[Bug tree-optimization/19241] [4.0 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl with inliner

--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 07:29 --- Honza, this is an inliner bug - could you look at it, please? -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug java/19344] Java verification error: types could not be merged

--- Additional Comments From brion at pobox dot com 2005-01-09 07:25 --- Created an attachment (id=7911) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7911&action=view) Java source file which causes verification error when compiled via bytecode Compile with: gcj -C Cleaner.java &&

[Bug java/19344] New: Java verification error: types could not be merged

igure --prefix=/opt/gcj --enable-languages=c,c++,java : (reconfigured) ../gcc/configure --prefix=/opt/gcj --enable-languages=c,c++,java Thread model: posix gcc version 4.0.0 20050108 (experimental) /opt/gcj/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.0.0/jc1 /tmp/ccjhixvIjx -fhash-synchronization -fno-use-

[Bug c++/19343] New warnings in libstdc++-v3 since 2004-01-05

--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 07:19 --- Gaby comments in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-01/msg00064.html: This is a compiler regression. The body of the function is: _M_get(size_t __sz) throw(std::bad_alloc) { #if defined __

[Bug c++/19343] New: New warnings in libstdc++-v3 since 2004-01-05

I see the following new warnings when compiling GCC CVS on different Linux platforms since 2004-01-05: ../../../../libstdc++-v3/src/bitmap_allocator.cc: In member function 'size_t* __gnu_cxx::free_list::_M_get(size_t)': ../../../../libstdc++-v3/src/bitmap_allocator.cc:110: warning: control reac

[Bug c/19342] internal compiler error: in common_type, at c-typeck.c:490

--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 07:15 --- Btw. error did not occur with GCC CVS from 20050103 and the next one tested was from 20050108. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/19342] internal compiler error: in common_type, at c-typeck.c:490

--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 07:10 --- Created an attachment (id=7910) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7910&action=view) Preprocessed source file - i386 compilation -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19342

[Bug c/19342] New: internal compiler error: in common_type, at c-typeck.c:490

quiet -dumpbase db.c -march=i686 -mtune=i686 -auxbase-strip db.o -O2 -Wall -W -Wall -Wno-unused -W -version -fmessage-length=0 -fno-strict-aliasing -o db.s -m32 GNU C version 4.0.0 20050108 (experimental) (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) compiled by GNU C version 4.0.0 20050108 (experimental).

[Bug tree-optimization/19241] [4.0 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl with inliner

-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical Priority|P2 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19241

[Bug fortran/19168] Mismatched KINDs in SELECT CASE constucts is not handled correctly

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19168

[Bug fortran/18977] LAPACK test xeigtsts segfaults with optimization

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18977

[Bug fortran/18714] Runtime hang in LAPACK routine SLAMC1 - in Quetzal benchmark suite

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18714

[Bug c++/19199] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a reference to a temporary

--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 04:46 --- Actually, I have a standards question here. Assume for the purposes of discussion here that a source-level reference variable "X" is represented as a pointer variable "x" in the intermediate language. E.g.

[Bug fortran/18111] spurious warnings with -W -Wunused

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-09 04:46 --- This breaks -Werror builds. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug preprocessor/9449] UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-01-09 03:20 --- Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99) "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | --- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-01-08 0

[Bug c++/9573] typedef with __attribute__ ((mode(....))) doesnt seem to work inside a struct/class

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 02:31 --- Fixed at least on the mainline. : Search converges between 2004-10-18-161001-trunk (#597) and 2004-10-19-014001-trunk (#598). : Search converges between 2004-10-17-014001-trunk (#594) and 2004-10-17-16100

[Bug c++/16160] Does not reject invalid attempt of explicit instantiation

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Last reconfirmed|2004-10-10 02:09:55 |2005-01-09 02:26:03 date|

[Bug fortran/19334] ISHFT has the wrong type for constant values

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 02:16 --- nope, this patch did not fix it. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords|patch

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 02:13 --- Patch posted here: . -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug rtl-optimization/19296] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] Range check on short miscompiled at -O

