Hi,
This is an age old topic but I can't find how to solve it. I've searched the
past few days.
I'm trying to build passenger on AIX 6.1 TL07 SP03 using gcc 4.5.2 that I built
myself. I've used it for a number of months and have built many things.
The short question is how do I get rid of
I have been experimenting with the graphite optimizer, based on GCC trunk, and
cloog-isl. I started with the attached simple C program, which has this
basic structure.
#define N 2
int a[N][N], b[N], c[N];
[...]
for (i = 0; i N; i++)
{
b[i] = i;
c[i] = i + N;
}
for
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20120729 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20120729/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54115
Bug #: 54115
Summary: Unnecessary sign extensions for __builtin_ctz et al.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54115
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29776
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neleai at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29 08:46:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is due to revision 189514 (with r189513 reverted in order to bootstrap):
Ok, I already suspected this revision as a possible candidate for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54116
Bug #: 54116
Summary: suboptimal code for tight loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54116
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
10:13:41 UTC ---
The tree level looks correct:
bb 4:
# ivtmp.23_69 = PHI ivtmp.23_68(5), ivtmp.23_66(3)
D.1771_65 = (void *) ivtmp.23_69;
D.1717_6 = MEM[base:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54116
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz 2012-07-29 10:30:46
UTC ---
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:13:41AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54116
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29776
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-12-24 00:00:00 |2012-07-29
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27317|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
Bug #: 54117
Summary: FAIL: ./decl-3.h -O0 -g (internal compiler error)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54118
Bug #: 54118
Summary: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
Bug #: 54119
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-4.c scan-tree-dump-times
gimple VEC_PERM_EXPR a, b, { 0, 4, 1, 5 }; 1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
15:25:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27886
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27886
Tree dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
15:29:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 27887
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27887
Tree dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
15:35:26 UTC ---
Looks like a callee copies issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
16:31:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 27888
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27888
Patch
Fixes 930921-1.c and four original acats fails, but not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #23 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
16:44:26 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sun Jul 29 16:44:18 2012
New Revision: 189938
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189938
Log:
2012-07-29 François
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: ./decl-3.h -O0 -g|[4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29 16:50:37 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
subroutine compute_routine (zfunc)
procedure(compute_routine) :: zfunc
end subroutine
I would assume that this is invalid, since the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29 16:55:11 UTC ---
Related accepts-invalid problem with proc-pointer assignment to an internal
proc:
implicit none
procedure(real), pointer :: p
p = scale
print *,p(1.0,2)
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #24 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29
17:06:25 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sun Jul 29 17:06:21 2012
New Revision: 189941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189941
Log:
2012-07-29 François
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54120
Bug #: 54120
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/random_2.f90
execution
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54121
Bug #: 54121
Summary: ICE at extract_insn, at recog.c:2123 sparc64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Bug #: 54122
Summary: gcc segfault comparing enum class in lambda inside
constructor of a templated class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29 19:04:25 UTC ---
The following patch adds diagnostics to reject the invalid test case in comment
8:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29 20:15:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
The following patch adds diagnostics to reject the invalid test case in
comment
8:
... and regtests cleanly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-29 20:54:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I would assume that this is invalid, since the declaration of
compute_routine's
interface is somehow 'recursive', i.e. referring to itself.
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54123
Bug #: 54123
Summary: inline functions not optimized as well as static
inline
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54123
--- Comment #1 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-07-29 21:07:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 27892
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27892
test case compiled with -DINLINE='static inline'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54123
--- Comment #2 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-07-29 21:08:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 27893
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27893
test case compiled with -DINLINE='inline'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52642
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30 00:07:26
UTC ---
Kaz, is it OK to close this issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
Bug #: 54124
Summary: Web-based GCC 4.7.1 manual seems to have a section
corrupted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
02:28:19 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/cpp/Invocation.html#index-dM-185
It is there for me. It is not under the GCC manual but rather the CPP manual.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Scott kscott at eznet dot net 2012-07-30 02:40:29
UTC ---
Now that you mention it, I looked again, and it in fact is there, in the gcc
manual. The problem was that, on my prior readings, I instinctively ignored
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
02:44:42 UTC ---
Well these options are really only for debugging and nothing else.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
Kevin Scott kscott at eznet dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52642
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
03:16:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Kaz, is it OK to close this issue?
Yes. Please go ahead.
Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Sandra Loosemore
san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Richard,
This ancient patch to tweak mips_legitimize_address
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/msg00294.html
seems to never have been applied. Do you have any idea
Hello world,
here is an updated patch for PR 54033, this time with test cases.
