Hello, here's my application. Please, leave your comments as I still
have two days to fix it if something is wrong :)
Project
I want to make some improvements in the Lexer/cpplib area:
1) Change the way of file handling
-- Mmap file into memory if possible instead of allocating a buffer
(if no
Hello all,
For a port that i am working on has this particular addressing mode
load Rd, Ra[offset]
store Rs, Ra[offset]
For the above two instructions base register Ra should be an even
register. This i have implemented using the macros REGNO_OK_FOR_BASE_P
and BASE_REG_CLASS by creating a class
Dear GCC developers:
Hi, My name is Jiho Chu. I had ported ZARAM compact DSP16(www.zaram.com)
architecture to the GCC 3.4.5.
I added some machine description files, and modified several source codes in
gcc/ folder.
I think that these modifications are not exactly same with previous coding
style,
zio wrote:
Dear GCC developers:
Hi, My name is Jiho Chu. I had ported ZARAM compact DSP16(www.zaram.com)
architecture to the GCC 3.4.5.
Is it a typo? Do you mean 4.3? 3.4 is very old!
I added some machine description files, and modified several source codes in
gcc/ folder.
I think that these
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 19:41 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
gnat.dg/socket1.adb and socket2.adb are identical AFAICT, is there a
special reason to have both?
Probably none. Feel free to remove one of them.
I've removed socket2.adb, sorry for the delay.
2008-03-29 Laurent GUERBY [EMAIL
Hi,
I know it's a bit late, but I just thought that it'd be really nice if GCC
had a C# frontend. I don't have time to do this myself right now (although
I'm willing to work on it in the future if noone beats me to it), but maybe
someone would pick it if it enters GSoC.
My motivation for this
Hi,
I noticed today that we actually currently just warn and not error
out while compiling GCC for uninitialized warnings.
While doing a build I got the following warning:
/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c: In function 'subst_copy':
/src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c:9919: warning: 'len' may be used
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know it's a bit late, but I just thought that it'd be really nice if GCC
had a C# frontend. I don't have time to do this myself right now (although
I'm willing to work on it in the future if noone beats me to it), but maybe
someone would pick it if
I tried to compile GCC 4.3.0 on a Red Hat Linux 9.0 box, it stopped at stage 1:
$ gcc -c -g -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.3.0/gcc -I../../gcc-4.3.0/gcc/.
Alexey Salmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, here's my application. Please, leave your comments as I still
have two days to fix it if something is wrong :)
Thanks for sending this.
Project
I want to make some improvements in the Lexer/cpplib area:
1) Change the way of file handling
--
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 06:38 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Confirm. There seems to be a temporary missing.
Paul, you have fixed PR 31994, do you have an idea here?
Tobias,
I'll put my thinking cap on. Our conjg(tranpose()) trick is efficoent,
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 07:27 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Hah! It's still worse than I thought. Not only is a temporary not made but
the scalarizer is being blown out of the water by the likes of:
program main
implicit none
complex,
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:11 ---
Subject: Bug 35698
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:11:02 2008
New Revision: 133710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133710
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:11 ---
Subject: Bug 35702
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:11:02 2008
New Revision: 133710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133710
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:18 ---
Subject: Bug 35698
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:17:36 2008
New Revision: 133711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133711
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:18 ---
Subject: Bug 35702
Author: pault
Date: Sat Mar 29 08:17:36 2008
New Revision: 133711
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133711
Log:
2008-03-29 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:19 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:20 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.3
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:23 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I have a regtested patch for this but cannot post it until Saturday, when I am
back from vacation.