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 02:12 --- Patch here: . -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/19341] [4.0 Regression] DCE eliminating non-dead code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 01:54 --- Another way to fix this is to add that this inline-asm clobers memory, aka: asm volatile ("call g" :: "a" (&k):"memory"); -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19341

[Bug tree-optimization/19341] [4.0 Regression] DCE eliminating non-dead code

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 01:37 --- This code is invalid, for one you should not do a call in inline-asm. Second the store to k is dead as the inline-asm is not told that k is accessed. asm volatile ("call g" :: "a" (&k), "m" (k)); will fix t

[Bug target/11180] [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of struct assignment.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 01:30 --- One issue I find is that avr does not define_insn_and_split (or just define_split) which will greatly improve the code generation because the hi part of the QI would be zero and you don't need to set it

[Bug tree-optimization/19341] New: [4.0 Regression] DCE eliminating non-dead code

void abort (void); void __attribute__((regparm(1))) g (int *p) { if (*p != 1) abort (); } int main () { int k; k = 1; asm volatile ("call g" :: "a" (&k)); return 0; } -- Summary: [4.0 Regression] DCE eliminating non-dead code Product: gcc Versio

[Bug middle-end/13127] [4.0 Regression] Inlining causes spurious "might be used uninitialized" warnings

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Last reconfirmed|2004-12-20 0

[Bug c++/19159] [4.0 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for __cxxabiv1::__vmi_class_type_info

--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-09 00:44 --- FWIW, I've now confirmed that Nathan's change breaks my proposed fix in PR 18257. The error is: Executing on host: /opt/build/dave/gcc-4.0.0/objdir/gcc/g++ -shared-libgcc -B/op t/build/dave/gcc-4.0.0/objdi

[Bug target/19340] Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -fschedule-insns2 -fsched2-use-traces on an x86 architecture.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 23:59 --- Confirmed but note this is not a regression, -fsched2-use-traces is a new option in 3.4.0 and above and it has been failing since -fsched2-use-traces was added. -- What|Removed

[Bug target/19340] New: Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -fschedule-insns2 -fsched2-use-traces on an x86 architecture.

The following test code -- test.c - extern double f (double x); double g (int a) { int b, c, d, e = 0; double h; for (d = 0; d < a; d++) for (c = 0; c < a; c++) b = 1; h = (double) e / (d

[Bug bootstrap/18853] [4.0 Regression] ICE: genautomata.c:5238, error: verify_flow_info: Incorrect fallthru

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-08 23:05:41 date|

[Bug c++/19159] [4.0 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for __cxxabiv1::__vmi_class_type_info

--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:57 --- I first tested the aix.patch using the cvs head. It still had the same problem. Using the tree from "12/16/04 11:03:00 UTC" (my original suggestion was known to work at this point), I tested the patch toge

[Bug tree-optimization/19241] [4.0 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl with inliner

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:54 --- : Search converges between 2004-08-07-trunk (#507) and 2004-08-08-trunk (#508). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19241

[Bug c++/19299] [4.0 Regression] ICE with volatile non-PODs pointers

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:53 --- : Search converges between 2004-05-11-trunk (#454) and 2004-05-14-trunk (#455). : Search converges between 2003-06-25-ssa (#14) and 2003-06-26-ssa (#15). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19

[Bug c++/19311] [3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE in resolve_overloaded_unification

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:52 --- : Search converges between 2004-07-18-trunk (#489) and 2004-07-19-trunk (#490). : Search converges between 2004-07-28-3.4 (#35) and 2004-07-29-3.4 (#36). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19

[Bug c++/19312] [3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE in stabilize_call

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:50 --- : Search converges between 2004-05-11-trunk (#454) and 2004-05-14-trunk (#455). : Search converges between 2004-03-01-3.4 (#2) and 2004-03-15-3.4 (#3). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1931

[Bug other/19328] FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c (test for excess errors)

--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-01-08 22:34 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c (test for excess er > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 > 17:35 --- > I have a fix for this, the problem is th

[Bug fortran/15080] Forall bounds not calculated correctly (forall_3.f90)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:28 --- *** Bug 19339 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/19339] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/forall_3.f90 execution

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:28 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15080 *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/19339] FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/forall_3.f90 execution

