[Bug fortran/40427] [F03] Procedure Pointer Components with OPTIONAL arguments
-- janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 11:33:42 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40427
[Bug target/40327] Use less instructions to add some constants to register
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 12:49 --- Subject: Bug 40327 Author: rearnsha Date: Sat Jun 13 12:49:25 2009 New Revision: 148452 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148452 Log: PR target/40327 * arm/constraints.md (Pa, Pb): New constraints. * arm/arm.md (thumb1_addsi3): Support more complex additions. Add a split pattern to deal with them. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/arm/arm.md trunk/gcc/config/arm/constraints.md -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40327
[Bug target/40327] Use less instructions to add some constants to register
--- Comment #5 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:04 --- fixed -- rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40327
[Bug other/38606] AIX: build failed in stage 2
--- Comment #14 from vovata at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 13:23 --- Hello, It works for me, to bootstrap GCC 4.3.3 on AIX 5.3 Regards, vladimir penev (In reply to comment #12) > Maybe you are running out of native heap. Try with something like: > > export LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA=0x4000 > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38606
[Bug c/40404] Comparison involving unsigned int:17 bitfield seems wrong
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:56 --- Thanks. I'll have a look. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 13:56:16 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40404
[Bug middle-end/40401] [4.5 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:57 --- Mine. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2009-06-10 21:35:35 |2009-06-13 13:57:18 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40401
[Bug lto/40410] [LTO] ICE verify_stmts failed
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:58 --- I guess the types used for builtins are not properly unified with the streamed in types? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40410
[Bug tree-optimization/40413] [4.5 Regression] Internal error in connection with optimization and allocatable objects
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mjambor at suse dot cz Component|fortran |tree-optimization Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40413
[Bug other/38606] AIX: build failed in stage 2
--- Comment #15 from tammer at tammer dot net 2009-06-13 14:18 --- Hello, OK I will try gcc 4.3.3. Please could you be so kind and post your complete configure call + additional env settings (if set) ? Thanks in advance. Bye Rainer -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38606
[Bug rtl-optimization/33928] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 30% performance slowdown in floating-point code caused by r118475
--- Comment #93 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 14:18 --- I would say that was the new SRA. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mjambor at suse dot cz http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
[Bug tree-optimization/40421] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148352 failed 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 14:38 --- I have a fix. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Component|middle-end |tree-optimization Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 14:38:07 date|| Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40421
[Bug tree-optimization/40413] [4.5 Regression] Internal error in connection with optimization and allocatable objects
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 15:52 --- (In reply to comment #6) Changing type :: polarization_t logical :: polarized = .false. integer :: spin_type = 0 integer :: multiplicity = 0 type(state_matrix_t) :: state end type polarization_t to type :: polarization_t type(state_matrix_t) :: state ! put structure here logical :: polarized = .false. integer :: spin_type = 0 integer :: multiplicity = 0 end type polarization_t compiles at -O3 for me. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40413
[Bug c++/40434] New: g++ does not obey 8.3.5p5?!
Hello
line 14 of the attached code does compile fine on gcc 4.4.0, although it should
not according to 8.3.5p5 (pair(pair&& __p):
first(std::move(__p.first)),second(std::move(__p.second)) { } get triggered -
afaik this no exception to the rule)
Is this a bug or am I missing something?
Thank you
--
Summary: g++ does not obey 8.3.5p5?!
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: d3607773 at bsnow dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40434
[Bug c++/40362] openmp: some libgomp functions trigger data races
--- Comment #9 from bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 16:23
---
(In reply to comment #7)
The patch below is sufficient to suppress all conflicting accesses reported by
DRD. I've done my best to ensure that this patch is not only sufficient but
also minimal. Although Jakub Jelinek has already explained that the access
pattern of gomp_work_share::next_ws is safe, there are several other members of
struct gomp_work_share that have to be verified too.
$ diff -upr orig/gcc-4.4.0/libgomp gcc-4.4.0/libgomp
diff -upr orig/gcc-4.4.0/libgomp/work.c gcc-4.4.0/libgomp/work.c
--- orig/gcc-4.4.0/libgomp/work.c 2009-04-10 01:23:07.0 +0200
+++ gcc-4.4.0/libgomp/work.c2009-06-13 18:00:55.0 +0200
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
/* Allocate a new work share structure, preferably from current team's
@@ -92,6 +93,14 @@ void
gomp_init_work_share (struct gomp_work_share *ws, bool ordered,
unsigned nthreads)
{
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->chunk_size);
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->end);
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->incr);
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->mode);
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->next);
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->next_ws);
+ DRD_IGNORE_VAR(ws->threads_completed);
+
gomp_mutex_init (&ws->lock);
if (__builtin_expect (ordered, 0))
{
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362
[Bug c++/40434] g++ does not obey 8.3.5p5?!
