--- Comment #10 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 07:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=10112)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10112&action=view)
proposed patch
The root problem is that get_aligned_mem and aligned_memory_operand
didn't match up. Adding a bit
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 06:41
---
I will be looking at this sometime soon. If this is high priority I will shift
from DATE and TIME intrinsics to this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24459
--- Comment #21 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 06:39 ---
I'm no longer actively working on this.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 06:38
---
Fixed in 4.1
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #15 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 06:32 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 06:31 ---
Subject: Bug 21518
Author: rth
Date: Wed Nov 2 06:31:48 2005
New Revision: 106378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106378
Log:
PR 21518
* loop.c (scan_loop): Do not propagate comp
--- Comment #2 from hanzac at gmail dot com 2005-11-02 06:27 ---
I made a clean compilation, here is the result, even the existing assembler
code can't pass. (gcc/config/arm/lib1funcs.asm)
/cygdrive/e/gcc-4.1-20051029/host-i686-pc-mingw32/gcc/xgcc
-B/cygdrive/e/gcc-4.1-20051029/host-i68
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 04:41 ---
The only thing I can say for this one, is report it to SGI if they are still
supporting the compiler, otherwise use an older GCC (like 3.4.4) to bootstrap
first with and then bootstrap 4.0.2 with that GCC.
But other
Machine is an 8 processor Origin 2200 w/ 400MHz r12ks
IRIX was freshly installed two days ago.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] uname -a -R
IRIX64 origin 6.5 6.5.23f 01080747 IP27
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc -version
MIPSpro Compilers: Version 7.4.2m
binutils is 2.16.1
config is:
../gcc-4.0.2/configure --with-gn
--- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 03:09 ---
Test-case now corrected.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 03:07 ---
Though the testsuite is "fixed", I'm marking this as WAITING, because I'd like
the issue in comment #4 and at the patch linked from comment #5 resolved.
Nathan?
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #9 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 03:02 ---
Subject: Bug 18338
Author: hp
Date: Wed Nov 2 03:02:00 2005
New Revision: 106377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106377
Log:
PR target/18338
* gcc.dg/bitfld-4.c, g++.dg/abi/bitfiel
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:52 ---
Subject: Bug 23304
Author: hp
Date: Wed Nov 2 02:52:30 2005
New Revision: 106376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106376
Log:
PR testsuite/23304
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_eff
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|dnovillo at redhat dot com |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #17 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:32
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in
do_simple_structure_copy with some C++ code
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 21:29 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 02:04 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #16 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in
do_simple_structure_copy with some C++ code
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 02:04 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot
--- Comment #13 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:12 ---
Subject: Bug 21518
Author: rth
Date: Wed Nov 2 02:12:32 2005
New Revision: 106373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106373
Log:
PR 21518
* loop.c (scan_loop): Do not propagate comp
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:08 ---
Friend does not inject anything.
This is invalid code.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:07
---
Supending as there was ABI work that needed to be done to fix this.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
template
struct foo {
template
friend
foo f1(U u) {}
template
friend
foo f2(U u) {}
};
int main () {
bool b;
f1(b);
f2(b);
}
gets you:
~/ootbc/members/src$ g++ foo.cc
foo.cc: In function `int main()':
foo.cc:13: error: `f1' undeclared (first use th
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 02:04
---
Showstopper: we're falling over on popular packages on a primary architecture.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 01:53 ---
I don't think this is valid C++ (at least C++98).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24629
Fails on:
gcc (GCC) 3.3.4 (Mandrakelinux 10.1 3.3.4-2mdk)
Linux 2.6.8.1-12mdk #1 i686 Athlon XP GNU/Linux
and
g++ (GCC) 3.4.0
SunOS 5.9 Generic_112233-12 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-i2
The following fails to compile:
template
class Foo {
// The "friend" declaration below causes fialure
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 01:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=8456)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8456&action=view) [edit]
> Dave Korn's patch to add a -Wno-eof-newline option
Dave,
This seems like the
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 01:21 ---
This works on the mainline at least.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
template
void foo(T& t) {}
template
void foo(const T& t) {}
template
void bar(T& t) {}
template
void bar(const T& t) {}
int main() {
int i;
const int j = 0;
foo(i);
foo(j);
bar(i);
bar(j);
}
gets you
foo.cc: In function `int main()':
foo.cc:17: error: call of overloa
--- Comment #8 from jean-marc dot valin at usherbrooke dot ca 2005-11-02
01:07 ---
OK, I'm not sure whether it's the same bug but when compiling the following
code with
% gcc-4.1-20051029 -O2 -ftree-loop-linear -c vq.c
int vq_index(float *in, const float *codebook, int len, int entrie
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 01:07 ---
Fixed then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAIT
--- Comment #5 from jean-marc dot valin at usherbrooke dot ca 2005-11-02
01:04 ---
> It is either this bug or PR 24309.
I'm not sure. This bug happens even at -O2, while 24309 needs -O3. Both are
different files in Speex though. Wouldn't it be worth adding Speex to the list
of software
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2005-11-02 00:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=10111)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10111&action=view)
Another test case for the same sort of problem
This is another test case for the same sort of problem. When compiled with
--- Comment #5 from jean-marc dot valin at usherbrooke dot ca 2005-11-02
00:57 ---
Tried it with gcc-4.1-20051029 and the problem's gone (well, this one at
least).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24601
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 00:55
---
Miscompilation of a popular package on a major architecture; showstopper.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 00:52
---
Showstopper; bootstrap failure on primary target.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 00:20 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems like it is a regression in a case I have:
It is either this bug or PR 24309.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23820
--- Comment #3 from jean-marc dot valin at usherbrooke dot ca 2005-11-02
00:12 ---
Forgot to include the code. This is a function from the Speex coded:
int vq_index(float *in, const float *codebook, int len, int entries)
{
int i,j;
float min_dist=0;
int best_index=0;
for (i
--- Comment #2 from jean-marc dot valin at usherbrooke dot ca 2005-11-02
00:09 ---
It seems like it is a regression in a case I have:
% gcc -O2 -ftree-loop-linear -c vq.c
vq.c: In function vq_index:
vq.c:2: internal compiler error: in lambda_loopnest_to_gcc_loopnest, at
lambda-code.c
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-02 00:00 ---
I'm going to implement this in the v7-branch.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 00:00 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I've just had a look at gdb PR 2024 and disagree with the comment "backtrace
> fails when function ends with call to abort". The following code also ehibits
> the problem noted here.
Well b
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:58
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> With binary search, I've found that the failure started after the patch:
That would mean it was a latent bug.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #7 from kev dot gilbert at cdu dot edu dot au 2005-11-01 23:55
---
I've just had a look at gdb PR 2024 and disagree with the comment "backtrace
fails when function ends with call to abort". The following code also ehibits
the problem noted here.
==
#include
#inclu
--- Comment #10 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:55
---
With binary search, I've found that the failure started after the patch:
2005-09-18 Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* calls.c (flags_from_decl_or_type): Do not set ECF_LIBCALL_BLOCK.
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:51 ---
I believe the problem originated here:
2003-07-29 Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR preprocessor/11569
PR preprocessor/11649
* Makefile.in (LIBCPP_DEPS): Add HASHTAB_H.
* cppfiles.c
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24601
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:34 ---
GCC 3.3.5 for powerpc-linux compiles with appropriate warnings.
GCC 3.4.* for powerpc64-linux compiles as expected for -m64 but ICEs in
extract_insn, at recog.c:2083 for -m32
GCC 4.0.* for powerpc64-linux segfaults for
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:34 ---
Eliminating unnecessary statements:
Deleting : SFT.1_10 = PHI ;
Deleting : work.Ul_i.Xl_ui = 0;
Deleting : work.Ul_i.Xl_ui = 0;
Deleting : work.Ul_f.Xl_uf = D.1302_36;
Deleting : work.Ul_f.Xl_uf = D.1302_44;
No
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:32 ---
wtf:
- # SFT.1_22 = V_MUST_DEF ;
+ # SFT.1_22 = V_MUST_DEF ;
work.Ul_i.Xl_ui = D.1298_21;
...
- # SFT.1_10 = PHI ;
That is just wrong. DCE is doing something wrong, very wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:22 ---
Here is a little cleaned up testcase without any do {} while(0);:
extern void abort (void) __attribute__ ((noreturn));
typedef unsigned int u_int32;
typedef struct {
union {u_int32 Xl_ui;} Ul_i;
union {u_int32 X
--- Comment #6 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:22 ---
I filed this as gdb PR 2024 in order to get a gdb opinion.
--
wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:12 ---
Note this is union related as if I remove the unions, it works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24627
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|i686-gnu-linux |
GCC target triplet||i686-gnu-linux
Ta
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:09 ---
Mark, this is a new wrong-code bug.
Could you look at it and set a priority please.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:09 ---
Most likely aliasing related.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:08 ---
-fno-tree-loop-im fixes it too, fwiw.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from mueller at kde dot org 2005-11-01 23:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=10110)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10110&action=view)
testcase
-O1 or higher exposes the bug.
-fno-tree-dce or undoing commit 101841 fixes it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
xntp is miscompiled since SVN revision 101841.
will attach testcase in a minute
--
Summary: [4.1 Regression] xntp miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: midd
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 23:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=10109)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10109&action=view)
reduced testcase
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24626
We fail to compile a number of packages like
/usr/lib/gcc/hppa-suse-linux/4.1.0/cc1 -fpreprocessed db.i -quiet -dumpbase
db.c -auxbase-strip .libs/db.o -O2 -Wall -version -fmessage-length=0
-fno-strict-aliasing -fPIC -o db.s
../dist/../db/db.c:385: error: wrong amount of branch edges after condit
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24615
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24620
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24621
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24623
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24624
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:46 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:37 ---
The mainline issue looks like PR 23427.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:34 ---
On the mainline on x86_64 I get:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.0 20051031 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:
--- Comment #16 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
2005-11-01 22:31 ---
Subject: Re: Really, really, horrible IO performance
jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi wrote:
> It depends on what you consider "really, really horrible IO performance". ;-)
> Getting rid of m
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:29 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Sir, it's my first report here, and I see the code first time. I hope that
> both
> comments #3 and #4 are not for me. Or am I mistaken?
They were the person who was written the code.
>
--- Comment #14 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 22:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Slowdown of the
bresenham line drawing by roughly 20%
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 04:36 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
> --- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:22
---
> Maybe I am missing something, somewhere, what does the missing DECL_PACKED do?
Advertise that the field is bit-packed?
> Do you have a simple compile time testcase which fails with 4.1.0 but passes
> with 4.0?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24599
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:17
---
Note that the patch is in the suse compiler since three weeks now without a
problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23109
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:15 ---
Whoops, they're
/usr/lib/gcc/s390-suse-linux/4.1.0/cc1 -fpreprocessed rsawrapr.i -quiet
-dumpbase rsawrapr.c -m31 -mesa -march=g5 -ansi -auxbase-strip
Linux2.6_s390_glibc_PTH_OPT.OBJ/rsawrapr.o -O2 -Os -Wall -Wall -
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:15
---
> Regardless of *where* getcontext() should be recognized, it's clear that the
> compiler should be aware that it has special behavior.
All right, I'll try to do something along these lines.
--
ebotcazou a
--- Comment #4 from sumesh dot uk at gmail dot com 2005-11-01 22:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=10108)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10108&action=view)
Assembly output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24603
--- Comment #3 from sumesh dot uk at gmail dot com 2005-11-01 22:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=10107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10107&action=view)
Preprocessed source file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24603
--- Comment #15 from jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi 2005-11-01 22:09 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > The patch from #12 has been committed to mainline.
>
> So should this bug be closed?
>
It depends on what you consider "really, really horrible IO performa
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:00
---
Seems to happen a lot on hppa-linux here. 19 packages fail to build due to
this. Do you need another testcase?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 22:00 ---
It is a showstopper, but a patch has been ready for months... I admit the
patch is non-trivial, but the testcases are comprehensive.
Maybe it's best to wait until the branch and backport it a week later. But I
don
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:56 ---
Fixed.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:56
---
What command line options? I cannot reproduce an ICE with
the usual sets of options ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24615
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:55 ---
Subject: Bug 24008
Author: tobi
Date: Tue Nov 1 21:55:02 2005
New Revision: 106358
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106358
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/24008
* decl.c (gfc_match_entry
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:54
---
Created an attachment (id=10106)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10106&action=view)
Possible fix (not yet tested)
This patch is a possible fix to the problem;
it works by using force_operand to
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:53
---
This is a bug in the old loop optimizer introduced by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00690.html
The problem with this patch is that it assumes
gen_move_insn where the source is a PLUS representing
a
--- Comment #7 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:51
---
With this bug fixed on both mainline and 4.0, I declare this PR fixed
--
eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:50
---
Subject: Bug 24245
Author: eedelman
Date: Tue Nov 1 21:50:26 2005
New Revision: 106355
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106355
Log:
fortran/
2005-11-01 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=10105)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10105&action=view)
reduced testcase
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24624
We ICE compiling the linux kernel.
/usr/lib64/gcc/s390x-suse-linux/4.1.0/cc1 -fpreprocessed inetpeer.i -quiet
-dumpbase inetpeer.c -m64 -mbackchain -msoft-float -march=z900 -mpacked-stack
-mstack-size=8192 -mstack-guard=256 -mwarn-dynamicstack -mwarn-framesize=256
-mzarch -auxbase-strip net/ipv4/.
--- Comment #5 from eedelman at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:40
---
Subject: Bug 24245
Author: eedelman
Date: Tue Nov 1 21:40:06 2005
New Revision: 106353
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106353
Log:
fortran/
2005-11-01 Erik Edelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:36 ---
Actually, the .NEQV. case would be easily fixed, as there's a TRUTH_XOR_EXPR in
the middleend. On the other hand .EQV. would require adding some special case
logic to gfc_conv_expr_op (admittedly, not difficult logic).
--- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:30 ---
I'd say we don't care. Results with other compilers:
pgf90:
0 F F F
1 T F F
2 F F F
3 T F F
4 F F F
ifort:
0 F F F
1 T T
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:24 ---
*** Bug 23460 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:24 ---
This is really the same as PR 20811: we don't take the (original) location of
the source file into account.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20811 ***
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #26 from bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:23
---
Okay, taking this. If you ever want to make SPE constants more optimized, be
careful about this bug though! ;-)
--
bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Adde
--- Comment #14 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:22 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The patch from #12 has been committed to mainline.
So should this bug be closed?
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:21 ---
Fixed if I read Janne's measurements correctly, please reopen if I'm wrong.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:18 ---
Ugh, I completely forgot about this one. I'll try to look into this later this
week.
--
tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #25 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:16 ---
Bonzini:
Perhaps both approaches would be even better. We definitely should handle the
transformed vector, because theoretically it's still easy to generate. And
adding the extra check you mention would be icing on
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