-- What|Removed |Added GCC build triplet|hppa*-*p-hpux* |hppa*-*-hpux* GCC host triplet|hppa*-*p-hpux* |hppa*-*-hpux* GCC target triplet|hppa*-*p-hpux*

[Bug fortran/19339] New: FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/forall_3.f90 execution

# /opt/gnu64/bin/gdb forall_3.x GNU gdb 6.3.50_2004-12-25-cvs Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type "show copying" to see the condi

[Bug ada/19337] [4.0 Regression] ada does not compile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 22:20 --- I cannot reproduce it either on ppc-darwin, are you sure that you don't have a file with a tag set (like a date tag). -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug ada/19337] [4.0 Regression] ada does not compile

--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-01-08 22:11 --- I can't reproduce this on mainline x86 and x86_64 both work fine (in make check right now). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19337

[Bug fortran/17675] [Regression w.r.t. g77] Alignment constraints not honored in EQUIVALENCE

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 21:43 --- *** Bug 19338 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/19338] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980628-0.f -O0 execution test

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 21:43 --- This is a dup of bug 17675. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17675 *** -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/18421] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:391

,java Thread model: posix xgcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050108 (experimental) The ICE happens when compiling libjava: (...) ../../../gcc/libjava/java/lang/natDouble.cc: In static member function 'static jdouble java::lang::Double::longBitsToDouble(jlong)': ../../../gcc/libjava

[Bug fortran/19338] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/980628-0.f -O0 execution test

This failure is caused by a misaligned floating point load on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11: (gdb) r Starting program: /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/testsuite/980628-0.exe Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error. 0x400027ec in x_ (r1=0x83fffeff0848, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], r2

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 21:19 --- The shift with zero comes from regmove. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19329

[Bug middle-end/18089] [4.0 regression] Valgrind errors in real.c

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 21:06 --- Roger, the problem appears with your patch for PR17151: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-09/msg01231.html It looks like this causes a miscompilation of the stage2 compiler. -- What|Remo

[Bug ada/19337] [4.0 Regression] ada does not compile

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:56 --- hmm, This worked yesterday on ppc-darwin. I am trying to build on ppc-darwin right now. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug ada/19337] ada does not compile

--- Additional Comments From heitkamp at ameritech dot net 2005-01-08 20:52 --- Created an attachment (id=7907) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7907&action=view) Files requested in the bug box -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19337

[Bug ada/19337] New: ada does not compile

+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.0.0 20050108 (experimental) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: | | in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:867| | Error detected at ali.adb:2098:1

[Bug fortran/19334] ISHFT has the wrong type for constant values

--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:47 --- Created an attachment (id=7906) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7906&action=view) Putative patch 2005-01-08 Tobias Schl"uter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran/19334 * trans-

[Bug fortran/13257] Error instead of warning for missing comma in format string

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:38 --- This also appears in SPEC 2000 also in galgel (why we don't reject it on x86 I have no idea). -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/19334] ISHFT has the wrong type for constant values

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:33 --- Oh, one more thing from PR 19335, -fmerge-constants is what causes it to fail. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19334

[Bug fortran/19334] ISHFT has the wrong type for constant values

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:32 --- *** Bug 19335 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/19335] f90-intrinsic-bit.f produces wrong code with -fmerge-constants on powerpc-apple-darwin7.7.0

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:32 --- I reduced this testcase just like two minutes before, hehe because I had saw the testresults before but I did not know if it was because of my change or not. Anyways this is a dup of bug 19334. *** This

[Bug target/19336] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/titype-1.c

Executing on host: /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/ gcc/ /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/titype-1.c-ansi -pedantic-er rors -lm -o ./titype-1.exe(timeout = 300) /test/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/titype-1.c:5: error: unable to emulat e 'TI'

[Bug fortran/19335] New: f90-intrinsic-bit.f produces wrong code with -fmerge-constants on powerpc-apple-darwin7.7.0

f90-intrinsic-bit.f (from the gfortran test suite) fails with at any optimization level different that -O0. This is due to the flag -fmerge-constants. The reduced test case is the following: integer*1 k k = 0 print *, ISHFT(k,-BIT_SIZE(k)) end At compilation, it produces