--- Comment #1 from d3607773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-13 16:23 --- Created an attachment (id=17991) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17991&action=view) testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40434
[Bug c++/40434] [C++0x] g++ does not obey 8.3.5p5?!
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal Summary|g++ does not obey 8.3.5p5?! |[C++0x] g++ does not obey ||8.3.5p5?! http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40434
[Bug c++/40389] optimizer bug (possibly)
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 17:02 --- Subject: Bug 40389 Author: rguenth Date: Sat Jun 13 17:02:17 2009 New Revision: 148458 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148458 Log: 2009-06-13 Richard Guenther PR tree-optimization/40389 * tree-predcom.c (should_unroll_loop_p): Remove. (tree_predictive_commoning_loop): Use can_unroll_loop_p. * gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr40421.f: New testcase. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr40421.f Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-predcom.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
[Bug tree-optimization/40421] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148352 failed 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 17:08 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40421
[Bug testsuite/40359] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148211 caused a lot of failures in the vect test suite.
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359
[Bug bootstrap/40360] configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object files: cannot compile
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:14 --- Actually -rpath is worse than LD_LIBRARY_PATH. And in this case it is not GCC's fault for where you installed mpfr/gmp that you need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40360
[Bug c++/40365] g++ template expansion bug
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:16 --- Can you supply the preprocessed source? -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40365
[Bug c/40369] Unexpected Macro expansion leading to error
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:17 --- This is expected as -E really just preproesses the source and does not tokenize the code that much. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40369
[Bug c/40369] Unexpected Macro expansion leading to error
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:18 --- Oh and the tokenizer happens during preprocessing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40369
[Bug fortran/40377] gfortran documentation: Add note to C prog. part + update F200x status
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:21 --- Isn't this known by Fortran/C developers already? Does this belong in manual really because this is standard Fortran/C issues? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40377
[Bug libffi/40385] new testcases bought in by Revision 148285 fail on ia64
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:23 --- As mentioned, this is not a regression, just new testcase changing the summary and removing the target milestone. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 19:23:03 date|| Summary|[4.5 regression] Revision |new testcases bought in by |148285 caused many failures |Revision 148285 fail on ia64 Target Milestone|4.5.0 |--- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40385
[Bug c++/40389] optimizer bug (possibly)
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
[Bug c++/40407] Value increment problems
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:29 --- This is expected because long double is only 80bits (only 64bits for significand), so adding one to unsigned long's max (64bit) will cause a rounding to happen. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40407
[Bug c++/40389] optimizer bug (possibly)
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:30 --- So, if I see correctly the issue only manifests itself if we elide the copy? The C++ FE seems to unconditionally set TREE_ADDRESSABLE on the LHS. Stripping down the fix to only apply if TREE_ADDRESSABLE is set still causes some missed optimization opportunities, for example for g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr8781.C -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
[Bug target/40424] --verbose-asm option not list all enbaled command line option flags
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:32 --- This sounds like ASM_COMMENT_START is not defined for crx-elf. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40424
[Bug target/40424] --verbose-asm option not list all enbaled command line option flags
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:33 --- Yep that is the issue. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 19:33:20 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40424
[Bug testsuite/40426] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148408 caused many DWARF tests faulures
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:34 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 19:34:00 date|| Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40426
[Bug lto/40429] [LTO] Handling of -o without space
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- ||patches/2009- ||06/msg01061.html Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Keywords||patch Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-13 19:34:44 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40429
[Bug c/40435] New: [4.5 regression] Many regressions on trunk
On Linux/ia32, revision 148455 gave FAIL: gcc.dg/Wshadow-3.c (test for warnings, line 47) FAIL: gcc.dg/Wshadow-3.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/func-ptr-conv-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/func-ptr-conv-1.c bad conversion (test for warnings, line 40) FAIL: gcc.dg/func-ptr-conv-1.c bad conversion (test for warnings, line 41) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36902.c (test for warnings, line 47) FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36902.c (test for excess errors) Revision 148431 is OK. -- Summary: [4.5 regression] Many regressions on trunk Product: gcc Version: 4.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40435
[Bug c/40435] [4.5 regression] Many regressions on trunk
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 20:22 --- It may be caused by revision 148438: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00418.html -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iant at google dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40435
[Bug c/40435] [4.5 regression] Many regressions on trunk
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 20:27 --- Or revision 148442: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00422.html -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at redhat dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40435
[Bug other/38606] AIX: build failed in stage 2
