05-04 14:55:49 UTC --- It seems to me that Alexandre has posted a patch to address this issue: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00280.html Hm, it does seem far more probable that the problem is

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #61 from Martin Jambor 2012-06-26 14:26:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #57) > > I will, on Monday. And by Monday I obviously meant yesterday ;-) Anyway, on the machine where are debugged this, compilation at -O3 took over 16 secon

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #64 from Martin Jambor 2012-06-26 15:01:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #62) > (In reply to comment #61) > > (In reply to comment #57) > > > > Anyway, on the machine where are debugged this, compilation at -O3 > > took over 16 second

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #65 from Martin Jambor 2012-06-29 14:34:34 UTC --- I have posted the patch to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01928.html along with an equivalent one for the 4.6 branch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #66 from Martin Jambor 2012-07-02 15:28:17 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Jul 2 15:28:11 2012 New Revision: 189163 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189163 Log: 2012-07-02 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/3

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #67 from Martin Jambor 2012-07-02 15:44:01 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Jul 2 15:43:56 2012 New Revision: 189164 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189164 Log: 2012-07-02 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/3

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #68 from Martin Jambor 2012-07-02 15:53:29 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Jul 2 15:53:21 2012 New Revision: 189165 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189165 Log: 2012-07-02 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/3

[Bug fortran/48636] Enable more inlining with -O2 and higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636 --- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2012-07-03 17:43:35 UTC --- Hi, (In reply to comment #12) > Hi, > I discussed some of the issues today with Martin. For the array descriptor > testcase, we really want ipa-cp to be propagate the constant array

[Bug c++/54038] New: finalize_type_size enters infinite loop becasue TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT (variant) == variant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038 Bug #: 54038 Summary: finalize_type_size enters infinite loop becasue TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT (variant) == variant Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/53787] Possible IPA-SRA / IPA-CP improvement

at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-07-20 19:59:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > This has nothing to do with LTO - with a single compilation unit you can > use -fwhole-program. The issue i

[Bug tree-optimization/53787] Possible IPA-SRA / IPA-CP improvement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787 --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-07-27 09:34:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Shouldn't IPA-CP be able to do this already? It does appear to handle > CONST_DECLs already... Only if it finds them in the call statement itself, it relie

[Bug tree-optimization/52188] [4.7 regression] IPA-CP change broke libstdc++ symbol versioning on Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-16 15:55:04 UTC --- First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a look at this PR earlier. Nevertheless, I doubt that the decision of the new IPA-CP not to clone the function in ques

[Bug tree-optimization/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | --- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-17 13:05:02 UTC --- In addition to mistakes corrected by the patch in comment #12, build_ref_for_offset indeed also does not care about address spaces of

[Bug tree-optimization/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782 --- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-17 17:59:43 UTC --- Created attachment 26695 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26695 Untested proposed fix This untested patch fixes the issue for me on a cross-compiler. It would be

[Bug libstdc++/52188] [4.7 regression] IPA-CP change broke libstdc++ symbol versioning on Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188 --- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-20 12:57:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > Can/do we mark all clones having hidden visibility? Would a matching regexp > in the linker script override that? Isn't that a bug? I believe they are m

[Bug tree-optimization/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782 --- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-20 17:27:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > base returned from get_base_address should never be NULL, so it's > safe to assume it isn't. Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. > Unfortunately, when I

[Bug middle-end/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

Jambor 2012-02-21 10:35:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > Perhaps get_base_address misses a DECL_P in the condition looking into > > MEM_REFs? > > No, sure not - in the above we have a component-ref inside the

[Bug middle-end/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782 --- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-21 10:37:40 UTC --- Unfortunately, with the patch I got following new LTO link failures on x86_64-linux: gcc.dg/lto/trans-mem-1 c_lto_trans-mem-1_0.o-c_lto_trans-mem-1_1.o link, -flto -fgnu-tm gcc.dg/lt

[Bug middle-end/51782] -ftree-sra: Missing address-space information leads to wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p

[Bug middle-end/52329] New: Invalid MEM_REF encountered in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52329 Bug #: 52329 Summary: Invalid MEM_REF encountered in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/52329] Invalid MEM_REF encountered in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52329 --- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-21 17:51:10 UTC --- Created attachment 26717 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26717 Delta reduced testcase This as far as I managed to reduce the testcase with multidelta.

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >