Re: having trouble with define_split

2009-01-10 Thread Denis Chertykov
2009/1/9 Sean D'Epagnier geckosena...@gmail.com: Hi, I am currently working on adding native fixed-point support to the avr backend. A lot of stuff is working, but there are a few things left, one of them is conversions from fixed point to floating point. I have conversions between all

Help understanding gcc alias analysis

2009-01-10 Thread Raoul Gough
I've been investigating a code-reordering question to do with g++ strict alias analysis, and I suspect there is a deficiency in the way type-based alias analysis works. I realise that's unlikely to be the case, so I'll try to present a concise demonstration which uses (I think) well-defined C

Re: Help understanding gcc alias analysis

2009-01-10 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Raoul Gough raoulgo...@clara.co.uk wrote: I've been investigating a code-reordering question to do with g++ strict alias analysis, and I suspect there is a deficiency in the way type-based alias analysis works. I realise that's unlikely to be the case, so I'll

Re: Help understanding gcc alias analysis

2009-01-10 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Raoul Gough raoulgo...@clara.co.uk wrote: I've been investigating a code-reordering question to do with g++ strict alias analysis, and I suspect there is a deficiency in the

Re: This is a Cygwin failure yeah?

2009-01-10 Thread Bernd Roesch
Hello Dave On 09.01.09, you wrote: You can't assume that actually was a stack overflow just because the stack ended up corrupted. yes thats the problem, because a assert give this message too.maybe the program do assert. maybe theres a way that cygwin print out the assert text earlier

-frtl-abstract-sequences broken?

2009-01-10 Thread Laurent GUERBY
Hi, It looks like the tests for -frtl-abstract-sequences are either skipped or xfailed for a long list of platforms: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33642 unrecognizable insn for -frtl-abstract-sequences Almost any source file compiled for any of a large number of targets

Re: -frtl-abstract-sequences broken?

2009-01-10 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Laurent GUERBY laur...@guerby.net wrote: Hi, It looks like the tests for -frtl-abstract-sequences are either skipped or xfailed for a long list of platforms: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33642 unrecognizable insn for -frtl-abstract-sequences

Re: -frtl-abstract-sequences broken?

2009-01-10 Thread Laurent GUERBY
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 15:56 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Laurent GUERBY laur...@guerby.net wrote: Hi, It looks like the tests for -frtl-abstract-sequences are either skipped or xfailed for a long list of platforms:

Steve Kargle and Daniel Franke - reviewers.

2009-01-10 Thread Toon Moene
L.S., I have kept this under wraps for some weeks because I wanted to be sure all Steering Committee members had a chance to review this request - in spite of the holiday season. Now, however, I want to congratulate Daniel Franke and Steve Kargle (who has been a GNU Fortran maintainer

[Bug c++/38780] upgrade warning to error for bad C++ code ?

2009-01-10 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-01-10 08:47 --- (In reply to comment #1) You can get an error via -pedantic-errors. Agreed - but switching on that flag opens a whole can of worms. All I'm interested in is getting this *one* warning changed into an error, for

[Bug c/32455] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with modified va_list, allows declaration of __builtin_*

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 09:04 --- Patch at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00644.html Ian Taylor's review: I'm not really comfortable with breaking the building of old version of glibc just to fix an ice-on-invalid. I'll approve this

[Bug testsuite/38790] New: syntax error in target selector

2009-01-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
Due to revision 143234: Author: joel Date: Fri Jan 9 21:12:36 2009 UTC (14 hours, 12 minutes ago) Log Message: 2009-01-09 Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com * lib/target-supports.exp: Add method to determine if the effective target is really a ppc405 after applying

[Bug testsuite/38791] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)

2009-01-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
On i686-apple-darwin9 the test gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c introduced in revision 143159 fails with: [ibook-dhum] f90/bug% gcc44 /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c:6: error: size of array 'A' is too

[Bug c++/36695] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Value-initialization of reference type is allowed.

