--- Comment #34 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 13:28 ---
Dave, Dominique,
As I have no such execution failures on any one of machines, would you please
help me debugging the execution failures?
I am actually need the place where it fails and assembly files. The most
--- Comment #10 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> olga,
> even if the test case does not normally ice on your system, you be able to see
> the bug if you run the test with valgrind.
Kenny,
Thank you a lot for information. I was
--- Comment #36 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 17:03 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Note that the test gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_mult_field_peeling.c pass for 32 and
> 64 bit modes on i686-apple-darwin9, so I am not sure that what follows will
> help.
Sorry, I meant
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 09:07 ---
Subject: Bug 34701
Author: olga
Date: Mon Jan 21 09:07:12 2008
New Revision: 131689
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131689
Log:
2008-01-21 Alon Dayan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #39 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 13:33 ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> With patch form comments #11 and #31, the executable for
> gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_mult_field_peeling.c segfault with -m64. I have used the
> 32 bit mode for -fprofile-generate
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 15:18 ---
The following test fixes the problem. Under the testing now.
Index: ipa-struct-reorg.c
===
--- ipa-struct-reorg.c (revision 131976)
+++ ipa-struct
--- Comment #3 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-31 15:11 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Eh, how is this a regression? Was struct-reorg in 4.2?
Of course not.
Olga
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #65 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-03 14:48 ---
(In reply to comment #64)
Oh, it's just what I suspected! Please look at the PR 34534 comment #4.
If so, there is still question why the tests do not fail without struct-reorg.
Or they fail? Can you please che
--- Comment #67 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-07 10:26 ---
(In reply to comment #66)
> I looked wo_prof_global_var.c. The test passes with the above options.
> The floating point convert operations look similar to those with
> -fipa-struct-reorg. However, there&#
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-13 15:40 ---
Subject: Bug 35041
Author: olga
Date: Thu Mar 13 15:40:09 2008
New Revision: 133171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133171
Log:
2008-02-19 Alon Dayan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-27 22:41 ---
FIXED.
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 16:57 ---
Subject: Bug 39960
Author: olga
Date: Fri Nov 20 16:57:35 2009
New Revision: 154374
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154374
Log:
2009-11-17 Olga Golovanevsky
PR middle-e
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 14:43 ---
Subject: Bug 39806
Author: olga
Date: Mon Nov 30 14:42:54 2009
New Revision: 154811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154811
Log:
2009-11-30 Olga Golovanevsky
PR middle-e
--- Comment #6 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 09:41 ---
Subject: Bug 41843
Author: olga
Date: Tue Dec 8 09:41:13 2009
New Revision: 155084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155084
Log:
2009-12-07 Olga Golovanevsky
PR middle-e
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |olga at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-24 22:06 ---
Two patches were provided by Samuel Tardieu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01427.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01426.html
Slightly modified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007
--
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at rfc1149 dot net
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-17 14:08 ---
Unfortunately I cannot reproduce this failure on x86_64-linux system I have,
so I'll highly appreciate your help in debugging it.
If you could please comment out the following line from
wo_prof_malloc_size_var.c
--- Comment #1 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-17 15:15 ---
Thank you a lot for debugging!
As I have not hpux system, and cannot reproduce this dug on x86 or ppc machine,
would you please help me to debug it?
In gcc/gcc/ipa-struct-reorg.c file, please comment out line 3915
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-19 18:57 ---
Thank you for debugging! Now I see approximately where it fails. Although I am
not sure that the following patch solves the issue, please try it, and let me
know whether it helps.
Thank you a lot,
Olga
Index: ipa
--- Comment #1 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-20 09:32 ---
Would you please provide me with the following:
-dump files for all failures (as you did for PR34472)
-configuration options you use
-at least initial debugging (where it fails)
Thank you,
Olga
--
http
--- Comment #12 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-28 19:28 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=14838)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14838&action=view) [edit]
> Patch for double free and iteration bug
> I'm seeing a
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-30 11:52 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=14802)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14802&action=view) [edit]
> Dump files
I looked a bit at the dump files you
--- Comment #5 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-30 12:07 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Is the last 'if' always should be true? I mean on any system...
true->false, sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34534
--- Comment #17 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-30 12:19 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I think this is related to PR 34472 and PR 34534
true.
Would you please see the comment #4 for PR 34534, and try it on your machine?
Thank you,
Olga
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #4 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 13:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok to submit this patch?
It looks good. Please bootstrap and submit along with the testcase.
Olga
> Alon
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34701
--- Comment #28 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 13:38 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
Would you please try the Alon's patch for PR 34701.
I am not sure but maybe it's related.
Thank you,
Olga
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34483
--- Comment #9 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 13:48 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Would you please try the Alon's patch from PR 34701?
I am not sure but may be it's related.
Thank you,
Olga
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34534
--- Comment #31 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-15 14:11 ---
I gave it another push. The following is a patch solving inconsistency of the
data structures in struct reorg, and releasing comparison with 0. Please try it
together with the Richard's patch. It should give
29 matches
Mail list logo
