http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58330
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58330
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57134
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57586
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Component|debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2011-09-05 00:00
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
Bug #: 50341
Summary: calls via function pointer wrongly scheduled giving
invalid TOC pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
||2011-09-09
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2011-09-09 13:01:36
UTC ---
Created attachment 25233
--> h
||amodra at gmail dot com
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2011-09-20 02:07:39
UTC ---
Not a gcc bug.
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords||wrong-code
Last reconfirmed||2011-09-21
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Host|powerpc64-linux |powerpc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50738
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2011-11-01
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2011-11-01 23:44:04
UTC ---
_Z16closure_test_fn1P7ffi_cifPvPS1_S1_:
.LFB0:
.file 1 "unwindtestfunc.cc"
.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra 2011-11-02 00:05:42
UTC ---
bl _save64gpr_24
.loc 1 17 0
mr 31,4
.cfi_offset 31, -100
.cfi_offset 1231, -104
.cfi_offset 30, -108
.cfi_offset 1230, -112
.cfi_offset 29, -116
.cfi_
dot com |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 04:17:09
UTC ---
There are multiple problems in TARGET_SPE_ABI parts of rs6000_emit_prologue.
Hacking on it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 12:54:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 25702
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25702
Proposed mainline fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 12:55:29
UTC ---
Created attachment 25703
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25703
gcc-4.6 fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2011-11-03 12:59:10
UTC ---
Please test out these patches. bootstrap and regression tests with -Os in
BOOT_CFLAGS on spe would be ideal. I'll be running a powerpc-linux regression
test, but can't do that for spe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25702|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25703|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47487
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #25 from Alan Modra 2011-11-08 05:21:57
UTC ---
Actually, the testcase in #1 still fails on gcc-4.4. Looks like gcc-4.4 (and
earlier) need to use a bigger blockage.
||2012-05-08
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2012-05-08 06:43:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 27340
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27340
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53385
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53385
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2012-05-17 12:25:03
UTC ---
Here's the problem. Compiled with -m64 -O2, this
int f (long val)
{
int i;
if (val < 0)
i = -1;
else
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
if ((val <<= 1) < 0)
break;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53385
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
--- Comment #5 from Alan M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-06-29 16:03:07
UTC ---
Closed as invalid on the assumption that this is really a uclibc build bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
Bug #: 53914
Summary: poor code generated for offset addressing on ppc32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra
||2012-07-10
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
Bug #: 54009
Summary: incorrect code generated for DFmode lo_sum mem
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2012-07-18
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2012-07-24 12:53:35
UTC ---
No, I was mistaken. The pr42427 patch isn't at fault here.
||2012-07-26
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2012-07-26 03
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54093
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2012-07-26 13:16:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 27877
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27877
proposed fix
Please try out this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54093
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54110
Bug #: 54110
Summary: lower-subreg related code quality for long long
function return
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
||2012-07-30
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan
||atches/2012-07/msg01559.htm
CC|amodra at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2012-07-31 22:18:36
UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52107
Bug #: 52107
Summary: IBM 128bit long double constant loaded inefficiently
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52107
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-02-03 23:17:36
UTC ---
.tc generates an 8-byte word in both cases, so no space saved in the toc. This
bit of code in rs6000_emit_move does the loads in DImode, then cse1 shows the
toc load being converted to a
gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2012-02-03 23:20:56
UTC ---
Investigating a fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51982
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52107
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52107
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52163
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
Bug #: 52721
Summary: segfault in vect_init_vector
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52828
Bug #: 52828
Summary: powerpc -m32 -Os writes register saves below stack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Bug #: 52839
Summary: double free or corruption running
tr1/.../default_weaktoshared.exe
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
||2012-04-03
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 01:11:47
UTC ---
Interesting. gcc revision? I've held back on svn update after hearing that
richi had broken the tree for powerpc. The uncaught exception might be an
eh_frame problem like that in
http:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 09:57:51
UTC ---
I also see the same 64-bit failure on r186130. A lot harder to reproduce than
the 32-bit one I originally reported (which is still there on r186130). Likely
not a problem with .eh_frame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 11:12:56
UTC ---
Heh. We're even. I didn't notice yours was a 64-bit failure until you told me
your gcc revision number.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 14:20:57
UTC ---
I caught the 64-bit failure in the act. It's dying on the gcc_assert in
unwind-dw2.c:_Unwind_SetSpColumn, with the value read from
dwarf_reg_size_table[1] being zero. The implication h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 22:27:43
UTC ---
glibc/ntpl/pthread_once.c:
static int once_lock = LLL_LOCK_INITIALIZER;
int
__pthread_once (once_control, init_routine)
pthread_once_t *once_control;
void (*init_routine) (vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra 2012-04-04 23:02:34
UTC ---
Huh, so glibc has a powerpc specific pthread_once, and that one has a different
bug. Lack of lwsync before atomic_increment (once_control);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra 2012-04-05 04:00:07
UTC ---
Created attachment 27094
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27094
config patch
Yes, the 32-bit failure seems to be gone if we use the gcc builtin atomics.
