--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 21:46 ---
This really has nothing to do with PRE except for PRE adding a new variable
which contains no aliasing info attached to it so we lose information because
our aliasing system sucks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:11 ---
Here is the patch which fixes this issue for me:
Index: cp-objcp-common.c
===
--- cp-objcp-common.c (revision 112789)
+++ cp-objcp-common.c
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:13 ---
Confirmed, the ICE is in fold-const.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:14 ---
in fact when folding 16 / 0 But the 0 has overflowed bit marked so ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27088
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:16 ---
Confirmed, the ICE is during DOM.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:28 ---
I am testing the C++ patch right now. It is always a better idea to fix a pass
to do what it should be doing instead of hacking another one to do the same.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27084
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 00:58 ---
Here is a testcase making sure that fold does not get in the way:
extern int ptbl[4];
extern int ctbl[4];
void doViews(void) {
int *c = ctbl, *p = ptbl;
while (1)
{
p++;
c++;
if
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 17:40 ---
Actually this testcase comes down to:
int f(int *a)
{
*a = 1;
unsigned *b = (unsigned *)a;
int *c = (int*)b;
return *c;
}
And this is caught correctly at the RTL level.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 17:45 ---
Can you try 4.0.3 since 3.4.x is no longer being updated?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27092
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 17:50 ---
Confirmed, this is a regression. There might be already a dup of this but I
don't have time to find it right now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Re
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|tree check: expected|[4.2 Regression] tree check:
|tree_list, have
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 21:38 ---
I could not reproduce this with the default gc params for checking but could
with:
--param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0
Which means this is a GC issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 21:40 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27094
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 21:49 ---
Confirmed, also happens on powerpc-darwin and on the mainline still.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-09 22:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:22 ---
Here is another testcase (which was reduced from the same source and gives a
similar error message but does not have inheritance in it):
template struct allocator
{
~allocator() throw() { }
};
struct list
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:28 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11813 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:28
---
*** Bug 27098 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:30 ---
Please next time if you going to put the testcase inline don't put stuff in
front of the testcase so it can be easy to access.
Anyways confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:35 ---
It is a dup, Daniel asked me yesterday to close it as one but I did not get
around to it til today.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26626 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:35
---
*** Bug 27085 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:40 ---
That error should not effect compiling of GCC unless you need a fortran
compiler and then you need to read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/
AND:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
People build all the time
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:12 ---
Well really more like:
int f(int *a)
{
int t = *a;
unsigned *b = (unsigned *)a;
int *c = (int*)b;
return *c + t;
}
Which should be the same as:
int f(int *a)
{
return *a * 2;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:24 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Tom Fitzsimmons stopped complaining about my pipe-quoting technique
> after I told him about "M-x delete-rectangle" a.k.a. "C-x r d". Takes
> about 5 seconds
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:43 ---
Related to PR 26490.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:45 ---
This works with "4.2.0 20060409".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27103
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 19:04 ---
And I already filed this once before too :).
Anyways this is a dup of bug 24835.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24835 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 19:04 ---
*** Bug 27104 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 20:49 ---
Yes, it is known that -ftree-loop-linear is buggy. There might already be a
dup of this bug too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 01:06 ---
This is not a bug as foo is now a variable decl and not a typedef one so "foo
a;" would fail also.
Now if this was C++ you could use ::foo to get the typedef version of foo but
this is C and there is
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 01:21 ---
Just a note VN.2 should really have not been created (maybe there is no way
around this because it is just equivalant to VN.0). This actually gets fixed
by a real tree combiner since fold is able to "fix&quo
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 01:33 ---
So I talked to Daniel about this and he said a new Number value system or the
tree combiner so basicially there is nothing can be done currently. Guess
maybe it is time for you Richard to stop hacking on fowardprop
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27109
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27109
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 02:45 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25690 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 02:45 ---
*** Bug 27110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 02:49 ---
Altivec can be done with -mno-altivec and it is not really a real pain because
if you are going to use altivec registers in your program, you want to use them
more rather than less. And for the functions you don&#
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 03:00 ---
It should be something like what XLC does at:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxpcomp/v8v101/topic/com.ibm.xlcpp8l.doc/compiler/ref/ruprpdir.htm#RUPRPDIR
Which is actually much better than what is even in
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 17:25 ---
Can you give some sources that don't use automake? Because it is hard to
follow what is wrong in this bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 17:30 ---
Related to PR 10138.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 17:39 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, wrong
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 17:46 ---
This is why Changing reload is hard to do correctly :).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 18:10 ---
I would not doubt this was PR 26986.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 18:20 ---
You need a newer cctools.