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 11:48 --- Subject: Bug 36695 Author: jakub Date: Sat Jan 10 11:48:06 2009 New Revision: 143244 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143244 Log: PR c++/36695 * typeck2.c (build_functional_cast):

[Bug c++/38648] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with string literal

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 11:49 --- Subject: Bug 38648 Author: jakub Date: Sat Jan 10 11:49:04 2009 New Revision: 143245 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143245 Log: PR c++/38648 * typeck.c (cp_build_modify_expr):

[Bug testsuite/38791] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)

2009-01-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-10 11:49 --- I have forgotten to say that the failure occurs in 32 bit mode, but disappears with -m64. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38791

[Bug c++/36695] [4.3 Regression] Value-initialization of reference type is allowed.

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 11:50 --- Fixed on the trunk so far. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known

[Bug c++/38648] [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with string literal

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 11:51 --- Fixed on the trunk so far. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known

[Bug target/38695] [4.4 regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37433.c ICE on trunk arm_function_in_section_p

2009-01-10 Thread laurent at guerby dot net
--- Comment #6 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-10 12:41 --- Jakub, your patch fixes all pr37433.c FAIL, thanks! Test results http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-01/msg00868.html This also seem to fix an ICE I did not report but visible here in previous test results:

[Bug bootstrap/38792] New: RFE - Need Makefile to build using different strategy for coverage vs. profiling

2009-01-10 Thread rob1weld at aol dot com
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #38776 +++ Request For Enhancement I woukd like the created Makefile to build gcc using a different strategy (compilation course) for coverage versus the strategy it uses for profiling. Both build strategies seems to follow the same course of

[Bug middle-end/38694] gcc.c-torture/compile/pr11832.c and pr33009.c -frtl-abstract-sequences ICE on arm-linux-gnueabi on 4.3.2 and trunk

2009-01-10 Thread laurent at guerby dot net
--- Comment #3 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-10 13:08 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-01/msg00868.html Might be related to: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33642 Looks like the solution has been to disable those tests on a long list of platforms.

[Bug target/38703] testsuite __gnu_mcount_nc link error when profiling on arm

2009-01-10 Thread laurent at guerby dot net
--- Comment #4 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-10 13:10 --- List of tests with undefined reference to `__gnu_mcount_nc' FAIL: gcc.dg/20021014-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/nest.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/nested-func-4.c (test for excess errors) FAIL:

[Bug c/38793] New: SH: unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS'

2009-01-10 Thread masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com
gcc4.3.3 snapshot fail to compile with this message. ada-lex.l:456: error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS' ada-lex.l:456: error: this is the insn: (insn:HI 249 374 275 48 ada-lex.l:451 (set (mem:QI (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 12 r12 [ orig:174 value ] [174]) (reg:SI

[Bug c/38793] SH: unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS'

2009-01-10 Thread masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 13:27 --- Created an attachment (id=17069) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17069action=view) cccHZxYV.out preprocessed file. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38793

[Bug c/38793] SH: unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS'

2009-01-10 Thread masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from masaki dot chikama at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 13:29 --- Created an attachment (id=17070) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17070action=view) test.c reduced test case for -O2 $ sh4-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 test.c test.c: In function 'f2':

[Bug middle-end/38696] gcc.dg/torture/pr37868.c wrong code at -O2 and above for 4.3 and trunk / bit packing

2009-01-10 Thread laurent at guerby dot net
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-10 13:31 --- You mean adding: /* { dg-skip-if unaligned access { arm*-*-* } * } */ ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38696

[Bug target/38695] [4.4 regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37433.c ICE on trunk arm_function_in_section_p

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 14:02 --- Subject: Bug 38695 Author: jakub Date: Sat Jan 10 14:02:12 2009 New Revision: 143246 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143246 Log: PR target/38695 * config/arm/arm.c

[Bug target/38695] [4.4 regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37433.c ICE on trunk arm_function_in_section_p

2009-01-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 14:03 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c/38778] the result when excuted with loop-linear on is different to that with O0

