--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-04 16:46
---
> As far as I could tell from the documentation available to me, values-xpg4
> didn't exist until Solaris 2.6. Based on the file names I was thinking
> sol2-6.h was for 2.6 and above, where sol2
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-06 12:49
---
> Index: config/i386/i386.md
> ===
> --- config/i386/i386.md (revision 149152)
> +++ config/i386/i386.md (working copy)
> @@ -1
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-06 15:31
---
> Well, why? For save or called saved registers the functions epilogue/prologue
> takes care. The reason why gcc tries to choose ebx for call address register
> here, is exactly this reason, as it ca
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-06 16:43
---
> By simply re-ording of arguments fos sibcall_1 and sibcall_value_1, so that c
> is last element, produced code is ok and no ICE I've seen.
Disparaging it ("s,!c,d,a") would be eve
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 10:45
---
Did this work with 4.4.0?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 10:45
---
Fixing.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4.1 Regression] Ada rts |[4.4.1 regression] Ada tools
|build failure
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 20:46
---
Subject: Bug 40666
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Jul 7 20:46:06 2009
New Revision: 149346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149346
Log:
PR debug/40666
*
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 20:46
---
Subject: Bug 40666
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Jul 7 20:46:41 2009
New Revision: 149347
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149347
Log:
PR debug/40666
*
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 20:57
---
Reopen if not.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 07:53
---
What compiler do you use to bootstrap?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 10:46
---
> erm... i think im using the old gcc to compile this new one.
I was asking what version of GCC, i.e. the output of 'gcc -v'.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40696
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 11:00
---
> 3.4.3 is the GCC old version
Please post the output of 'gcc -v'.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40696
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 16:40
---
> Using built-in specs.
> Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
> Configured with: /oslo.c/gnatmail/release-6_0/gcc-41/build-oslo/src/configure
> --prefix=/opt/gnu/gnat --enable-languages=c,ada --disable-n
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-10 07:16
---
> thank you for responses, but, when i've to do the 'rm -rf...' before start the
> make bootstrap, or when i got the bootstrap failure?
Once you hit the bootstrap failure. Btw, 'mak
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
Component|target |rtl
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 06:27
---
Thanks for the report, but we need a preprocessed testcase, see instructions at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 10:09
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10127 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 10:09
---
*** Bug 13757 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-06 08:42
---
> How does stopping violate the standard? If the standard says behavior is
> undefined, then you can do anything you want, including stopping.
You're confusing compile time and run time. Please rea
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 12:08
---
*** Bug 21957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22127
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 12:08
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22127 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 11:33
---
Subject: Bug 23995
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 10 11:32:56 2005
New Revision: 106731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106731
Log:
PR ada/23995
* trans.c (cal
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 11:33
---
Subject: Bug 23995
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 10 11:33:55 2005
New Revision: 106732
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106732
Log:
PR ada/23995
* trans.c (cal
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 11:38
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00701.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 16:58
---
Subject: Bug 22127
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 10 16:58:56 2005
New Revision: 106739
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106739
Log:
PR middle-end/22127
*
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 17:00
---
Subject: Bug 22127
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 10 17:00:41 2005
New Revision: 106740
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106740
Log:
PR middle-end/22127
*
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-10 17:05
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00663.html.
Fixed in 4.0.3 and up.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 07:43
---
> Do we have a C/C++ testcase for this problem?
Yes, we do, attached.
> I'm going to leave this as P2 for now, given that we think it's not
> language-dependent, and given that we seem clos
--- Comment #25 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 07:44
---
Created an attachment (id=10212)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10212&action=view)
C testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24003
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 10:32
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 18:01
---
Created an attachment (id=10216)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10216&action=view)
Testcase that fails at -O on every branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19061
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 18:03
---
That's a pretty serious issue (the testcase comes from Perl).
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 18:06
---
I think basereg_operand should not look inside SUBREGs. Here's an excerpt from
PA's deprecated basereg_operand:
return (GET_CODE (op) == REG
&& REG_POINTER (op)
&
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 18:06
---
Created an attachment (id=10217)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10217&action=view)
Proposed fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19061
--- Comment #16 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-12 08:17
---
> The patch from comment 14 seems to be working fine without any other changes.
> I have bootstrapped and am currently running the testsuite. Looks OK so far.
