--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:02 ---
Subject: Bug 23498
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-22 20:01:53
Modified files:
libjava/classpath: ChangeLog.gcj
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:08 ---
Fix checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
According to Simon Wright, with GCC 4.0.0 on MacOS X dividing a fixed point
number by zero doesn't raise an exception but returns zero instead. The test
case is the same as for bug 23514, but it fails in a different way so it appears
to be a different bug.
--
Summary: Dividing fixed
--- Additional Comments From listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se
2005-08-22 20:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=9556)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9556action=view)
test case reported to fail
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23519
--- Additional Comments From listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se
2005-08-22 20:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=9557)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9557action=view)
shorter test case, not tried but expected to show the same behaviour
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:24 ---
Does Ada require divide by zero throw an exception or is it just undefined?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23519
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:27 ---
This is a true front-end bug as on PPC divide by zero (in an instruction) does
not raise an exception so
there needs to be an extra check which should have been added by the front-end.
Confirmed on the
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22 20:32
---
Doing the code review. I've got a local patch for the create_pre_exit ice.
I'm going to work to see this in 4.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-08-22 20:38 ---
I want to note that a benchmark built with -funsafe-loop-optimizations turns up
being slower AFTER fixing the typo (and enabling the specialization), so the
specialization code should definitely be removed as soon as
--- Additional Comments From listor1 dot rombobeorn at comhem dot se
2005-08-22 20:39 ---
The behaviour reported by Windows users is that on the first division by zero an
exception is raised and handled just fine, but the second time the program
enters an infinite loop. Gnat 3.15p,
--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-08-22 20:39
---
Subject: Re: Dividing fixed point number by zero returns zero.
This is a true front-end bug as on PPC divide by zero (in an instruction)
does not raise an exception so
there needs to be an extra check
get an exception (without -gnato as of 20050822).
From the Ada RM
A.5.4 Attributes of Fixed Point Types
4 S'Machine_Overflows
Yields the value True if overflow and divide-by-zero are
detected and reported by raising Constraint_Error for every
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-08-22 20:48
---
Ok it's always better to put the context in bugzilla, I don't read comp.lang.ada
regularly anymore these days :).
I haven't seen reports of mingw Ada 4.1 testing on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
could someone post one or
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 14950 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:54 ---
*** Bug 23520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
20:55 ---
Oh, next time don't copy and paste the preprocessed source into the bug but
rather attach it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23520
--- Additional Comments From herring at lanl dot gov 2005-08-22 21:14
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Oh, next time don't copy and paste the preprocessed source into the bug but
rather attach it.
Er, yeah, I feel silly now -- I found #14950 while trying to make sure that mine
had been
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
21:32 ---
Another patch can be found at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01331.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
21:54 ---
Robin, could you do another test where you use memcmp instead of
a hand-written loop?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23495
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
22:03 ---
SPEC results for i686-pc-linux-gnu follow. The only significant regression is
in galgel, overall it's about 1% better for SPECint and 2% better for SPECfp.
Note that crafty improves a lot because of
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
22:09 ---
I have a patch to make this use TLS when it is available.
I'm testing it.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
22:09 ---
Testing a fix.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|tromey at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
22:39 ---
Subject: Bug 22622
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-22 22:39:12
Modified files:
libjava: ChangeLog configure configure.ac
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
22:40 ---
Fix checked in.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
CVS 20050818 (current CVS 4.0 doesn't build gfortran as well) shows:
/home/doko/gcc/gcc-snapshot-20050818/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/doko/gcc/gcc-snapshot-20050818/build/./gcc/
-B/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/m68k-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/m68k-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
23:40 ---
This is a dup of bug 23435.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23435 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
23:40 ---
*** Bug 23521 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
23:52 ---
Subject: Bug 21105
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-22 23:52:24
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-22
23:56 ---
Subject: Bug 23426
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-22 23:56:30
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
00:08 ---
Subject: Bug 23426
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-23 00:07:48
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
00:10 ---
I've added my patch to mainline and the gcc-4.0.x branch, but there is still the
problem that my testcase generates two errors when it should only generate one.
--
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
00:34 ---
Subject: Bug 23070
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-23 00:33:19
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-08-23
01:01 ---
I could not reproduce this with current 3.4, 4.0 or 4.1 sources on a
powerpc-linux targetted compiler using -mcall-eabi -mlittle, so I think the bug
has been fixed.
--
What|Removed
I believe there is a bug in fold_widened_comparison() present in all versions
of gcc including 4.1
The lines 6103 - 6105 of fold-const.c (gcc 4.0.1) looks like:
arg1_unw = get_unwidened (arg1, shorter_type);
if (!arg1_unw)
return NULL_TREE;
Notice that get_unwidened()
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-08-23
01:20 ---
Using -mstrict-align will avoid the unaligned accesses, I haven't looked into
why there is a difference between the global and auto var..
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20102
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-08-23
01:30 ---
Closing. Please don't reopen unless you can reproduce the bug with current
3.4.5 sources.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
GCC build triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
GCC host triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
01:41 ---
Broken before fold_widended_comparison was added:
(t1 = get_unwidened (arg1, TREE_TYPE (tem))) != 0
So this is a regression from 2.95.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
01:46 ---
Subject: Bug 23498
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-23 01:46:50
Modified files:
libjava/classpath: ChangeLog.gcj
Log message:
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23485
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23239
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20908
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23233
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19607
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21366
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22390
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21166
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17379
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20663
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21432
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:01 ---
Just marking as fixed for 4.0.0 as there is no recent interesting in getting
this fixed in earlier branches
and earlier branches are not supported for darwin8.0.
--
What|Removed
--
Bug 16651 depends on bug 16649, which changed state.
Bug 16649 Summary: [3.4 Regression] bootstrap of gcc3.4.x fails on
OpenDarwin7.2.1/x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16649
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:03 ---
This is invalid code and I have no interesting in back porting the whole
infrastructure to 3.4.x so I am
closing as fixed for 4.0.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:06 ---
Does this still happen?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20158
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:09 ---
I will see if I can bootstrap/test this tomorrow.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:12 ---
The issue here is that obj is a parameter (argument) which gets assigned always
the register r4 but I
could be wrong. It might be a true warning and the warning does not ignore
flow control but I have
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21161
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:17 ---
Closing as fixed as this works on the mainline and there is no hope of getting
this fixed for any earlier
version.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7 |
GCC host triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7 |
GCC target triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7 |
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:18 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Also, this test should be really xfailed everywhere and only passes by
chance
on some systems due to complex interactions with PCHs: given the current
structure
of the
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |minor
GCC build triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7 |
GCC host triplet|powerpc-apple-darwin7 |
GCC
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:29 ---
Subject: Bug 23070
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-23 02:28:19
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
02:40 ---
Subject: Bug 21571
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-23 02:40:02
Modified files:
gcc/config/rs6000: rs6000-protos.h rs6000.c rs6000.md
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
03:00 ---
Subject: Bug 21571
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-23 02:59:37
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-08-23
03:07 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-08-23 03:10 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: PR218
I think this bug is probably a target issue. The unwind process gets
stuck after unwinding through the signal handler:
(gdb) c
Continuing.
Breakpoint 1,
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
05:31 ---
This is even better than the pass in pr16351 . Having the assert not fail on
pointer types is probably the best fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23445
Compiling the code in the main.i attachment with -march=i686 -O2 the code
generated for the first_map_occurred is bigger for 4.1 compared to 4.0
The sdiff between 4.0 and 4.1:
xorl%eax, %eax | xorl%ecx, %ecx
movl%eax, waiting_for_initial_map | movl%ecx,
--- Additional Comments From dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-08-23 05:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=9560)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9560action=view)
Testcase for this bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23524
--- Additional Comments From dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-08-23 05:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=9559)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9559action=view)
preprocessed source, look for first_map_occurred
--
Compiling the code in the attachment using -O2 -march=i686 4.1 produces bigger
code than 4.0.
4.0 produces:
movlxtermWidgetClass, %eax
cmpl%eax, 4(%edx)
4.1 produces:
movl4(%edx), %eax
cmplxtermWidgetClass, %eax
the 4.1 version is 1 byte bigger.
This is
101 - 171 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
