--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-04-05
22:37 ---
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR preprocessor/19475
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:12:08PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Neil Booth wrote:
>
> >I think it gets confused by the column numbers; if you
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-04-07
22:30 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in extract_insn for test vmx/varargs-1.c
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:09:14PM -, dje at watson dot ibm dot com wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From dje at watson dot ibm d
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-04-08
21:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in extract_insn for test vmx/varargs-1.c
A simple build (C only, no bootstrap, no testsuite run) with the latest
patch passes all of the gcc.dg/vmx tests on powerpc64
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-19
19:42 ---
A regression hunt on i686-linux showed the failure starting with this patch
from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00640.html
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-19
21:08 ---
It is not true that the function that contains a bug that causes a segfault is
always in the backtrace for the failure; this isn't enough information to claim
this is a latent bug.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-20
21:28 ---
The ICE begins with these patches (the second adds a missing file for the first)
from bonzini:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00791.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00792.html
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-21
17:07 ---
Reghunt found this patch from nathan:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-08/msg01511.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-27
17:18 ---
This is fixed in 4.0.2. I forgot and checked it into the branch before RC2;
Paolo said it was safe and to leave it in unless Mark said to yank it out.
I've messed up my Bugzilla settings and can
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gcov/profile
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc
2
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,rth at gcc dot gnu dot
org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24095
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-27
22:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=9824)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9824&action=view)
minimized test case
Test case mentioned in the submittal message.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-27
23:52 ---
The reghunt for 24095 (now a duplicate of this one) identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-09/msg00635.html
which is the one prior to the one that Andrew suspected.
--
http
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
16:25 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from rth:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-04/msg00765.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
16:27 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from steven:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-06/msg00294.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
16:28 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from nathan:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2003-08/msg00349.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
16:41 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2003-10/msg00694.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
16:48 ---
A regression hunt identified these patches from nathan (the second adds a
change missed in the first one):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-07/msg00663.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-07
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
17:24 ---
A regression hunt identified the following patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00537.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
20:25 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from mmitchel:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2003-07/msg00404.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-28
20:27 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from mmitchel:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-02/msg00117.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-09-30
22:47 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from dnovillo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-08/msg00644.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-03 16:15 ---
A regression hunt identified this patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-02/msg00236.html
--
janis187 at us dot ibm dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-03 16:20 ---
A regression hunt for the patch that fixed this on mainline identified the
merge of the tree-ssa branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24103
--- Comment #2 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-03 16:24 ---
A regression hunt for powerpc-linux on mainline identified the merge of the
tree-ssa branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24135
--- Comment #6 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-03 17:44 ---
I can reproduce this reliably for powerpc64-linux with -m64 using the testcase
in comment #3; using -m32 the results are intermittent.
A regression hunt identified the following patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #4 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-03 21:59 ---
A regression hunt using the testcase from comment #3 identified this patch from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00624.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24172
--- Comment #5 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-03 22:26 ---
A regression hunt using an i686-linux cross compiler with the testcase from
comment #3 identifies this patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-03/msg00534.html
That doesn't fit wit
--- Comment #5 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-04 19:20 ---
My debugging sessions for this got bogged down, but I ran into a mainline fix
for this problem while investigating something else:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-05/msg00133.html
I'm testing a backpo
--- Comment #3 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-04 22:23 ---
It looks like it was fixed on mainline by this patch from mmitchel:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-08/msg01218.html
It's hard to be sure because there are build failures at that time for
powerpc-
--- Comment #7 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-06 19:25 ---
A regression hunt using the testcase from comment #4 identified this patch
from pinskia:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-09/msg00277.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24231
--- Comment #8 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-06 20:17 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #6
identified this patch from rth:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-08/msg01004.html
--
janis187 at us dot ibm dot com changed
--- Comment #5 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-06 21:23 ---
This is probably not very useful, but a regression hunt using the testcase
from comment #4 identified this patch from dnovillo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-06/msg00069.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-06 22:21 ---
The list of work/fail versions is very odd for this bug; it seems to have
worked on mainline until sometime between 20050828 and 20050904. 3.3.5 passes,
but all 3.4.x versions I tried fail. 4.0.0 passes but 4.0.2
--- Comment #6 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-06 22:27 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #5
identified this patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-06/msg00210.html
--
janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #2 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-07 17:26 ---
A regression hunt identified this large patch from Zack Weinberg and
Matt Austern:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-09/msg00920.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24215
--- Comment #6 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-07 19:36 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #4
identified this patch from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-08/msg00101.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #4 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-07 19:45 ---
The most recent break on mainline was by this patch from jakub:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-08/msg00974.html
The same patch was applied to the 4.0 branch, causing the failure in 4.0.2.
That patch from
--- Comment #5 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-10-07 20:27 ---
I bumped into this PR by accident and happen to have looked into this recently.
__uint128_t is supported on a ppc64 system with a powerpc64-linux compiler
using "-m32 -mpowerpc64".
--
http://g
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-04-25
19:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] use of poisoned ggc memory causes cpu2000 build
failures
Yes, I'll do a bootstrap and testrun and try the CPU2000 test.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-05-12
19:25 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install on
powerpc64-linux
> Would you please try the attached patch for 3.4? I have a similar patch
> for 4.0 which I will attac
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-05-13
00:13 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 Regression] 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install on
powerpc64-linux
Bootstrap with the patch went fine with -j 8, test results look good.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-05-14
00:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] 3.4.4 RC1 fails libstdc++ install on
powerpc64-linux
I tried the 4.0 patch on powerpc64-linux with "make -j 8 bootstrap"
for c,c++,f95,objc,java, ran the test
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-05-17
20:01 ---
Subject: Re: wrong code in sixtrack for -fmodulo-sched
The patch fixes the problem with sixtrack.
