--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-20 07:43
---
It's slightly improved now on mainline, but still an unneccesary branch:
le1_bit: lda v0,1
lda t0,-1(a0)
beq a0,L1
and a0,t0,t0
cmpeq t0,0,v0
L1: ret
--
I see a 14% slowdown with the SciMark sparse matrix multiplication benchmark
when going from 3.4.3 to 4.0.0 on my Gentoo box. Flags are -O3 -march=athlon-xp
-fomit-frame-pointer. I compiled and linked in one run of gcc, and ran the
executable from the command line with time.
4.0's performance
--- Additional Comments From jbucata at tulsaconnect dot com 2005-05-20
08:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=8933)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8933action=view)
preprocessed testcase files
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21676
--- Additional Comments From lanius at gentoo dot org 2005-05-20 08:35
---
no workaround, the flag was just disabled on the affected architectures
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664
--- Additional Comments From mario dot tragni at planetek dot it
2005-05-20 08:40 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
State-Changed-Why: See any faq on numerical analysis that mentions the x86.
You are seeing the results of excess precision in the FPU.
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-05-20 08:58 ---
(In reply to comment #54)
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
bernie at develer dot com wrote:
It's not a regresion, but it causes KDE to
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-05-20 09:02 ---
(In reply to comment #52)
Great! I forgot to thank you for all your testing efforts: thanks! (...)
i'll test these fixes on alpha/sparc{32,64} too in near feature.
i have machines but no time :/
--
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 09:03
---
FWIW, I agree, as far as the visibility issues are concerned (I don't want to
say something more general): the issues are *long* standing, important projects
are already using the features and nobody (almost ;)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-20
09:54 ---
A patch was posted by Richard Sandiford:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg02029.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21638
--- Additional Comments From cognot at earthdecision dot com 2005-05-20
10:03 ---
(In reply to comment #59)
I had this bug on x86 architecture, with no optimization of the code (no -OX)
and with float-store on. My workaround was to store the return of the double
function in a
Compiling the two following trivial files together causes link-time errors due
to multiply-defined symbols in bitmap_allocator.h. What am I missing here?
// t.cc
#include ext/bitmap_allocator.h
int main ()
{
}
// EOF
// t1.cc
#include ext/bitmap_allocator.h
// EOF
$
--- Additional Comments From oms at home dot nl 2005-05-20 12:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=8935)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8935action=view)
test source 1 of 2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21677
--- Additional Comments From oms at home dot nl 2005-05-20 12:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=8936)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8936action=view)
test source 2 of 2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21677
There is a weird interaction in using both inline and always_inline:
=
static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) int foo(int a)
{
if (a==0)
return 0;
}
=
Compiling
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 12:54
---
I cannot reproduce the problem: besides, we have simple testcases in our
testsuite for this usage and we have no problems on many different
architectures.
Which version of binutils are you using?
--
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 13:01
---
Can be related to 20979, fixed for 4.0 and mainline. Still cannot reproduce.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21677
--- Additional Comments From oms at home dot nl 2005-05-20 13:14 ---
2.15. It's an up-to-date debian testing install, nothing special.
# ld --version
GNU ld version 2.15
Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
13:36 ---
The original testcase and the testcase from comment #2 compile on mainline.
The underlying ABI problem still remains, however.
The following updated testcase still gives assembler errors on mainline:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 13:50
---
I see. I tried both stock 2.15 and 2.16, no problems...
--
What|Removed |Added
If I wanted to download a GCC release, I'd follow the link under Download
labelled releases, but that link doesn't lead to any information about how to
download a release or any links that lead to releases.
--
Summary: Download Releases doesn't take me to appropriate info
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 15:20
---
Hi Dave: I think you have point. What I find misleading is so much space devoted
to GCC Timeline - in the Download page - and only one line (on top, ok...)
redirecting to the list of mirrors (actually holding
This stripped down extract of a real file (main.c of Gujin-1.1 in
sourceforge) gives:
$ gcc -Os tst.c -c -o tst.o size tst.o
textdata bss dec hex filename
261 0 0 261 105 tst.o
$ ../toolchain/bin/gcc -Os tst.c -c -o tst.o size tst.o
textdata
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: Download Releases doesn't take me to appropriate info
pcarlini at suse dot de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-20 15:20
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-20
15:49 ---
A duplicate of 21529. I have attached this testcase into that bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21529 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-20
15:49 ---
*** Bug 21680 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21529
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-20
15:50 ---
Notice that both testcases come from the same program (Gujin).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21529
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
16:56 ---
The problem disappeared with Jan Hubicka's patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00805.html
Is the patch a proper fix (i.e. can we close the PR)
or does it only paper over the problem?