Thanks to Janis for pointing me in the right direction with these.
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
Thomas
2012-07-29 Thomas König tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/54033
* scanner.c
Hi all,
here is a second patch for PR 51081, which fixes the rejection of the
valid test case in comment 1.
The problem was that the checking for intrinsics came too early (in
gfc_match_rvalue), so that INT2 was marked as intrinsic, before it was
known that there is a contained procedure which
This patch is a minor, mostly mechanical cleanup of CONST_DOUBLE. It
wraps all of the checks of CONST_DOUBLE in one of three macros:
CONST_DOUBLE_AS_INT_P, CONST_DOUBLE_AS_FLOAT_P, or CONST_DOUBLE_P is it
used for both. There were some non obvious changes that Richard
Sandiford told me the
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
Given that Richard Sandiford advised on all of the non trivial changes,
I am going to check this patch in in the next few days unless i hear
some comments otherwise.
TBH I'd only looked at the ones you flagged. This time...
diff -puNr
Given that Richard Sandiford advised on all of the non trivial changes,
I am going to check this patch in in the next few days unless i hear
some comments otherwise. This patch has been fully tested on the x86-64.
Pasto in the rtl.h change. Please also avoid the long lines in there.
--
sorry, will fix all of this. thanks.
On 07/29/2012 12:33 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
Given that Richard Sandiford advised on all of the non trivial changes,
I am going to check this patch in in the next few days unless i hear
some comments
Patch applied. I usually CC to gcc-patches when I signal that it has
been applied. Should I send it all my patch proposals ?
François
On 07/28/2012 11:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Please remember to CC gcc-patches too.
On 28 July 2012 21:49, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the
On 29 July 2012 18:15, François Dumont wrote:
Patch applied. I usually CC to gcc-patches when I signal that it has been
applied. Should I send it all my patch proposals ?
Yes please. The point is to allow people to review and comment before
the patch is applied, and some people only subscribe
On 07/29/2012 07:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yes please. The point is to allow people to review and comment before
the patch is applied, and some people only subscribe to gcc-patches
not libstdc++.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I must say that I don't understand
why those people don't
Tested only as far as cross-compile. I had a browse through
objdump of libatomic for a brief sanity check.
Can you please test on real hw and report back?
r~
---
gcc/config/s390/s390-protos.h |3 +-
gcc/config/s390/s390.c| 90 +-
gcc/config/s390/s390.md | 373
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
* rtl.h (CONST_DOUBLE_AS_INT_P, CONST_DOUBLE_AS_FLOAT_P): New
macros.
Hello Kenny,
Thanks for doing this!
Can you please also update the comment before CONST_DOUBLE in rtl.def?
According to rtl.def
I will add the comment. However, my hope is that will be short lived
knowledge, but i am a couple of patches away from that.
kenny
On 07/29/2012 05:31 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
* rtl.h
Hello,
This improves some cases where the T bit is stored as all ones or all
zeros to a GP reg.
Tested on rev 189916 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,
-m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,-m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}
Hello,
In cases where dynamic shifts are available, the ashlsi3_d pattern is
picked first and never converted back to a short sequence of constant
shifts. Preferring short constant shift sequences over dynamic shifts
can potentially reduce the need for an extra register to hold the shift
count.
Hello,
The attached patch adds the combine patterns as discussed in the PR.
Tested on rev 189916 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,
-m4-single/-ml,-m4-single/-mb,-m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}
and no new failures.
Hello,
In cases where dynamic shifts are available, the ashlsi3_d pattern is
picked first and never converted back to a short sequence of constant
shifts. Preferring short constant shift sequences over dynamic shifts
can potentially reduce the need for an extra register to hold the shift
count.
From: Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:24:08 +0200
Richard (Earnshaw) has asked me to take over working on this patch now.
I've now made the change requested above and removed the size argument.
The target is now simply asked to return the required alignment for
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
The attached patch adds the combine patterns as discussed in the PR.
Tested on rev 189916 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
In cases where dynamic shifts are available, the ashlsi3_d pattern is
picked first and never converted back to a short sequence of constant
shifts. Preferring short constant shift sequences over dynamic shifts
can potentially reduce the need for an extra
Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
This improves some cases where the T bit is stored as all ones or all
zeros to a GP reg.
Tested on rev 189916 with
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim
\{-m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4/-ml,-m4/-mb,
66 matches
Mail list logo
