--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2006-04-26 14:50
---
Yes janis, it is quite likely that that patch will fix this problem.
This looks like exactly the same failure as the other bug that that this patch
was submitted for.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #5 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2006-04-26 20:51
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE in add_deps_for_def
with -fmodulo-sched -maltivec
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 17:48 ---
&g
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2006-04-29 04:23
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] ICE in add_deps_for_def
with -fmodulo-sched -maltivec
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-29 00:02 ---
> I
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2006-06-17 04:14
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The bug is in flow.c and fixed by the new df.c rewrite of dataflow. Ken and I
> tripped over the same problem.
>
While I thought this earlier, I do not believe it now. T
--- Comment #13 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-06 22:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] Hang in df_analyze
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-06 21:25
> ---
> Patch here:
> http:/
nt: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
GCC build triplet: all
GCC host triplet: all
GCC target triplet: all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38532
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-15 15:32
---
Andrew,
What is your point here?
1) Is it your claim that anything that is arg_pointer_rtx related would
automatically qualify as being safe enough to remove dead stores to?
or
2) Is it your claim that if we
--- Comment #16 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-16 18:43
---
and how would you ask that question in a machine independent way?
I am going to find the shift sequence and if it has a set or clobber of any
currently live hard reg, i will reject the sequence.
I am working on
--- Comment #20 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-18 14:23
---
committed patch to fix this.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-29 23:40
---
additional info.
gcc.c-torture/compile/930523-1.c
on x86-32.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35805
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-02 00:38
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
2009-01-01 Kenneth Zadeck
PR rtl-optimization/35805
* df-problems.c (df_lr_finalize): Add recursive call to resolve lr
--- Comment #6 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-02 14:09
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> 2009-01-01 Kenneth Zadeck
>>
>> PR rtl-optimi
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-02 15:20
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I think so. The global changed flag allows it to delete the case:
>>
>> loop:
>> .
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-02 15:34
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
On looking at the code, there is an issue with the first patch. I
should have been clearing solutions_dirty flag at the start of the
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-02 18:21
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I will test this patch, but we still need to resolve your issues with my
>> approach.
>>
--- Comment #14 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-02 18:54
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>>> At this point, if your p
--- Comment #16 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-03 00:35
---
Subject: Re: [ira] error in start_allocno_priorities,
at ira-color.c:1806
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
dot org
ReportedBy: zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
GCC build triplet: all
GCC host triplet: all
GCC target triplet: all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
--- Comment #17 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-03 01:05
---
patch committed to fix this.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-09 12:41
---
i will have my best people work on it.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-10 01:57
---
Created an attachment (id=17068)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17068&action=view)
patch to cause df to verify after every patch
this is a combine bug. The df verification fail
--- Comment #17 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-24 20:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Hang in df_analyze
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:20
> ---
> GCC 4.3.3 is being
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-28 16:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] life passes dump
option still documented
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:20
> ---
>
--- Comment #7 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-29 14:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] life passes dump
option still documented
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
> wrote:
>
>> rguenth at gcc dot gn
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2009-01-29 14:42
---
patch committed.
closed for 4.4.
richi said not to backport to 4.3 on irc.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at naturalbridge dot
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2005-12-19 19:43
---
I had messed up the original change to df.c.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at naturalbridge dot
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2006-01-20 01:33
---
2005-01-19 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR rtl-optimization/25799
* df-problems.c (df_ru_confluence_n, df_rd_confluence_n):
Corrected confluence operator to remove bits fr
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2006-09-14 12:51
---
Subject: Re: useless clrlwi instruction produced for 16-bit
bitfield
bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-14 12:07 ---
> The sole difference in the
--- Comment #14 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-04-03 16:47
---
Subject: Re: [4.3] inf loop/long compile time, time spent
in var-tracking.c
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-03 16:40
> ---
>
--- Comment #17 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-07-16 23:26
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: gfortran.dg/auto_array_1.f90
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-16 19:27 ---
> revision 125923 works. Kenny, it look
--- Comment #21 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-07-26 17:35
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: gfortran.dg/auto_array_1.f90
Seongbae Park (???, ???) wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This patch extends the fix in
>> http
--- Comment #19 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-07-26 11:51
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: gfortran.dg/auto_array_1.f90
This patch extends the fix in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01557.html
to handle the case of clobbers inside conditional calls.
