--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 12:45 ---
Fixed on trunk and the 4.5 branch sofar.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 13:03 ---
Fixed for 4.6.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 13:03 ---
Subject: Bug 43208
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 20 13:03:10 2010
New Revision: 162338
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162338
Log:
2010-07-20 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 13:06 ---
Fixed for 4.6.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 13:07 ---
Subject: Bug 43221
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 20 13:06:32 2010
New Revision: 162339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162339
Log:
2010-07-20 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 13:08 ---
Re-confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 14:21 ---
The issue is with the cache for outcomes of gimple_types_compatible_p. When
hitting cycles in the type graph we assume equality but also record final
decisions based on it.
So we end up merging the two struct link
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 14:48 ---
t.c:6: note: reduction: not commutative/associative: sum_13 = (short int)
D.2726_12;
this is because
sum = (short)((int)sum + (int)a[i]);
cannot be folded to
sum = sum + a[i];
as that exposes new undefined
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 15:06 ---
Subject: Bug 42696
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 20 15:05:59 2010
New Revision: 162341
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162341
Log:
2010-07-20 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 15:06 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 15:08 ---
This is fixed on trunk, testcase adding pending on -fuse-linker-plugin support
in the testsuite.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 16:01
---
No, this problem was present for ipa-sra, but I thought it was fixed.
Does -fno-ipa-sra help? Martin?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 09:12 ---
Confirmed.
./cc1 -quiet t.c
t.c: In function 'main':
t.c:5:3: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
t.c:5:3: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
t.c:5:5: internal compiler error: tree check
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 09:51 ---
#3 0x0060425e in store_one_arg (arg=0x7fffbc10,
argblock=0x77ee0540, flags=0, variable_size=0, reg_parm_stack_space=0)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/calls.c:4309
4309
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 12:47 ---
Well, the list of problems is endless it seems - we are not consistent in
how we build accesses for
declD.1.u1.a.align = 13;
vs.
decl$u1$a$align_5 = BIT_FIELD_REF MEM[(unnamed-unsigned:24 *)declD.2],
24, 0
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 12:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=21249)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21249action=view)
wip patch
Testcase that shows this behavior is gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp14.c which is
miscompiled.
--
http
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 13:03 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 13:11 ---
Confirmed.
-plugin-opt=-fresolution=%u.res
is supposed to use a nice name as base with -save-temps (but appearantly
it's choice isn't very good).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 13:40 ---
The difference starts to appear with .030t.ealias, where with debug info
we get a massive re-ordering of immediate uses (diff from .029t.forwprop1):
prev_1 : --2 uses.
-D.2738_7 = *prev_1;
info_6 = *prev_1
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44989
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 14:43 ---
Ick. The problem is that with MEM_REF we now have local variables that
are is_gimple_reg () but not in SSA form.
void
foo (void)
{
int i = 0;
bar (*(struct S *) i);
}
is undefined and thus we remove
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 15:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44941
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 19 15:39:51 2010
New Revision: 162308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162308
Log:
2010-07-19 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 15:40 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 16:04 ---
Bah, iterating over cfun-local_decls plus DECL_ARGUMENTS doesn't work because
with IPA-SRA DECL_ARGUMENTs are not in referenced-vars.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-19 16:20 ---
And partial linking support will break mixed LTO / non-LTO objects. Unless
we drop all non-LTO sections from LTO objects and thus the .text sections
of partially linked mixed LTO / non-LTO objects will be still
--- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 17:49
---
In particular we are now back to generating the very bogus
ivtmp.10_12 = (long unsigned int) a[-1];
ivtmp.16_15 = (long unsigned int) c[-1];
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 17:50 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 17:51 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 18:39 ---
Confirmed.
We loose the call during expansion.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 18:42 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 regression] Revision |[4.6 Regression] Revision
|162270 failed 450
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 20:46 ---
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
(note# 0 0 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(note# 0 0 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(note# 0 0 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)
-(insn:TI# 0 0 pr44971.c:22 (set (reg/f:SI 0 ax [orig:58 D. ] [58])
+(insn:TI# 0 0
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 20:57 ---
Martin, can you have a look here? All this build_ref_for_offset should
now be very easy. But we need to have the original access tree that we
replace as well. The built access should simply be
fold_build2
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 21:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=21246)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21246action=view)
prototype
sth like this, with the FIXME resolved (it's not clear which is the reference
we are replacing at each
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 21:22 ---
More like
if (TREE_CODE (*expr) == MEM_REF
TREE_OPERAND (*expr, 0) != ADDR_EXPR)
*expr = fold_build2 (MEM_REF, exp_type,
TREE_OPERAND (*expr, 0
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 08:22
---
What does the standard say here? What is the type in effect for aliasing
when doing
int i = va_arg (va, int);
? Is type-punning allowed when unpacking args?
Note that we would need to make sure to use
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 08:29 ---
IPA-PTA computes the required information (but we do not store sub-field
granular points-to or clobber sets):
h.clobber = { k.8+8 }
h.use = { }
f.clobber = { k.8+8 } same as f.arg0
f.use = { }
f.arg0 = { k.8+8 }
k
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5 Regression] bootstrap |[4.5 Regression] bootstrap
|failed at Comparing
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 08:38 ---
Frontend issue then. Does it work with -fwhole-file?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 09:39 ---
Looks like a bug in antlr3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44961
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 07:17 ---
Fixed then.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 08:00 ---
Works on x86_64 with -m32. Does the testcase work with GCC 4.4? Does it work
with the 4.5.0 release?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 08:06 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44941
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 08:21 ---
Confirmed.