Zack's patch for 4.x doesn't work
--- Comment #26 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 09:55
---
Subject: Bug 24003
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Nov 13 09:55:11 2005
New Revision: 106860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106860
Log:
PR middle-end/24003
*
--- Comment #27 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 09:57
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00807.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 13:51
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 07:49
---
> Patch pending.
No, there is no possible patch. They *have* to be compiled with -fstack-check.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Ad
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 07:54
---
> Eric, I believe Richard Kenner has a fix for this one.
Great. I've one too, but it is in Gigi.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22333
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 15:52
---
> Eric, can you be more specific about what won't work? The regression testing
> with Zack's patch seemed to go fine and hand testing some cases looks OK too.
Do you have a eh_dummy.o file for
--- Comment #21 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 16:09
---
> Yes, I checked the installed libgcc_eh.a
> (lib/gcc/ia64-hp-hpux11.23/3.4.5/libgcc_eh.a and
> lib/gcc/ia64-hp-hpux11.23/3.4.5/hpux64/libgcc_eh.a) and both contain
> eh_dummy.o. I do not getting
--- Comment #22 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 16:28
---
> Odd. We have the latest linker patch installed on our system (PHSS_33349) and
> applying Eric's patch added eh_dummy.o to libgcc_eh.a but the linker still
> gave
> a warning. I guess 'st
--- Comment #34 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 17:51
---
> Sure. I don't understand how Zack's patch works but as long as we have a
> solution that works, fine by me. Eric might be interested in reviewing the
> patch too.
The misunderstanding ha
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 18:21
---
> For current mainline and Apple 3.3/4.0, the top pass in the profile is
>
> scheduling: 14.99 (42%) usr 4.32 (75%) sys 19.32 (46%) wall
Is it the first scheduling pass? If so, we hav
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 18:50
---
Created an attachment (id=10236)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10236&action=view)
Patch (against 3.4.x) for controlling the explosion of the 1st scheduling pass.
* par
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 20:37
---
> Joel confirmed that changing "Min (2" to "Min (4" enable this file to be
> compiled, however my reading of the source would imply that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT
> is at least 32 on arm,
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #26 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-15 06:31
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22533
--- Comment #27 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-15 07:47
---
Mark,
> Downgraded to P5. If this is not Ada-specific, please attach a C/C++ test
> case.
Well, this is definitely not Ada-specific, see comment #11. According to your
analysis for PR c++/23171, the
--- Comment #29 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:27
---
> So I guess it would be possible right now to fix the bootstrap issue
> by a pure front-end patch. (This doesn't address the more general
> question of whether or not the gimplifier has a b
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:48
---
The "Search" button is your friend. -:)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22333 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:48
---
*** Bug 24898 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18659 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:53
---
*** Bug 24896 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:57
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21317 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 17:57
---
*** Bug 24897 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 21:03
---
Subject: Bug 22333
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 17 21:03:50 2005
New Revision: 107134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107134
Log:
PR ada/22333
*
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 21:05
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01311.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 08:38
---
> On sparc-solaris I get runtime failures:
>
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status^M
> compiler exited with status 1
> output is:
> Undefined first refe
--- Comment #38 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 05:16
---
> Eric, do you still consider this problem important to be solved for 3.4.x?
As the saying goes in French: "ne soyons pas plus royaliste que le roi". The
C++ maintainers apparenty don't care
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:02
---
> It should now work again on all supported platforms.
Confirmed on all versions of Solaris. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24909
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 11:45
---
> FreeBSD has the same problem with missing long double math
> functions. I tried to add an appropriate XFAIL clause for
> FreeBSD, but dejagnu would still process the file.
Huh... the following pa
--- Comment #36 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 13:59
---
> Thanks. Looks fine to me. If Eric could test it on his Solaris machines it
> would be great (remember the svn copy! ;) ...
Sure.