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00507.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 18:56 ---
You did not read the changes page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html
When declaring a friend class using an unqualified name, classes outside the
innermost non-class scope are not searched:
class A
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 20:42 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 21:24 ---
Bootstrapping the fix right now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19719
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 23:13 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 23:17
---
Fixed at least on the mainline but still needs to fixed on the 4.1 branch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 01:14 ---
GRRR.
This is partly caused by the patch for PR 23669.
(In reply to comment #7)
> > I disagree. Could you give an explicit example?
> Sorry, my mistake, I should not have suggested this testc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 01:17 ---
I don't see any attached sources or .s files.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 01:20 ---
The C++ patch fixes the problem with this code and it also finished
bootstrapping without any regression so please test it fully and submit it
instead of your hack.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27073
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27044
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26891
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26976
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26779
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25031
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26743
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11254
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10274
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26257
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 01:25 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 01:25 ---
AS works for me.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 17:34 ---
Yes I already filed a couple bugs about turning this on for the !flag_wrapv
case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27132
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 17:39 ---
You need to fix PR 25148 first before fixing this bug really otherwise you will
get a testsuite failure as I got before.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 17:40
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> PASS: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/dyncast7.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/dyncast7.C execution test
I did not get that failure.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 18:06 ---
This is basicially PR 23295.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 18:18 ---
Are you building from a release version, correct?
Otherwise you do need makeinfo as explained by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27133
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 18:20 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-04/msg00302.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 20:18 ---
What do you need exactly that -iquote or any of the -i* options provide?
Or even what this patch should provide:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01197.html
That adds an option to do what exactly -I
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 20:19 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01197.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 20:19 ---
If that patch does the trick for you, then this is a dup of bug 19541.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27137
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 23:59 ---
Confirmed, I doubt this shows up that much anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 00:54
---
It has to be the:
/* See if the comparisons can be merged. Then get all the parameters for
each side. */
which gets it wrong for some reason.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26729
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:01 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Didn't we have the canonicalization to put the constant in operand2 if
> possible? A lot of transformations rely on that.
Why should they in this case, they only rely
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:05 ---
the TRUTH_AND_EXPR is long long here and we produce an ICE while expanding to
RTL so this is a middle-end issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:17 ---
for the orginal expample:
3.3.3 ICE
3.4.0 worked
3.2.2 ICE
3.0.4 ICE
2.95.3 ICE
I don't think we should call this critical as this is using an extension in the
first place and it only ICEs with the extensi
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:27 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23577 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:27 ---
*** Bug 27126 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:41 ---
Can you show how it fails also because this is not enough information really.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27133
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:44 ---
The thread starts:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00192.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:52 ---
This works on most targets I tried, ppc-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu both
work, only i?86-linux-gnu (32bit) did not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:56 ---
The diagnostic issue is PR 15672.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15672 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 01:56
---
*** Bug 27061 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:30 ---
I bet it has nothing to do with those but instead PR 26830.
Just a quick question since you might know before I go looking into the source.
Does this source has a big switch and a couple of loops in it?
If it does
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:35 ---
This is the same as PR 26490.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26490 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:35 ---
*** Bug 27103 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:37 ---
It is the same issue really, the C++ front-end is producing two DECLs with one
UID which is wrong.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26757 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:37
---
*** Bug 27143 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26757
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:42
---
This is a latent bug as show by PR 16792 and PR 20357. Both show the same
problem of two DECLs pointing to the same variable and having the same UID.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:45 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19541 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 16:45 ---
*** Bug 27137 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 35700 matches
Mail list logo