--
Compile the enclosed source for an ICE
--
Summary: Internal Compiler Error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
17:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=8938)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8938action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
GCC reports
../../../../boost/sequence/begin.hpp:53: error: 'begin' is already declared in
this scope
When creating an overload set by bringing a function into a namespace via
using-declaration. Compile the enclosed source to demonstrate.
--
Summary: Disallowed using declaration
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
17:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=8939)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8939action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21682
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-05-20 17:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ICE using -ftree-vectorize
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
16:56 ---
The problem disappeared with Jan Hubicka's patch
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
17:29 ---
Subject: Bug 1016
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-20 17:28:56
Modified files:
gcc/cp :
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
17:33 ---
This code is invalid.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
17:42 ---
Also fixed in 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0
--- Additional Comments From guptan at hotmail dot com 2005-05-20 17:43
---
Alan, Andrew,
If any one of you have setup with gcc-4.0 handy, could you verify if this bug
exists there as well?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21616
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
18:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This code is invalid.
How did you come to that determination?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-05-20 18:05 ---
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/crossgcc/2005-05/msg00154.html
is a report of a similar problem with
gcc-3.4.3. xfree86-4.5.0's fontutils.c causes an ICE when
compiled with -O3 -fno-strict-aliasing. Backing down to
The following patch causes a build failure on i386-mingw:
2005-05-15 Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* fixincl.c: #include sys/wait.h
Build was successful before, but now fails when compiling fixincl.c, since MinGW
doesn't have a sys/wait.h headers file. With this #include statement
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-20 18:48
---
Subject: Re: libstdc++ headers should have pop/push
of the visibility around the declarations
lanius at gentoo dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From lanius at gentoo dot org 2005-05-20 08:35
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
19:27 ---
Maybe not.
But in 3.4.0, I do get a warning:
copy.cpp: In function `int test_main(int, char**)':
copy.cpp:25: error: no match for call to `(const
boost::sequence::algorithm::copy_) (const boost::
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
19:56 ---
The code is definitely invalid; I was just wondering how you decided that so
quickly ;-)
It still should never cause an ICE, of course ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21681
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
19:59 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The code is definitely invalid; I was just wondering how you decided that so
quickly ;-)
I looked into the source and found where it crashing. It was obvious from
where the
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
20:02 ---
Subject: Bug 21637
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-20 20:02:16
Modified files:
libjava:
--- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
20:03 ---
I've checked in a patch to the 4.0 branch.
A different approach seems best for the trunk,
so I'm going to leave the PR open until I write that.
--
What|Removed |Added
/opt/winchester/mcore/mcore-elf/bin/mcore-elf-gcc-4.0.0 -v --save-temps
lshrdi-1.c
Using built-in specs.
Target: mcore-elf
Configured with: ../../src/gcc/gcc-4.0.0/configure --target=mcore-elf
--prefix=/opt/winchester/mcore/mcore-elf/ --enable-languages=c --with-newlib
Thread model: single
gcc
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords||wrong-code
On g++ versions 3.4.3, 3.4.4 and 4.0.0 the following code
#include set
#include vector
#include utility
#include exception
#include string
#include ostream
#include stdexcept
namespace OKlib {
namespace TestSystem
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
21:16 ---
This code is invalid, you are trying to use union_f in an inner class but
unlike Java, inner classes in
C++, you cannot access the outer class's members.
--
--- Additional Comments From dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2005-05-20 21:17 ---
A patch was submitted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01794.html
and a different one here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg02074.html
Danny
--
--- Additional Comments From o dot kullmann at swansea dot ac dot uk
2005-05-20 21:30 ---
Oh, yes, I did overlook that I had to pass also that object union_f
as parameter --- thanks for telling me! Now the code compiles again.
So it's an internal compiler error on incorrect code.