--- Comment #16 from vovata at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 20:31 --- Hello, I configured with: ../gcc-4.3.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local/4.3.3 --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-languages=c,c++,objc Additional env sets: CC=cc (I used the native compiler) LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA=0x4000 CONFIG_SHELL=.../bash Regards, vladimir penev (In reply to comment #15) > Hello, > OK I will try gcc 4.3.3. > > Please could you be so kind and post your complete configure call + additional > env settings (if set) ? > > Thanks in advance. > > Bye > Rainer > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38606
[Bug c/40435] [4.5 regression] Many regressions on trunk
--- Comment #3 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 21:28 --- Wshadow-3.c and pr36902.c are definitely mine. My original request for approval indicated that these were problems with fold being location agnostic, and that I would be addressing the issues post merge. The func-ptr-conv-1.c regression I will investigate, as it did not show up on my tests. -- aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40435
[Bug tree-optimization/40436] New: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
Rev 147852, which claims (according to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00812.html) to improve code size, really makes things worse by ~0.5% for ARM, thumb and thumb2 code when building CSiBE. -- Summary: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 Product: gcc Version: 4.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC target triplet: arm-eabi http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
[Bug tree-optimization/40437] New: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
Rev 147852, which claims (according to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00812.html) to improve code size, really makes things worse by ~0.5% for ARM, thumb and thumb2 code when building CSiBE. -- Summary: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 Product: gcc Version: 4.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC target triplet: arm-eabi http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40437
[Bug tree-optimization/40437] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:51 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40436 *** -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40437
[Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:51 --- *** Bug 40437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
[Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
[Bug c++/40389] optimizer bug (possibly)
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:58 --- Subject: Bug 40389 Author: rguenth Date: Sat Jun 13 22:58:13 2009 New Revision: 148462 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148462 Log: 2009-06-14 Richard Guenther PR middle-end/40389 * gimple.c (walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops): The LHS of a call has its address taken if NRV was applied and it is addressable. * tree-ssa-structalias.c (get_constraint_for_address_of): New function split out from ... (get_constraint_for_1): ... here. (handle_rhs_call): Use it to mark the return slot escaped if it is addressable and NRV was applied. * g++.dg/torture/pr40389.C: New testcase. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr40389.C Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/gimple.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
[Bug c++/40389] optimizer bug (possibly)
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:58 --- Fixed on trunk. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|4.3.3 4.4.0 4.5.0 |4.3.3 4.4.0 Known to work||4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
[Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:07 --- Hmm, the measurements are most likely on x86 which might have slight differences when it comes to code size differences than arm. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Severity|major |normal Keywords||missed-optimization http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
[Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
--- Comment #3 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:10 --- For ARM -Os 114 files in CSiBE increase in size (total increase 21449 bytes) 20 files decrease in size (total decreases 1039 bytes); over all increase 20410 bytes) Worst single increase is from bzip2/compress (increase from 12495 to 19463 bytes). -- rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major Keywords|missed-optimization | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
[Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
-- rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal Keywords||missed-optimization Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
[Bug target/40327] Use less instructions to add some constants to register
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:45 --- I would still like to know why these constants can't be lowered earlier. Exposing the split-up insns may allow CSE to do a better job, etc. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40327
[Bug c++/40365] g++ template expansion bug
--- Comment #5 from oleg_dolomanov at hotmail dot com 2009-06-14 00:49 --- It is an open source project.. So just get it from the svn: https://olex2.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/olex2/trunk -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40365
[Bug libfortran/32784] [win32] Using 'CONOUT$', 'CONIN$', or 'CONERR$' as assigned file generates Fortran runtime error: Bad file descriptor
--- Comment #33 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 00:59 --- Patch tested on Cygwin and submitted for approval. Need a tester for mingw. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32784
[Bug tree-optimization/40413] [4.5 Regression] Internal error in connection with optimization and allocatable objects
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 01:30 --- Mine, will look into it shortly. -- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2009-06-12 05:20:52 |2009-06-14 01:30:09 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40413
[Bug rtl-optimization/33928] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 30% performance slowdown in floating-point code caused by r118475
--- Comment #94 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 04:43 --- (In reply to comment #92) > In the meanwhile something caused "tree incremental SSA" to jump up from 10s > to > 26s. Sob. > (In reply to comment #93) > I would say that was the new SRA. > OK, I'll try to investigate. Which of the various attachments to this bug is the one to look at? Martin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
[Bug tree-optimization/40432] [4.5 Regression] verify_stmts failed with -O2: non-register as LHS of unary operation
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 04:55 --- (In reply to comment #1) > I want to say the SRA changes caused this ... > Yes it did. I can reproduce it and it should not be difficult to fix. However, I'll have a look at why SRA constructs such a statement in the first place. The code that does it currently things it's either appending ".eh" to the LHS or the VCE to the RHS, not both. But maybe it's just an oversight, I'll check in the morning. -- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-14 04:55:06 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40432