(gdb) call debug_gimple_stmt (stmt)
.MEM_12 = PHI .MEM_13(D)(2), (3)
we miss a PHI arg here after splitting the function.
func_4 (int p_5, unsigned char p_6, unsigned char p_7)
{
bb 2:
if (p_6_3(D
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 08:37 ---
Works with my pending set of patches.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44935
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 09:18 ---
You need to mark auto variables that are life across setjmp/longjmp calls as
volatile.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 09:21 ---
Confirmed. It's mem-ref related.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 09:58 ---
It doesn't. It's a PHI node. So I suppose there was a CFG confluence
point here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44937
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 10:00 ---
CDDCE removes the single store in the loop but doesn't remove the virtual
PHI nodes. But you still have to deal with them I guess.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44937
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 11:17 ---
Subject: Bug 44946
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 15 11:17:37 2010
New Revision: 162216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162216
Log:
2010-07-15 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 11:31 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 15:47 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 16:02 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Caller and call expander try to honor type alignment.
See PR 35771 and PR 35767. I think we should replace
BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT with MAX_STACK_ALIGNMENT.
The call expander should not look
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-15 16:03 ---
Why's this not in libstdc++.so .init?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 08:20
---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 08:35
---
Created an attachment (id=21196)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21196action=view)
patch
Can you test this patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44824
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 08:42 ---
Yeah, it looks like so.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44810
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 09:07 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 09:07 ---
Subject: Bug 44930
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 14 09:06:34 2010
New Revision: 162174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162174
Log:
2010-07-14 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44930
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 09:12 ---
Only the pointed-to value is volatile. A volatile pointer would be
unsigned char * volatile ptr;
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 12:19
---
Subject: Bug 44824
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 14 12:19:16 2010
New Revision: 162177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162177
Log:
2010-07-14 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 12:19
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 15:56 ---
I will have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 11:10
---
WONTFIX.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 11:12
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Restrict has been implemented anew for GCC 4.6. Does that fix this bug?
In 4.5, see comment #7 for the status of this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 11:19 ---
Subject: Bug 44911
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 13 11:18:50 2010
New Revision: 162137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162137
Log:
2010-07-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 11:23 ---
Indeed.
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 13:29
---
The bug is confused now and mixes -fargument-* with other missed opts (which
I think are fixed with IPA-PTA and/or proper use of restricts or are dups
of other problems).
-fargument-noalias* problems are WONTFIX
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 13:31 ---
Subject: Bug 36960
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 13 13:31:26 2010
New Revision: 162141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162141
Log:
2010-07-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 13:34 ---
There is already testcases like this in gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-*.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23134
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 13:53
---
Does
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 162140)
+++ expr.c (working copy)
@@ -8778,6 +8778,11 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 07:54
---
It indeed works with the 4.5.0 release which makes it a blocker for 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44914
--- Comment #55 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 08:06
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:19 ---
There is no sequence point between the two modifications to x.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 10:47 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I get for all memory accesses an alignment
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 10:58 ---
Differing array sizes of the mAutoBuf member, type decls:
type_decl 0x75b22a10 nsAutoTArray
type record_type 0x75b20c78 nsAutoTArray addressable
needs-constructing BLK
size integer_cst
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 11:38 ---
Seems to be bogus merging of complete/incomplete types.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 11:39 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Should this (and the other one) not be mentioned upstream somehow?
Honza is filing bugs with them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44904
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 12:48 ---
Confirmed, caused by SRA, maybe latent on the trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 16:23 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 16:30 ---
Confirmed. Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 21:59 ---
Hm? I checked 4.5.0 and it was broken as well, so someone should double-check
(I can't at the moment).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44900
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:04
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase worked? Not the pr35258.c, but the one I gave, with
the int aligned(1)? The difference
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:37
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase doesn't work with 4.5 and I doubt it ever worked on
PA. The pointer passed to foo is used
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 08:32 ---
Please specify what ... is.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 08:40 ---
Subject: Bug 44889
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jul 10 08:39:46 2010
New Revision: 162032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162032
Log:
2010-07-10 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 08:41 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 10:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=21172)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21172action=view)
somewhat reduced testcase
Two files, but still way too large (reduced at topflatform level 0 to not mess
up
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 10:40 ---
We fail to merge
type_decl 0x75a000b8 nsINode
type record_type 0x759f6a80 nsINode addressable needs-constructing BLK
size integer_cst 0x75b0cde8 constant 512
unit size integer_cst
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 11:00 ---
Field types not compatible.
field 0x75754d10 mNextSibling
field 0x75974428 mNextSibling
Field types not compatible.
field 0x75754da8 mPreviousSibling
field 0x759744c0 mPreviousSibling
Field types
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 11:21 ---
Somewhere down in type
0x757497e0 struct nsRefreshDriver
0x75964348 struct nsRefreshDriver
(gdb) call debug_type_differences (0x757497e0, 0x75964348)
Hashes differ.
Field types not compatible.
type
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 12:10 ---
On the unreduced testcase:
struct PLHashTable
Hashes differ.
Field names do not compare equal.
field 0x75651da8 allocPool
field 0x753beed8 allocPriv
both PLHashTables declared at ../../../dist/include
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression] -fcompare- |[4.6 Regression] -fcompare-
|debug failure for C
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 21:29 ---
I get for all memory accesses an alignment of 8 at expansion time which looks
correct (on i?86). Please debug this a bit, set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos
looks conservative enough.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
801 - 900 of 14880 matches
Mail list logo