> Before finally committing it, probably we want to add a shor
--- Comment #17 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 14:06
---
> Fine with me. Consider approved after testing on some C99-aware platform (like
> solaris2.10)
Thanks. My main machine is actually x86-64/Linux so I've verified there that
the large real test
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 20:52
---
Subject: Bug 24432
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 21 20:52:25 2005
New Revision: 107321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107321
Log:
PR libfortran/24432
* li
--- Comment #19 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 20:53
---
Subject: Bug 24432
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 21 20:53:50 2005
New Revision: 107323
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107323
Log:
PR libfortran/24432
* li
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 10:25
---
Investigating again.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 10:44
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 22:30
---
Recategorizing.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 22:35
---
Subject: Bug 22561
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 22 22:35:55 2005
New Revision: 107377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107377
Log:
PR middle-end/22561
*
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 22:37
---
Subject: Bug 22561
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 22 22:37:35 2005
New Revision: 107378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107378
Log:
PR middle-end/22561
*
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 22:41
---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01642.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-23 11:10
---
On PowerPC, I get with tree checking:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.0 20051123 (prerelease) (powerpc-apple-darwin8) GCC error: |
| tree check
--- Comment #32 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-23 11:11
---
> with patch from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01666.html
Probably not the correct long-term fix. Might be good enough for 4.1 though.
> finally, ada is actually dead.
Not very constr
--- Comment #34 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-23 19:36
---
> this fix doesn't help for current 4.1.
It works (or worked) on s390 at least and fix the first problem on PPC though.
Did you try to compile make.adb at -O1 or -O0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #36 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-23 23:28
---
> i always do a full bootstrap with different flags for stage1 and 2+.
That doesn't cover the Ada tools. They build for me at -O0 on PowerPC so with
Andrew's FE patch + a possible tweak in the
--- Comment #37 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-23 23:29
---
Created an attachment (id=10331)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10331&action=view)
Andrew's FE patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22533
--- Comment #38 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 11:14
---
> That doesn't cover the Ada tools. They build for me at -O0 on PowerPC so with
> Andrew's FE patch + a possible tweak in the Makefile, you should have an Ada
> compiler.
They even bui
--- Comment #20 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 14:09
---
Created an attachment (id=10332)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10332&action=view)
Reduced testcase.
Compile at -O on x86.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18659
--- Comment #40 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-29 11:51
---
> Eric, I'm sorry, any news?!? Thanks.
Bootstrap was broken last week and I was away for the week-end... I'll need to
re-compute baseline results first, so maybe at the end of this week.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 15:15
---
> gdb shows that we enter i386.c:classify_argument() with a parameter "mode" of
> V2HImode which flows into the default case of a switch statement that aborts.
>
> The vector-2 testcase
--- Comment #42 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 16:34
---
Solaris 8 (32-bit compiler):
gmake[3]: Entering directory
`/opt/build/eric/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/libstdc++-v3'
Making all in include
gmake[4]: Entering directory
`/opt/build/eric/gcc/sparc-sun-solar
--- Comment #45 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 19:31
---
> Eric, as regards Solaris, 8, I think you forgot to do the svn copy, as per
> Comment #34 (and # 35 ;)
Ah, sure, thanks. Now I get:
/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/opt/build/eric/gcc
--- Comment #51 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 21:01
---
> But there is something I don't understand at all: after a recent patch from
> Benjamin, eh_globals.cc now does include *first*! Therefore
> the problem seems different. At the beginning of
--- Comment #53 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-04 21:22
---
> Gosh! Thanks Eric for noticing and further testing.
Hum... no changes on Solaris 9 and 10. On Solaris 8 I now get:
/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc
-nostdinc++
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 07:59
---
Present on SPARC too.
Dorit, is it only a matter of changing the expected error message?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 08:10
---
Present on SPARC too.
Dorit, the 3 loops are now vectorized because of versioning despite the target
being vect_no_align. Can we adjust the dg commands?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
ReportedBy: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25259
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 08:52
---
Explicitly confirmed on SPARC if that matters. We should not segfault though.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 11:20
---
> yes, that's exactly what the patch I sent in Comment #1 does.
Oops, sorry!
> I guess I can commit it as an obvious fix. I'll go ahead and do that.
Please commit it on both mainline and 4.1
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 18:53
---
Subject: Bug 24108
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Dec 5 18:53:04 2005
New Revision: 108067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108067
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24963
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 18:53
---
Subject: Bug 18580
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Dec 5 18:53:04 2005
New Revision: 108067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108067
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24963
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 18:53
---
Subject: Bug 24963
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Dec 5 18:53:04 2005
New Revision: 108067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108067
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24963
201 - 300 of 2634 matches
Mail list logo