[Bug c++/19320] static const float initialization ignored

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-08 20:13 --- The fact that it worked for the integer case is by chance, since gcc seems to have been able to replace all references to that variable by its value, but it wasn't for the floating point case. That is often t

[Bug fortran/19334] ISHFT has the wrong type for constant values

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 20:06 --- This is just a reduction of the "gfortran.dg/g77/f90-intrinsic-bit.f" test. reference testresults (not from me): http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-01/msg00348.html -- What|Removed

[Bug fortran/19334] New: ISHFT has the wrong type for constant values

integer*1 k, k2, k3, ka call c_i1(ISHFT(k,-BIT_SIZE(k))) end subroutine c_i1(i) integer*1 i end Compile this at -O1 on ppc, we recieve an error message: /usr/bin/ld: f90-intrinsic-bit.o 8 byte literal section (__TEXT,__literal8) size is not a multiple of 8 bytes coll

[Bug libmudflap/19319] Mudflap produce many violations on simple, correct c++ program

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-08 20:03 --- Analysis is here and in the follow-up: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00460.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19319

[Bug tree-optimization/19333] [4.0 Regression] Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -finline-functions on the x86_64 architecture.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 19:50 --- But that is the difference which is causing it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19333

[Bug tree-optimization/19333] [4.0 Regression] Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -finline-functions on the x86_64 architecture.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 19:46 --- Hmm, IV-OPTS looks like it is creating invalid gimple: &(*(short int[4] *) &aa)[0](0) -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/19333] [4.0 Regression] Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -finline-functions on the x86_64 architecture.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 19:43 --- Also happens on ppc64. -- What|Removed |Added GCC build triplet|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

[Bug tree-optimization/19333] [4.0 Regression] Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -finline-functions on the x86_64 architecture.

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 19:42 --- Confirmed, here is the backtrace: #0 0x0014c5f4 in maybe_fold_offset_to_array_ref (base=0x416dd15c, offset=0x4164caa0, orig_type=0x416a1570) at ../../gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c:1351 #1 0x0014dcfc in maybe_fold_s

[Bug target/19333] New: Compilation SEGFAULTs with -O1 -finline-functions on the x86_64 architecture.

The following test code -- test.c - extern short int aa[][]; extern short int ab[][]; extern short int ac[][]; static void f(short int t[][4], int A, int B, int C, int D) { int i; for(i=0; i<256; ++i) { t[i][0] = i*A;

[Bug middle-end/19332] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-[12].c execution, -O2 and -O1

--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-01-08 19:25 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execu > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 > 19:06 --- > Can you manually test this test in 3.4.x as I

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 19:17 --- Bernardo's working on a patch. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc do

[Bug target/19326] [4.0 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c fails on x86-64

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|gcc.c-torture/execute/simd- |[4.0 Regression] gcc.c- |6

[Bug middle-end/19332] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-[12].c execution, -O2 and -O1

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 19:06 --- Can you manually test this test in 3.4.x as I think this might be a regression. (well -O1 is though). -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 19:02 --- AVR also has the same problem, I have no idea where the problem is right now (I have to compare the initial RTL). -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 18:52 --- clr r25 ; 46 ashlqi3/4 [length = 1] (insn 46 65 49 (set (reg:QI 25 r25 [66]) (ashift:QI (reg:QI 25 r25 [66]) (const_int 0 [0x0]))) 57 {ashlqi3} (nil) (nil)) So ther

[Bug tree-optimization/18241] [4.0 Regression] volatile causes mis-compiling

--- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 18:47 --- Fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00451.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/19332] New: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-[12].c execution, -O2

The tests have failed since inception at -O2. They also started failing at -O1 between Thu Sep 16 02:02:25 UTC and Sun Sep 26 19:50:51 UTC 2004. -- Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-[12].c execution, -O2 Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0

[Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1

-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI, wrong-code Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg

[Bug middle-end/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 18:37 --- Hmm, on PPC, the mainline produces much better code than 3.3.2. 3.3.2: lbz r6,69(r1) la r2,lo16(_params)(r7) lwz r3,48(r2) addi r1,r1,80 rlwinm r5,r6,26,31,31