Paul
This has been delayed by the discovery of memory leaks in a number of the
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 08:55 ---
Hmm, I wonder how important this is now after the DSE patch for PR 33927 which
basically does the same thing and it also runs after reload. I really don't
want to make cselib any slower than it is already and post
I forgot to mention that the dse patch fixes the problem earlier on so
we now do the optimization pre-reload. We still have an extra store
but that is recorded as another bug I filed.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2008, at 1:55, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-03-29 09:02 ---
Subject: Re: postreload can handle the case where the memory locations use
different modes
I forgot to mention that the dse patch fixes the problem earlier on so
we now do the optimization pre-reload. We still have an
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 10:27 ---
use unsigned arithmetic.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 10:52 ---
Here's a shorter testcase:
struct object { int one_o; int allocstamp; };
int pgci_pointable (object obj);
void foo(void);
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
if (pgci_pointable((object){7,100}))
{
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 10:56 ---
Jason, can you have a look here?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-03-29 11:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=15395)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15395action=view)
Setjmp patch for AVR
The attached patch is a fix for AVR target. MIPS does something similar to get
around same
--- Comment #3 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-03-29 12:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=15396)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15396action=view)
Patch to correct return_address
The attached patch fixes this problem and PR21078
The AVR target support for
The comma after the P is optional in Fortran 2003 if followed by a repeat
specifier but required in Fortran 95. (According to MRC)
--
Summary: -std=f95: Reject 1P2E12.4 w/o a comma after the P
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 15:19 ---
The bug is that the temporary object created by the C99 compound literal syntax
doesn't have proper C++ temporary lifetime; the compiler treats it as living
until the end of the block, so the goto seems to be skipping
On Fedora 8/Intel64, gcc 4.4 revision 133638 gave
FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 16) execution test
FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 16) output pattern test
Revision 133612 is OK. It could be related to stack limit.
--
Summary: [4.4 Regression]:
The following program computes the wrong values for the even
(elsewhere branch) of the left hand array. It looks like the
function R_MY_MIN_I is evaluated before the store in the WHERE
branch happens.
The same thing happens if the R_M* functions are external
rather than contained.
Dick
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 15:52 ---
See also PR 35756.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35745
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 15:52 ---
Confirm. See also PR 35745.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
sse.md has
(define_insn sse4_1_blendpssemodesuffixf2c
[(set (match_operand:SSEMODEF2P 0 register_operand =x)
(vec_merge:SSEMODEF2P
(match_operand:SSEMODEF2P 2 nonimmediate_operand xm)
(match_operand:SSEMODEF2P 1 register_operand 0)
(match_operand:SI 3
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-29 16:09 ---
It is introduced by revision 132518.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 16:57 ---
... (rerun 16) ...
this means the 16th invocation failed. This is just regular mudflap noise.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35755
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 17:11
---
Here's a reduced testcase:
=
templateint struct A
{
friend void foo(const A)
{
__FUNCTION__;
}
};
inline void foo(const A0)
{
__FUNCTION__;
}
void bar()
{
--- Comment #11 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 17:32
---
*** Bug 35596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 17:32
---
It's a duplicate of PR24602.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24602 ***
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 17:43
---
Confiremd. This happens since GCC 4.2.0.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 17:57
---
Testing a patch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following testcase used to work in 4.1.1 but no longer does:
#define vector __attribute__((vector_size(16) ))
templateint INDEX
vector signed int MyFunction(vector float value) {}
templateint
void MyFunction(float ){}
int main()
{
vector float myVector;
float myFloat;
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 18:45 ---
This is caused by the delaying of vector_size attribute inside templates.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 18:46 ---
This blocks me from even thinking about updating the PS3 toolchain to 4.3.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35758
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 18:47 ---
This is related to PR 27433 and I bet fixing this one will also fix that one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35758
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 18:49 ---
It worked with 4.3.0 20070623 and 4.2.0 20061019.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35758
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 18:55 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 19:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=15397)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15397action=view)
Patch which should fix it
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30186
--- Comment #3 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-03-29 19:16 ---
Subject: Re: apparent integer math bug
This multiplication overflows so the resulting behavior is undefined.
Right-- but always in the past it has been (or seemed) fine to assume
two's complement overflow
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:16, regehr at cs dot utah dot edu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-03-29
19:16 ---
Subject: Re: apparent integer math bug
This multiplication overflows so the resulting behavior is
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-03-29 19:27 ---
Subject: Re: apparent integer math bug
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:16, regehr at cs dot utah dot edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Comment #3 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-03-29
--- Comment #5 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-03-29 19:32 ---
Subject: Re: apparent integer math bug
wrapping behavior with signed types. Note the C standard is over 18
years old now so I had hoped people would still not making the mistake
of thinking signed interger
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 19:44 ---
This is the patch which I am testing:
Index: cp/typeck.c
===
--- cp/typeck.c (revision 133711)
+++ cp/typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -3917,6 +3917,10 @@
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 20:17 ---
This is caused by the extra type checking which Richard Guenther added.