I suspected that a latent problem was causing the earlier failures in
lucas and apsi which have since
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-21
01:16 ---
We're not supposed to use TCL code in test cases, so the proper syntax is
/* { dg-require-effective-target keyword } */
I like the idea of running the vect tests multiple times for targets that
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-22
17:53 ---
I've been looking at how to restructure gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp to cycle through
multiple options for vector instruction sets.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-22
18:03 ---
Oops, I wasn't done with that last comment.
Anyway, while I'm looking at the testsuite framework mechanism, perhaps someone
can determine which options are appropriate to run for various x86 t
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,hjl at gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: powerpc64-l
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-23
17:18 ---
The patch doesn't work, the command to link 64-bit libiberty.so.0.0.0 still
doesn't use -m64.
This comment in libiberty/Makefile.in might provide a clue about the problem:
# This is tricky. E
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-23
18:50 ---
There is no -rpath in the command to build 64-bit libiberty. It appears to be
just $(CC) plus -shared, the list of object files, -Wl,-soname
-Wl,libiberty.so.0
-o ././libs/libiberty.so.0.0.0.
Where in
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-23
19:44 ---
An easier question is: how does libmudflap do it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19135
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-26
23:39 ---
A build with the patch libiberty-multilib-3.patch applied to 20041222 sources
succeeds, although it doesn't attempt to build libiberty as a shared object.
I haven't tried libiberty-multilib-2
for spec test from emit_move_change_mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-06
23:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=7889)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7889&action=view)
diffs that worked for me
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-11
18:22 ---
Look at dg-additional-files and dg-additional-sources, defined in
gcc-testsuite/lib/gcc-defs.exp and used in several tests. I'll take a closer
look at them soon, but feel free to beat me to it and try
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-11
21:45 ---
Here's how two tests mentioned here can use dg-additional-sources. I ran
these in gcc.dg.special, which only treats files matching *[0-9].c as tests.
I don't yet know why, but 'dg-do comp
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-12
16:48 ---
I suspect that the patch is a clue to what's wrong rather than a real fix,
but if nothing happens in a couple of days I'll post it anyway.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19304
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-13
17:02 ---
What does the "(like below)" in comment #4 refer to?
I can try to come up with a minimized test case if that's necessary, I just
didn't want to put the work into that if the
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-13
18:57 ---
Never mind the question in the last comment, I've bootstrapped C with that
change and it aborts compiling the spec test. I'm doing more testing to find
a test for which I can post the .i file.
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-15
01:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=7963)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7963&action=view)
example binary compatibility testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19448
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-15
01:27 ---
Darn, I did my comments wrong.
Yan, the testcase you attached doesn't match the output you show. For all
compilers I have available on a RHEL3 system I get:
Dumping array with size of 2
Character 0
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19448
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-17
18:14 ---
I had not changed the size of the bitfield to 17 in my test case. When I do
that I can see the binary compatibility breakage.
I'll look into this to find out why this change was introduced. It appea
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-19
02:01 ---
There are two changes that affect this binary incompatibility: one
changes the layout of the class, and the other changes how the bitfield
is accessed. Mark, did this change on purpose and is it covered by
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-19
02:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=7988)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7988&action=view)
test case with script
I get the following output from running the attached script using comp
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2005-01-19
17:04 ---
Mark, your response addresses the original message but not the later ones, and
not either of the attached test cases. In those the class is:
class bc {
public:
char m1 :17;
};
m1 is assigned a value of
0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17957
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-10-12 22:00
---
Created an attachment (id=7331)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7331&action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17957
y: ICE for operation on small vector with altivec enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at u
ormal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17962
2 for aligned(1) float in
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at u
fixincludes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC:
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-11
17:39 ---
The powerpc-eabisim build THINKS it needs fixincludes, so perhaps that's a
separate issue; the build fails at stmp-fixinc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18423
ion
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: dorit at il dot ibm dot com,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot
org
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
h
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-16
17:06 ---
GCC for powerpc64-*-linux* could be any of the following: (a) a compiler that
generates only LP64 code; (b) a biarch compiler that generates ILP32 code by
default; or (c) a biarch compiler that generates
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-23
00:17 ---
An easy fix is for build_word_mode_vector_type to not try to reuse types.
The change to the garbage collector merely exposed a latent bug.
It works for me if build_word_mode_vector_type is cut down to this
bi=altivec
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com
CC: bonzini at gcc d
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-24
00:09 ---
The patch doesn't fix the test case, however nice it might be in other respects.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17957
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-24
16:53 ---
Oops, in the submission I said "There used to be error messages for passing
vectors by value or returning vectors from functions if AltiVec support was on
but the non-AltiVec ABI was used." That
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-12-04
01:19 ---
Current mainline g++ ICEs in the same place (now dwarf2out.c:11210) when
compiling 252.eon with -g on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with either -m32
or -m64. Here's a testcase extracted from the eon
--- Comment #18 from janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2006-11-09 17:34
---
Subject: Re: bootstrap comparision fails with "-ftree-vectorize -maltivec" on
ppc
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:15:24AM -, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
> However, the failure in comment #3 st
80 matches
Mail list logo