[Bug middle-end/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 18:28 --- Created an attachment (id=7903) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7903&action=view) Efficient code generated with 3.4 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19331

[Bug middle-end/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 18:28 --- Also I think it comes changing the C front-end representation of bitfields to be more correct. -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 18:28 --- Created an attachment (id=7902) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7902&action=view) Inefficient code generated with 4.0 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19331

[Bug rtl-optimization/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 18:27 --- Created an attachment (id=7901) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7901&action=view) Testcase (the other was wrong) -- What|Removed |Added --

[Bug rtl-optimization/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 18:26 --- I think this is related to PR 18008 (or maybe even a dup). -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/19331] [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 18:24 --- Created an attachment (id=7900) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7900&action=view) Testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19331

[Bug rtl-optimization/19331] New: [4.0 Regression] Inefficient code generated for bitfield assignment

The attached testcase shows a code generation regression which can be seen on x86 but I believe it to be target indepedent. The code is copying data between two structures, both of which contain bitfields. The source structure uses 1-bit bitfields of type "int", while the destination structure

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1

This PR is a place holder for the following fails which I believe all relate to problems passing complex long double arguments. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O2 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -Os

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2005-01-08 17:57 --- Also fails with this pre-release version: avr-gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 20041019 (prerelease) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is N

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 17:50 --- Compiler details: Reading specs from /usr/local/avr/lib/gcc/avr/3.4.2/specs Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.2/configure --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu -- prefix=/usr/local/avr --target=avr --enable-languages=c : (reco

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 17:48 --- Created an attachment (id=7899) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7899&action=view) Generated assembly code (with bug!) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19329

[Bug target/19329] [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-08 17:47 --- Created an attachment (id=7898) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7898&action=view) Testcase to reproduce the bug -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19329

[Bug target/19329] New: [3.4 Regression] Miscompilation with bitfields

The testcase I'm going to attach generates a miscompilation on the 3.4 branch. The bug cannot be reproduced on 4.0 but might actually be latent there. The code it's copying 4 1-bit fields from one structure to a different one. The internal bit offsets of the fields are different by just one bit

[Bug other/19328] FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c (test for excess errors)

--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-01-08 17:39 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c (test for excess er > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 > 17:35 --- > I have a fix for this, the problem is th

[Bug target/19326] gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c fails on x86-64

--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 17:38 --- Confirmed, they appeared sometime over the past week. -- What|Removed |Added S

[Bug other/19328] FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c (test for excess errors)

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 17:35 --- I have a fix for this, the problem is that dg-require-alias requires an argument. I will apply this after I get some food. Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c ==

[Bug other/19328] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c (test for excess errors)

/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c:7: warning: alias defin itions not supported in this configuration; ignored /mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/attr-alias-2.c:15: warning: alias defi nitions not supported in this configuration; ignored UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/attr-alias-1

[Bug middle-end/19327] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/921215-1.c compilation, -O3 -g

-- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Component|tree-optimiz

[Bug tree-optimization/19327] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/921215-1.c compilation, -O3 -g

Executing on host: /mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gc c/ /mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/921215-1.c -w -O3 -g -lm -o /mnt/gnu/gcc-3.3/objdir/gcc/testsuite/921215-1.x4(timeout = 30 0) /usr/ccs/bin/ld: Unsatisfied symbols: r___1120 (fir

[Bug target/19326] gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c fails on x86-64

--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 17:01 --- These two fail with similiar ICEs: gcc.dg/i386-sse-1.c (test for excess errors) gcc.dg/i386-sse-2.c (test for excess errors) -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/19326] New: gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c fails on x86-64

These tests started recently failing: gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c compilation, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c compilation, -O3 -g gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-6.c compilation, -Os Note, the tests work fine with -m32 - and also with the other compile optio

[Bug target/19268] GCC 3.3/Irix 6.5 union as vararg not passed correctly

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-01-08 16:53 --- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3/Irix 6.5 union as vararg not passed correctly "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Just to confirm that the testcase fails with 3.3.x but works with |

[Bug target/19012] [3.4 Regression] ICE on testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/930208-1.c with -fpack-struct -Os

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 16:53 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

  1   2   >