2009-01-10 Thread yu19820428 at 163 dot com
--- Comment #5 from yu19820428 at 163 dot com 2009-01-10 15:28 --- Of course, it is a weird situation. Nobody use the options like this. However, it is indeed a problem in 4.2.4. I do not know it has been fixed in 4.3.* or not, because some other options may have effect on it so that it

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-10 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 16:10 --- (In reply to comment #5) Joern, re. comment #4, Richi refers to my patch to enable PRE at -Os, see [1]. An extension to this patch that we tested on x86 machines, is to disable PRE for scalar integer

[Bug libstdc++/38384] fails to build cross gcc for target hppa64-hp-hpux11.00 in libstdc++/libmath

2009-01-10 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-10 16:35 --- Subject: Re: fails to build cross gcc for target hppa64-hp-hpux11.00 in libstdc++/libmath On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: Any chance I could get a generated c++config.h

[Bug c++/38625] Segmentation fault when dereferencing valid pointer, probably REGRESSION

2009-01-10 Thread l dot jirkovsky at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from l dot jirkovsky at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 16:42 --- I've tried it with gcc 4.2.4 and it works perfectly, so it have to be caused by some change between 4.2.4 and 4.3.2. I'll try to use svn to find out which commit causes this. --

[Bug c++/38794] New: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Function body accepted in typedef

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following invalid code snippet is accepted in GCC 4.2.0: === typedef int foo() {} === -- Summary: [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Function body accepted in typedef Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0

[Bug c++/38794] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Function body accepted in typedef

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.2.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38794

[Bug c++/38625] Segmentation fault when dereferencing valid pointer, probably REGRESSION

2009-01-10 Thread l dot jirkovsky at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from l dot jirkovsky at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 16:47 --- I've forgot to post info about gcc 4.2.4: $ gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-4.2.4/configure --prefix=/home/lukas/gcc --enable-shared --enable-languages=c,c++

[Bug c++/38794] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Function body accepted in typedef

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 16:48 --- The following invalid code snippet is accepted in GCC 4.2.0: That should be since GCC 4.2.0. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38794

[Bug c++/38795] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with reinterpret_cast and variadic templates

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following invalid code snippet is triggers an ICE since GCC 4.3.0: templatetypename... T int foo(int i) { return *reinterpret_castT*(i); } void bar(int i) { fooint(i); } bug.cc: In function 'int foo(int)

[Bug c++/38795] [4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with reinterpret_cast and variadic templates

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.3.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38795

[Bug c++/38796] New: [c++0x] defaulted operator= with non-default return type accepted

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following invalid code is accepted on the trunk: struct A { void operator= (const A) = default; }; Because the return type is not A, but void the operator= cannot be the defaulted. In fact GCC silently

[Bug libfortran/38772] r143102 breaks xplor-nih

2009-01-10 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #8 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-10 19:57 --- Jerry, If I use the following patch to xplor-nih --- xrmani.f.org2009-01-09 17:48:46.0 -0500 +++ xrmani.f2009-01-10 14:29:42.0 -0500 @@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ END IF

[Bug fortran/38665] [4.3 Regression] ICE in check_host_association

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:01 --- Subject: Bug 38665 Author: pault Date: Sat Jan 10 21:01:14 2009 New Revision: 143248 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143248 Log: 2009-01-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug fortran/38657] [4.3 Regression] PUBLIC/PRIVATE Common blocks

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:06 --- Subject: Bug 38657 Author: pault Date: Sat Jan 10 21:06:27 2009 New Revision: 143249 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143249 Log: 2009-01-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug fortran/38665] [4.3 Regression] ICE in check_host_association

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:25 --- Subject: Bug 38665 Author: pault Date: Sat Jan 10 21:24:54 2009 New Revision: 143250 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143250 Log: 2009-01-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug testsuite/38791] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)

2009-01-10 Thread sebpop at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 21:32 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors) Does the attached patch fix the fail? Thanks, Sebastian --- Comment #3 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2009-01-10 21:32 --- Created an

