lates.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tmsriram at google dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64
GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55230
--- Comment #1 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-11-09
20:31:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Caused by:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=193204
>
> /* { dg-do run { target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } */
> /* { dg-require-i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Patch proposed to fix this problem,
This happens when a subset of versions are invalid because of unrecognized
target string name or if a dispatcher for that is not available. When
constructing the version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57375
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57378
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57548
--- Comment #1 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Patch proposed to fix this problem:
The problem here is that the caller to fum not from a function and
current_function_decl is NULL when processing the
call. The simple fix in call.c to check current_fun
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tmsriram at google dot com
Simple repro:
foo.cc:
---
__attribute__((always_inline,target("sse4.2")))
inline int callee ()
{
return 0;
}
__attribute__((targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Trunk rev. 200913 fixes this problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Taking a stab at fixing this. Here is what is going on. In rev. 200179, this
change to tree-inline.c
Index: tree-inline.c
===
--- tree-inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #8 from Sriraman Tallam ---
One other alternative to the patch proposed earlier. The reported bug happens
only when optimization is turned on as the early inliner pass invokes
incremental inlining which calls optimize_inline_calls and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
--- Comment #10 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Patch committed. This should fix this.
Sri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57548
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> What happened to the patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00426.html
Patch has been submitted on Jun 7 in rev. 199842 to trunk. Sorry for not
upd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #10 from Sriraman Tallam 2011-10-28
17:28:23 UTC ---
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:00 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2011-10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #12 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-07
16:54:57 UTC ---
Will do, thanks.
-Sri.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #11 from vince
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #13 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-07
17:04:05 UTC ---
Here is the patch to do function multiversioning which is under review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00078.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #15 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-08
17:09:43 UTC ---
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:18 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #14 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2012-05
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #16 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-09
19:03:01 UTC ---
Bug fixed, patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00694.html
Thanks for trying,
-Sri.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:18 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #18 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-10
16:48:45 UTC ---
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:16 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #17 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2012-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
Bug #: 53661
Summary: Wrong narrowing conversion warning with -std=c++11
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53661
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |c++
Summary|Wrong narrowing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-03-09
19:36:21 UTC ---
Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. Is it ok
to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP?
The patch I have in mind is:
-#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x200 /* s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-03-09
21:30:54 UTC ---
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
>
> --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
> 20:27:42 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> Hi Sriraman,
>
> I'm putting you on CC since you are the author of that test case:
> I am not sure if the test case should use -msse2 instead of -msse,
> but r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944
--- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam ---
(In reply to tmsri...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> Author: tmsriram
> Date: Tue Dec 3 03:14:09 2013
> New Revision: 205616
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205616&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> This p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam ---
JFYI, I am seeing this issue even in gcc-4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59385
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
--- Comment #4 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Here is the problem. GCC adds target-specific builtins on demand. The FMA
target-specific builtin __builtin_ia32_vfmaddpd gets added via this
declaration:
void fun() __attribute__((target("fma")));
Specifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59385
--- Comment #4 from Sriraman Tallam ---
The "widening_mult" has the answer. This pass converts this gimple sequence
double _31;
double _33;
double _36;
double _37;
_31 = *a_4;
_33 = *b_6;
_34 = _33 * _31;
_36 = *c_8;
_37 = _34
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59385
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam ---
The root-cause is because floating point expression contraction is default
disabled in ISO C unless specified explicitly. So, adding -ffp-contract=fast
solves the problem.
Details:
The problem is in functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-12-20
18:21:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> After thinking about this more, I think the problem here is that the
> attributes
> specified in the declaration of the function are not being used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-12-20
19:36:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, tmsriram at google dot com
> wrote:
>
> > However, with function multiversioning, this will b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.guenther at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #13 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-14
17:45:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with mv_target
> > or
> > whatever), or require a new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #15 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-14
18:07:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > (In reply to comment #12)
> > > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > > Either use a different name of the attribute (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #27 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-16
17:20:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
> >
> > --- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #28 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-16
17:25:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be
> more
> important is that other attributes are merged together in tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #36 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18
18:03:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created attachment 29207 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's start talking
> ov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #37 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18
18:07:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Created attachment 29211 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to prevent issuing errors for the
> s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #38 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18
19:53:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created attachment 29207 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's start talking
> over patche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #41 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-19
17:18:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> Created attachment 29217 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742-2.patch
>
> The following I mean (incremental patch). No test coverage for that, of
> cour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60906
--- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> GCC has like 60 or 70 target independent attributes plus sometimes various
> target dependent attributes. Figuring out which are ABI changing and must
> be erro
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tmsriram at google dot com
This test case:
problem.cc
==
int rand ();
class Funcs
{
public:
int *f1 ();
int *f2 ();
};
typedef decltype (&Funcs::f1) pfunc;
static int Set (Funcs *
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tmsriram at google dot com
CC: davidxl at google dot com, ppluzhnikov at google dot com
foo.cc
==
char c[1*1024*1024*1024];
extern
at gcc dot gnu.org
> Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> CC: tmsriram at google dot com
> Target Milestone: ---
>
> Drawbacks with -fno-plt and noplt attribute are
>
> 1. -fno-plt may force locally defined functions to be called via
> their GOT slot
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> CC: tmsriram at google dot com
> Target Milestone: ---
>
> Drawbacks with -fno-plt and noplt attribute are
>
> 1. -fno-plt may force locally defined functions to be called via
> their GOT slots through indirect branch, inste
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tmsriram at google dot com
CC: davidxl at google dot com
foo.cc
==
#include
const char *str = "Hello World";
int main() {
printf("str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61599
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
53 matches
Mail list logo