Multiple cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra 2012-04-05 08:06:30
UTC ---
Many hours later one of my 32-bit tests failed, but I'm relieved to say it was
only the pthread_once bug.
#0 0x0fbd839c in raise () from /lib/power7/libc.so.6
#1 0x0fbda034 in abort (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra 2012-04-05 12:05:01
UTC ---
I spent quite a bit of time today looking at libpthread and can't spot a
problem in pthread_mutex_lock and pthread_mutex_unlock.
I wonder if the problem is that libstdc++ is using both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra 2012-04-10 15:13:24
UTC ---
I think I was on the right track when I questioned whether the problem might be
mixing atomics and mutex protected ops, but was looking in the wrong place. I
should have looked at defau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.1 |---
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra 2012-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.0
--- Comment #27 from Alan Modra 2012-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
Bug #: 53038
Summary: cfi_restore for cr before cr is actually restored
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
Bug #: 53040
Summary: nested functions may trash floating point registers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2012-04-19 15:24:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 27191
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27191
obvious fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-04-19 15:27:47
UTC ---
testing a fix
||2012-04-19
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2012-04-25 05:26:28
UTC ---
Some more data points. The testcase in #1 produces
gcc-4.3.6
cmpldi 7,3,27
mr 9,3
li 3,0
bgtlr 7
lis 0,0xcf8
ori 0,0,63
srd 0,0,9
rldicl 3,0,0,63
blr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57586
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
Once upon a time I understood this code quite well, but it's been a while since
I looked at it in detail, and I'd forgotten that inout gets split to separate
input and output operands if a register is allowed.
S
||2011-11-14
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra 2011-11-14 22:00
dot gnu.org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2011-11-14 22:06:29
UTC ---
Patch fixing what I broke (rather than, perhaps, underlying causes as per
Bernd's patch) in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
Bug #: 51249
Summary: semaphore implemetation for linux leaves threads
blocked
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
||2011-11-21
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2011-11-21 03:07:04
UTC ---
What's more, the mutex implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2011-11-21 22:21:13
UTC ---
Sorry, I misread the code. Indeed, the mutex will be left at 2.
I'm chasing a frustratingly elusive locking bug. Symptoms are that one or two
libgomp tests fail each gcc testsuite run,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
Bug #: 51298
Summary: libgomp team_barrier locking failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
||2011-11-27
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51249
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2011-12-01
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Ever Confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51376
Bug #: 51376
Summary: libgomp taskwait failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51376
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2011-12-15 07:57:44
UTC ---
Yes, this bug and more are still in gcc-4.6. I haven't had time to look at
backporting any of my libgomp fixes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2011-12-15 13:45:20
UTC ---
I expect all of the libgomp bugs I recently fixed will affect some other
processors, eg. Alpha, IA64, and Sparc in some memory modes. I know PR51376
won't affect x86, and I expect PR5124
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51857
Bug #: 51857
Summary: gcc -flto ignores -B
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
101 - 200 of 872 matches
Mail list logo