--
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
21:35 ---
I think the first of those is the best. Tested on i386-mingw32.
--
What|Removed |Added
Take the following code (which I found while reducing PR 21685):
template int
int f(void)
{
int i;
struct f1
{
int f(void){return i;}
};
}
We get:
t1.cc: In member function 'int f()::f1::f()':
t1.cc:7: error: use of %auto% variable from containing function
t1.cc:4: error: 'int i'
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.0.0 4.1.0
Known to work||3.4.0
Target Milestone|---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
21:42 ---
Confirmed, reduced testcase:
templateint
struct g
{
int operator()(int i){return i;}
};
template int i1
struct h
{
int f(void)
{
gi1 i;
struct f1
{
int f(void){return i(0);}
};
I know this goes against all the rules for filing bugs but when I supply
-save-temps, I don't get an ICE.
The code is the code from PR 21685 with one exception, the following 2 lines
are commented out (this
makes this code valid):
const value_iterator end = union_f(sets.begin(),
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
22:52 ---
Subject: Bug 19016
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-20 22:51:46
Modified files:
libgfortran:
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
22:52 ---
Fixed in 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
23:02 ---
Oh, even at -O0 -funit-at-a-time, we get this missed compiled.
There are buffer overflows somewhere:
***
mudflap violation 1 (check/write): time=1116629904.932813 ptr=0x80ce540 size=33
pc=0x45b4a8
If there is a variable declaration as the first statement after the colon at the
end of a case expression, the compiler returns a syntax error. If there any
statements between the case expression and the variable declaration then it will
not produce an error, a partial list of the statements that
--- Additional Comments From dave at boost-consulting dot com 2005-05-20
23:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Internal Compiler Error
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-20
19:59
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-20 23:20
---
(In reply to comment #0)
If there is a variable declaration as the first statement after the colon at
the
end of a case expression, the compiler returns a syntax error.
That is exactly as expected. After the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-21
00:14 ---
This was really fixed on the mainline by:
2005-01-07 David Edelsohn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/13674
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_legitimize_reload_address):
Convert non-word
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-21
00:19 ---
The work around for PR 13674 in the 3.4 branch is trying to use a FP register
as that is what the work
around says to do.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21616
hi, i'm using Debian SID experimental gcc-4.0
gcc-4.0 -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-linux
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,f95,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr
--enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls
--- Additional Comments From guptan at hotmail dot com 2005-05-21 00:28
---
Thanks Andrew.
[17:00] ngupta pinskia, yes I am trying to get an answer if PR21616 existed on
gcc-4.0 :)
[17:01] pinskia it might be worked around by optimizing it better :)
[17:01] ngupta I suspect its already
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-21
00:32 ---
This bolls down to combine not working across function calls. The correct way
to fix this would to have
a tree combiner.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
Hello. Your mail to boris cannot be delivered because that person is
no longer here. Your message appears to have been directed to the following
address(es):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, we have a new address for boris:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You should redirect your mail to this
I have a laptop with pentium M centrino 1.7 ghz cpu, 512 mb ram, suse linux
prof. 9.2 operating
system (with all possible patches installed), and gcc (GCC) 3.3.4 (pre 3.3.5
20040809).
I downloaded gcc-3.4.4 full source code from one of the mirrors specified at
gcc.gnu.org, and
extracted the
The following fails, while adding -fno-inline or -O[012345] or removing -mthumb
or reverting to 3.3.2 makes it work.
$ arm-elf-gcc -c -mthumb -Os arm-thumb-Os-inline-bug.c
arm-thumb-Os-inline-bug.c: In function `show':
arm-thumb-Os-inline-bug.c:24: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
--- Additional Comments From radford at indigita dot com 2005-05-21 02:45
---
Created an attachment (id=8941)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8941action=view)
file that triggers the bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21691
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.4.1 3.4.4
Known to work||3.3.2
There are failures on the libjava testsuites for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL: Class_1 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Class_1 execution - bytecode-native test
FAIL: Class_1 -O3 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Class_1 -O3 execution - bytecode-native test
FAIL: InvokeInterface
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21691
--- Additional Comments From radford at indigita dot com 2005-05-21 02:55
---
Possibly duplicates bug 20810.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21691
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21691
77 matches
Mail list logo