This
--- Comment #18 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-07-25 18:41
---
i am testing a patch.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-07-27 17:29
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: gfortran.dg/auto_array_1.f90
This patch rearranges the updating of the local dataflow info when
building reg_dead notes. The need for this was that processing was not
correctly
--- Comment #26 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-07-27 17:33
---
revision 126987
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-02 19:19
---
Given that the rtl passes are moving to not allow illegally shared rtl, i do
not believe that the resolution of this bug has anything to do with the
dataflow port.
If this bug is to be resolved, it will be done
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-17 12:48
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE with -O2 -fsee
wouter dot vermaelen at scarlet dot be wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from wouter dot vermaelen at scarlet dot be 2007-08-17
> 12:44 ---
> Here is
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-23 18:59
---
Subject: Re: Invalid insn with pre_inc
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-22 22:41
> ---
> I think we need a new predicate for
--- Comment #30 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-29 15:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ecj1 hangs
bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #29 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-08-29 14:16 ---
> (When I said "post your first patch", I mea
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-30 14:43
---
Subject: Re: failing rtl iv analysis (maybe due
to df)
dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-30 08:12 ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-30 18:51
---
Subject: Re: failing rtl iv analysis (maybe due
to df)
rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2007-08-30
> 18:09 ---
> Su
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-30 18:57
---
Subject: Re: failing rtl iv analysis (maybe due
to df)
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-30 18:51
> ---
> Subject: Re: fa
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-30 21:46
---
Subject: Re: failing rtl iv analysis (maybe due
to df)
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-30 20:05
> ---
> I know how t
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-08-31 21:34
---
At least on the x86-32, libgcc is currently being built optimized, but the
options are slightly different. the stage1 build does not do
-fomit-frame-pointer.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #13 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-09-05 01:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE with -O2 -fsee
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-04 23:37
> ---
> Fixed.
>
>
>
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-04 20:51
---
spark fixed this in comment #10.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at naturalbridge dot
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-05 13:02
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-05 12:36
> ---
> But powf is p
--- Comment #15 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-05 20:17
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-05 17:50
> ---
> (In reply to c
--- Comment #7 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 04:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-06 02:07 ---
> Kenny, does your patch
&g
--- Comment #17 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 12:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 06:49 ---
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
--- Comment #18 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 13:07
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 06:49 ---
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
--- Comment #20 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-06 21:20
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: wrong code with
-fforce-addr
ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-10-06 19:58 ---
> In dse.c, scan_insn(), w
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-07 03:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
hj,
here is a fix. I will most likely post the patch on monday after i get
it really tested on a bunch of platforms. The fix is in the third
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at naturalbridge dot
|dot org
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-07 21:57
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
This patch fixes pr33669.
The failure only happens if you have a block with 2 or more uses of a
multiword pseudo register that is local to
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-08 03:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33669 ***
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-08 03:53
---
*** Bug 33662 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-09 15:32
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 14:00 ---
> Subject: Bug
--- Comment #15 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-09 15:41
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
This patch fixes the problem in a slightly different way. The other
patch was too conservative in that it ended up setting the added flag
too
--- Comment #18 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-10 03:39
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 128957
miscompiles 481.wrf
HJ,
Sorry about the committing snafu. I should have posted the irc log of
seonbae's comments to the log for the bug. Also I had a me
--- Comment #19 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-10 03:41
---
patch committed to fix this.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-10 11:41
---
I will look at it today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33676
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|33669 |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |zadeck at
--- Comment #4 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-10 13:33
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Wrong register allocation
on SH
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-10 13:28
> ---
> Not fixed b
--- Comment #14 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-11 11:43
---
Subject: Re: libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22:
Segmentation fault, wrong code with -fomit-frame-pointer
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from ebotcazou
--- Comment #16 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-11 12:40
---
Subject: Re: libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22:
Segmentation fault, wrong code with -fomit-frame-pointer
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #15 from ebotcazou
--- Comment #17 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-11 16:21
---
Subject: Re: libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22:
Segmentation fault, wrong code with -fomit-frame-pointer
2007-10-11 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR middle-end
--- Comment #7 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-11 21:50
---
kazumoto,
there was a set of miscommunications associated with the final patch for
pr33669.