It is not just _Decimal128, but almost all types which are broken.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 20:18
---
Testing a patch.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 21:01 ---
We have invalid gimple before PRE:
k_7 = COMPLEX_EXPR (int) D.1197_2, 0;
Which we don't catch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following program computes the wrong result for a WHERE where
different sections of the same array are in both the WHERE and
ELSEWHERE section. It's as if the ELSEWHERE block were
ignored.
Dick Hendrickson
program RG0023
! fails on Windows XP
! gcc version 4.4.0 20080312
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 21:04 ---
This is caused by PHI-opt, fixing.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-29 21:12 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01848.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 21:19
---
I have submitted glibc PR
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5997
With a C test case that clearly shows the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34128
While going to look into fixing PR 35314, I found this bug for PowerPC darwin.
A simple testcase:
int foo()
{
__complex__ float i = 0;
}
Will ICE in memory_address when we don't compile with PIC turned on.
t.c: In function 'foo':
t.c:3: internal compiler error: in memory_address, at
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35760
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 22:38 ---
Subject: Bug 35725
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 29 22:38:19 2008
New Revision: 133721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133721
Log:
2008-03-29 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 22:39 ---
Subject: Bug 35725
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 29 22:38:36 2008
New Revision: 133722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=133722
Log:
2008-03-29 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-29 22:43 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
I'm currently compiling my linux based of the Linux From Scratch SVN.
I decided to try my hand at compiling with the gcc 4.3.0.
The current bug im noticing has to do with the -O2 flag and __cplusplus.
I have done a search through the bug database all most errors that I have seen
have had
--- Comment #1 from devilsclaw at devilsclaws dot net 2008-03-29 23:01
---
I also tried -O0 , -O1 , -O3 and -O4. The only one that worked as you would
guess was -O0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35761
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 23:17 ---
It certainly is not setting __cplusplus if you are not using C++. Other than
that this is not a useful bugreport.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35761
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-29 23:23 ---
Confirm.
The algorithm below does essentially:
while (1,0,1,0,1)
uda1l( 1 _ 3 _ 5) = 2 3 4 5 6
else
udal1 ( _ 3 _ 5 _) = 6 5 4 3 2
done
That is
1. uda1l(1) = 2
2. uda1l(3) = 5 ---\__
3. uda1l(3) = 4 ---/
4.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:20 ---
This is most likely because there is no way to mangle fixed point types at all.
So really I don't think this should be a P2 or marked as a regression until
the ABI has been finialized
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:24 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:30 ---
Complex lowering is creating phi's with constant arguments on abnormal edges.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35737
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:32 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:42
---
Fixed on mainline by Douglas' patch:
2008-03-25 Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* typeck.c (composite_pointer_type_r): Add SFINAE support.
...
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:50 ---
So this was introduced by the gimplify_modify_expr changes. The C++ front-end
actually produces error_mark_node for the call, maybe the C front-end should do
the same.
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:52 ---
Confirmed, only happens with the C++ front-end.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-30 00:57 ---
This is a predict_expr tree. Shouldn't TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS be set on that
expression?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com 2008-03-30
02:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=15398)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15398action=view)
Patch for a generated file
This patch allowed the build to complete for us, unfortunately Makefile.in
This is for gcc version 4.3.0 (GCC)
This is similar to bug 35729. I'm filing a new report since the behavior seems
to be a different one.
This code:
volatile short g_10 = 0;
volatile int g_13 = 0;
int func_1 (void)
{
for (g_10 = 0; g_10 10; g_10++)
return g_13;
return 0;
}
When
I noticed this when running a program that uses a periodic timer signal. The
sigaction did not set SA_RESTART. During program runs, huge chunks of console
output would disappear.
I sort of tracked this down to the code in libstdc++ that uses fwrite to do the
output of cout and cerr. That is a
--- Comment #1 from zlynx at acm dot org 2008-03-30 03:43 ---
Forgot to mention, I filed a bug for fwrite too:
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5998
Until they fix that (if they do) it will be useless to check fwrite's return
value since you can't know how many bytes
--- Comment #2 from zlynx at acm dot org 2008-03-30 03:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=15399)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15399action=view)
test program, build: g++ timer-test.cc -lrt
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35763
This is for gcc version 4.3.0 (GCC)
This is very likely related to 35729 and 35762.
This code:
extern int bar (void);
volatile int g_156;
int foo (void)
{
if (bar ())
return 0;
else
return g_156;
}
Compiled with:
gcc -O1 -S foo.c
Gives:
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl
84 matches
Mail list logo