[Bug fortran/38665] [4.3 Regression] ICE in check_host_association

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:41 --- Subject: Bug 38665 Author: pault Date: Sat Jan 10 21:41:16 2009 New Revision: 143252 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143252 Log: 2009-01-10 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug fortran/38665] [4.3 Regression] ICE in check_host_association

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:44 --- Fixed on trunk and latest 4.3 Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38665

[Bug fortran/38665] [4.3 Regression] ICE in check_host_association

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:44 --- Fixed on trunk and latest 4.3 Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/38657] [4.3 Regression] PUBLIC/PRIVATE Common blocks

2009-01-10 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 21:45 --- Fixed on trunk and 4.3 Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/38797] New: [c++0x] Missing warning about type qualifiers on late function return types

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
Compiling the following code snippet with -Wall -Wextra -std=gnu++0x results in a warning for the first line, but not for the second: == const int foo(); auto bar() - const int; == bug.cc:1: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function

[Bug testsuite/38791] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)

2009-01-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-01-10 22:03 --- Does the attached patch fix the fail? With the patch the test compiles (it does with M up to 812) and the Strip Mining is done for the second nested loops: for (s_1=0;s_1=1;s_1++) { for (s_3=0;s_3=1;s_3++) {

[Bug testsuite/38791] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)

2009-01-10 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 22:06 --- I don't know how I can test this file alone without regtesting all gcc (I tried: make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=graphite/block-3.c without success). Try make -k check-gcc

[Bug testsuite/38791] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/block-3.c (test for excess errors)

2009-01-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
1 /Volumes/MacBook/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/xgcc version 4.4.0 20090110 (experimental) [trunk revision 143247p1] (GCC) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38791

[Bug c++/38798] New: [c++0x] Trouble with struct/class/enum keyword in late return types

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
The following (IMHO valid) code snippet is rejected on trunk: == struct A {}; auto foo() - struct A {} == bug.cc:2: error: redefinition of 'struct A' bug.cc:1: error: previous definition of 'struct A' bug.cc:2: error: expected initializer

[Bug c++/38799] New: using declaration appears to hide local declaration

2009-01-10 Thread cuzdav at gmail dot com
When a namespace declares a function, and then uses another function with the same name from a different namespace, the using declaration seems to hide the function declaration. At least, when I define the function body later, the comiler complains that the function wasn't declared in the

[Bug testsuite/25241] [C++] DejaGNU does not distinguish between errors and warnings

2009-01-10 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #67 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 22:37 --- Fixed by Janis' and Manuel's patches. -- reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/38799] using declaration appears to hide local declaration

2009-01-10 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 22:47 --- This is how it should behave. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/35211] Dist tarball is missing (Bison-generated) java/parse-scan.c

2009-01-10 Thread rob1weld at aol dot com
--- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-10 23:59 --- (In reply to comment #1) Is this still true in newer GCC releases? Also this was removed in 4.3 and above. Yes, on trunk. Searching for dupe before starting a new Bug Report, came here. We might close this Bug with a

Re: [Bug bootstrap/35211] Dist tarball is missing (Bison-generated) java/parse-scan.c

2009-01-10 Thread Andrew Thomas Pinski
On Jan 10, 2009, at 3:59 PM, rob1weld at aol dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: --- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-10 23:59 --- (In reply to comment #1) Is this still true in newer GCC releases? Also this was removed in 4.3 and above. Yes, on trunk.

