http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46187
--- Comment #1 from Udo Steinberg us15 at os dot inf.tu-dresden.de 2010-10-26
15:03:01 UTC ---
Bug #31768 is probably related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46166
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2010-10-26 15:09:37 UTC ---
Janus,
See comment #2. The problem is tauc is used
before it is initialized. This is a bogus
bug report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46166
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #8 from Julian Andres Klode j...@jak-linux.org 2010-10-26
15:25:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
You get this kind of speedup if the compiler knows that the result of the loop
is
sum=(b*(b-1)-a*(a-1))/2
In which case the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827
--- Comment #30 from Hans-Werner Boschmann boschmann at tp1 dot
physik.uni-siegen.de 2010-10-26 15:27:27 UTC ---
I've realized today, that the sample code is actually invalid. If you look at
lines 488 and 681 in arguments.f03, you'll see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
15:28:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Since the optimization seems to be mostly there in -O3, it's just a matter of
enabling it in -O2.
Or if you want all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-26
15:42:58 UTC ---
Can we please stop talking about nano and giga numbers like kids? If an
optimization like complete loop unrolling is involved of course very small or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
--- Comment #2 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 15:53:33 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Tue Oct 26 15:53:28 2010
New Revision: 165970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165970
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46167
*
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:30 AM, j...@jak-linux.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #1 from Julian Andres Klode j...@jak-linux.org
2010-10-26 14:30:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22162
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gmail dot com pinskia at gmail dot com
2010-10-26 15:56:20 UTC ---
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:30 AM, j...@jak-linux.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46184
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-10-26 16:36:05 UTC ---
This multiplication transformation is incorrect if the loop wraps
(unsigned always wraps; never overflows).
I think this is wrong: wrapping is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45736
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
16:40:33 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Oct 26 16:40:16 2010
New Revision: 165972
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165972
Log:
PR middle-end/45736
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
Summary: -fipa-cp removes destructor call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-10-26 17:15:31 UTC ---
For sum += 2 or sum += b sccp handles this, so I wonder whether it couldn't
handle even the sum += a case.
2 and b are constants while a is not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42647
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 17:38:51 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Oct 26 17:38:42 2010
New Revision: 165973
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165973
Log:
2010-10-26 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42647
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46155
--- Comment #12 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2010-10-26 17:59:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #7)
In your opinion, are IBM wrong to define fprnd_t in /usr/include/float.h?
IBM's definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46120
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
18:14:42 UTC ---
Yes, I know why this happens and actually have a prototype patch to
fix it but it depends on another patch I need to get accepted first.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46181
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
18:43:40 UTC ---
chrec_apply is called with
{a_4(D), +, {a_4(D) + 1, +, 1}_1}_1
chrec and ~a_4(D) + b_5(D) in x.
I wonder if this can be fixed just by recognizing such special
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46189
Summary: Oudated item in GNAT documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
URL: http://www.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/gn
at-unw-docs/html/gnat_ugn_24.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46189
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-10-26 18:53:49 UTC ---
Note that clang seems to know the general result: \sum_{i=a}^b p(i)=P(b), where
p(i) is a given polynomial of degree n and P(x) a polynomial of degree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46174
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Kraft domob at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 19:00:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Possible implementation scheme: vtab$t contains besides the normal type-bound
procedures and init/size/hash also an two function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
19:05:14 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 26 19:05:08 2010
New Revision: 165979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165979
Log:
2010-10-26 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
19:08:37 UTC ---
I think this has some undefined code in it.
The dynamic type of this-data changes a few times and I don't know the current
type when delete[] is called.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
19:11:59 UTC ---
I guess you mean LLVM instead of clang, I'm pretty sure the FE doesn't perform
this optimization.
Anyway, given:
#define F(n, exp) \
unsigned long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46187
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-10-26 19:28:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The code is supposed to emit the correct instruction suffix for SUB using %z
when n is an immediate value that does not give the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
19:34:29 UTC ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Oct 26 19:34:21 2010
New Revision: 165981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165981
Log:
2010-10-26 Jerry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46010
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
19:37:39 UTC ---
Fixed on trunk. I will backport to 4.4 and 4.5 in the next few weeks since
this is a wrong code problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
19:43:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
New patch attached. This passed regression testing.
The patch is OK from my side.
I assume there is still an error printed but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45979
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2010-10-26
19:45:30 UTC ---
The patch tested ok and has now been submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02252.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45736
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
--- Comment #3 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26 20:16:13 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Tue Oct 26 20:15:52 2010
New Revision: 165985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165985
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46167
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46189
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46167
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-10-26 20:29:56 UTC ---
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
21:00:11 UTC ---
If I translate the assembly back to C, it seems it is performing part of the
arithmetics in TImode:
unsigned long f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
{
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2010-10-26 21:01:57 UTC ---
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:43:49PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46152
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46186
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-10-26 21:06:48 UTC ---
I guess you mean LLVM instead of clang,
Yes, if you prefer. I was referring to the command I used.
F (6, a * a * a * a * a + 2 * a * a * a + 5 *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46188
Jens Maurer jens.maurer at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22164|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46190
Summary: ICE in vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment when building
fma3d
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-26
22:14:02 UTC ---
Just to check that this is not a lingering issue from backporting, do you have
the following comment in gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c ? I fixed a very similar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Summary: Non-absolute names in libgcc_s.so
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
Summary: renaming of a volatile variable generates wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46192
--- Comment #1 from Rolf Ebert rolf.ebert.gcc at gmx dot de 2010-10-26
22:40:50 UTC ---
It might be related to PR37599
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
Summary: ICE: in omp_reduction_init, at omp-low.c:2212 with
-ftree-parallelize-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46044
Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46044
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-26 23:46:04
UTC ---
This may be related to PR 43603.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/graphite/block-0.c FAILs
with -ftree-parallelize-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46179
--- Comment #3 from Finn Thain fthain at telegraphics dot com.au 2010-10-27
00:47:23 UTC ---
Just to check that this is not a lingering issue from backporting, do you have
the following comment in gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c ?
Yes, I checked that
/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20101026/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2818-1.c
(timeout = 300)
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20101026/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2818-1.c:
In function 'foo':
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/gcc-4.6-20101026/gcc/testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46185
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46183
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46177
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46171
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-27
02:51:32 UTC ---
So we have RTL like:
(insn 6 3 7 2 (set (reg:SF 21 xmm0)
(reg/v:SF 61 [ f ])) pr46171.c:7 110 {*movsf_internal}
(nil))
(call_insn 7 6 17 2 (set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-10-27
03:19:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 22168
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22168
assembly for gcc.c-torture/compile/20001212-1.c -O0 -m32 at r165964
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-10-27
03:20:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 22169
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22169
assembly for gcc.c-torture/compile/20001212-1.c -O0 -m32 at r165965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46195
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-10-27
03:22:07 UTC ---
The diff between the assembly of gcc.c-torture/compile/20001212-1.c -O0 at
-m32 generated by r165964 and r165965 is...
--- 20001212-1.s.r165964
101 - 170 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