hj had checked in an earlier version of the patch and that testcase and i asked
him to revert it because there were
--- Comment #20 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-11 22:35
---
Subject: Re: libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22:
Segmentation fault, wrong code with -fomit-frame-pointer
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from zadeck
--- Comment #24 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-12 14:38
---
Subject: Re: libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22:
Segmentation fault, wrong code with -fomit-frame-pointer
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> 2007-10-11 Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL
--- Comment #22 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-12 11:59
---
it seems to be clean now.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-15 13:11
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in local_cprop_pass
with -ftrapv for crafty
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 12:29:44PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> > > I have not looked at this bug. I am happy to
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-10-17 11:25
---
Subject: Re: valgrind error with -O2 for linux
kernel code
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 04:46
> ---
> Although va
--- Comment #23 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-09-27 12:44
---
I do not believe honza.
My measurements at -O0 on x86-42 are about 15 refs per insn.
This is based on the following stats. (These can be reproduced using a patch
that i am about to submit).
;;total ref
--- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-10-12 04:56
---
Created an attachment (id=16485)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16485&action=view)
possible patch to fix the problem
I am pretty sure that this fixes it, but i need to do more testing.
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-10-12 21:13
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Revision 141067 breaks Linux/x86
andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-12 20:31
> ---
> I see a f
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-10-12 21:19
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: Revision 141067 breaks Linux/x86
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> andreast a
--- Comment #12 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-10-12 21:22
---
fixed with the above patch.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-10-24 18:44
---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] Revision 139827 causes Divide_X
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 18:09
> ---
> This hunk in
--- Comment #50 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-17 21:06
---
Subject: [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF
and SJLJ exceptions
This is the second of three patches to fix 34400. This patch also makes
some progress on 26854 but more work is required that is not
--- Comment #50 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-17 21:20
---
Subject:
Mark,
Am I allowed to set the target milestone for a patch or is that your job?
26854 is not going to get fixed for 4.3. We made a lot of progress on it
with the patches to 34400, but largest
--- Comment #52 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-17 21:46
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large
routines
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #51 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-17 21:43
> ---
> As this isn'
--- Comment #53 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-17 22:37
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] bad interaction between
DF and SJLJ exceptions
seongbae dot park at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #52 from seongbae dot park at gmail dot com 2008-01-17 22
--- Comment #55 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-17 22:57
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large
routines
lucier at math dot purdue dot edu wrote:
> --- Comment #54 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-01-17 22:39
> ---
> C
--- Comment #57 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-18 02:10
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large
routines
lucier at math dot purdue dot edu wrote:
> --- Comment #56 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-01-18 01:38
> ---
> gcc is now
--- Comment #56 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-19 13:09
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] bad interaction between DF and SJLJ exceptions
Let me commit the patch first.
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:41 AM, "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org"
<[EM
e-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
GCC host triplet: x86-64-linux-gni
GCC target triplet: x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34874
--- Comment #1 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-19 20:13
---
I am about to commit the last fix to p34400 and at least on my machine, this
patch will make this failure disappear from the test suite. however the bug is
still there if you look with valgrind.
pinskia, i am
--- Comment #2 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 01:43
---
actually the commit for 34400 does not seem to effect this bug.
but the bug does have that nice heisenbug quality to it.
kenny
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34874
--- Comment #58 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 02:13
---
The three patches that have been committed seem to have brought this under
control.
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 13:53
---
I need a more info to reproduce this bug. I bootstrapped and regression tested
on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with suse 10.3 and using
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib before committing the
patch
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 15:24
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-20 14:39
> ---
>
>>
--- Comment #10 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 15:39
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-20 15:30
> ---
>
&
--- Comment #12 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 15:52
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> --- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-20 15:47
> ---
> I hav
--- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 15:29
---
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.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34472
--- Comment #11 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 16:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/struct/wo_prof_malloc_size_var.c
doesn't work
olga at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from olga at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-20 16:28 -
--- Comment #14 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-20 18:30
---
confirmed on my machine,
i will have my best people work on it.
kenny
--
zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 271 matches
Mail list logo