[Bug bootstrap/35211] Dist tarball is missing (Bison-generated) java/parse-scan.c

2009-01-10 Thread pinskia at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-11 00:11 --- Subject: Re: Dist tarball is missing (Bison-generated) java/parse-scan.c On Jan 10, 2009, at 3:59 PM, rob1weld at aol dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: --- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com

[Bug target/38621] [4.3/4.4 Regression] sh gcc unable to spill register when building ghostscript-gpl with -O2

2009-01-10 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 01:29 --- *** Bug 38793 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/38793] SH: unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS'

2009-01-10 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 01:29 --- Again, the insn scheduling before reload permutes the insns of the exit basic block like as: ;; == ;; -- basic block 5 from 16 to 30 -- before reload ;;

[Bug bootstrap/38792] RFE - Need Makefile to build using different strategy for coverage vs. profiling

2009-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 01:56 --- Coverage means -fprofile-arcs only while profiling means -fprofile-generate/-fprofile-use. Coverage is only useful when you are looking into GCC's sources to see what code is being used and how much. Coverage is

[Bug c++/38780] upgrade warning to error for bad C++ code ?

2009-01-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 02:04 --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) You can get an error via -pedantic-errors. Agreed - but switching on that flag opens a whole can of worms. Yes but then again as you said later on ...

[Bug bootstrap/38776] gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Configure with --enable-coverage=noopt breaks build

2009-01-10 Thread rob1weld at aol dot com
--- Comment #5 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-11 02:50 --- Breaks again here: /usr/share/src/gcc_build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/usr/share/src/gcc_build/./prev-gcc/ -B/usr/local/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fprofile-use -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes

[Bug bootstrap/38800] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - make -i -k distclean does not remove amd64/ */* fixincludes/* and /gnattools/*

2009-01-10 Thread rob1weld at aol dot com
When I type make -i -k distclean not all files are removed. Each missed directory contains the config.status file which we would not want to remain (and use to recreate the current configuration) through using distclean. # gmake -i -k distclean gmake[1]: Entering directory

[Bug bootstrap/38792] RFE - Need Makefile to build using different strategy for coverage vs. profiling

2009-01-10 Thread rob1weld at aol dot com
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-11 04:43 --- (In reply to comment #1) Coverage means -fprofile-arcs only while profiling means -fprofile-generate/-fprofile-use. Coverage is only useful when you are looking into GCC's sources to see what code is being used and

[Bug middle-end/38753] gcc 4.4.0 20090106 - make profiledbootstrap - No .gcda files created in the libiberty/pic directory

2009-01-10 Thread rob1weld at aol dot com
--- Comment #11 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-11 04:50 --- (In reply to comment #10) 3. There is a -Werror to be fixed. Use: i386.o-warn = -Wno-error I already mentioned this was really fixed in trunk already. I re-read this entire thread and still do not see your prior

[Bug middle-end/38786] [graphite] ICE with -floop-block in verify_ssa

2009-01-10 Thread spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 06:54 --- Subject: Bug 38786 Author: spop Date: Sun Jan 11 06:54:19 2009 New Revision: 143260 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143260 Log: 2009-01-11 Sebastian Pop sebastian@amd.com PR

[Bug middle-end/38786] [graphite] ICE with -floop-block in verify_ssa

2009-01-10 Thread spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 06:55 --- Fixed. -- spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/38529] [4.3 regression] ICE with nested loops

2009-01-10 Thread irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 07:40 --- Subject: Bug 38529 Author: irar Date: Sun Jan 11 07:39:47 2009 New Revision: 143262 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143262 Log: Backport from mainline: 2008-12-29 Dorit Nuzman

[Bug tree-optimization/38529] [4.3 regression] ICE with nested loops

2009-01-10 Thread irar at il dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #4 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-11 07:48 --- Fixed on 4.3 branch as well. -- irar at il dot ibm dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/37194] [4.3 Regression] Autovectorization of small constant iteration loop degrades performance

2009-01-10 Thread irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from irar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 07:54 --- Subject: Bug 37194 Author: irar Date: Sun Jan 11 07:54:40 2009 New Revision: 143263 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143263 Log: Backport from mainline: 2009-01-08 Ira Rosen

[Bug tree-optimization/37194] [4.3 Regression] Autovectorization of small constant iteration loop degrades performance

2009-01-10 Thread irar at il dot ibm dot com
--- Comment #14 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-11 07:57 --- Fixed. -- irar at il dot ibm dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED