--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 08:28 ---
Andrew, could you please try to reduce the test case for this bug with your
tools?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gcc 4.1 can compile the attached source without any problems, but gcc-4.2
(at -O) and trunk (20070916, at -O2) ICE.
paer% gcc-4.2 -c -O s_texfilter.i
swrast/s_texfilter.c: In function âsample_lambda_2dâ:
swrast/s_texfilter.c:1420: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 2621 1258
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-14 08:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=14552)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14552action=view)
Reduced testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34091
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-14 08:52 ---
Forgot to say that this is Debian bug http://bugs.debian.org/451047
Just for the reference.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34091
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-11-14 08:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=14551)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14551action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34091
--- Comment #27 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 10:07
---
http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/c++bench/random/ tracks this testcase (on x86_64
that is).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 10:00 ---
Is this still a problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30088
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 09:55 ---
Testing a fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 09:56 ---
Could someone test this with GCC 4.3, and report the results here?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 10:01 ---
I haven't been able to reproduce this for a while. Probably got fixed
somewhere along the way.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 10:21 ---
The FUNCTION_VALUE back end hook gets invoked with an error mark node - weird.
That shouldn't happen I think.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #60 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 10:37 ---
(In reply to comment #59)
2007-11-13 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jerry,
I see that you have spent much more time diddling with your regex than I have!
Thanks
Paul
--
--- Comment #21 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-14 11:04 ---
I am not following you. Why do both executions abort? We don't want to find
two different wrong-code bugs, but to compare one correct and one wrong
execution. Also, it would be okay to have no output as long as we can
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-11-14 11:14 ---
and the c++ testcase with __builtin_memcpy:
template int N
unsigned char memcpy_byte( unsigned long long x )
{
unsigned char rv;
__builtin_memcpy( rv, N + reinterpret_cast unsigned char* ( x ),
sizeof( rv
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-11-14 12:05 ---
Does the bug show up if you do something like this?
Yes, indeed! Otherwise I would not have noticed the bug (one pitfall of the
testsuite is that you know that a test has failed, but you don't kseldom know
why). I
--- Comment #28 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 12:04 ---
Then I suggest we close this bug report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #23 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-14 12:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=14553)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14553action=view)
patch to test
I had this alternative patch to fix the addr-sel-1.c failure on
i686-pc-linux-gnu. Could you check if it
--- Comment #37 from victork at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 12:22
---
Fixed in revision 130138.
--
victork at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-11-14 12:50 ---
I had this alternative patch to fix the addr-sel-1.c failure on
i686-pc-linux-gnu. Could you check if it fixes this bug too?
Yes, it does. Thanks a lot for the quick fix.
--
--- Comment #29 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2007-11-14 12:40
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines
It appears to me from the raw logs at
http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/c++bench/random/
that all runs except for the -O0 fail with an out-of-memory
--- Comment #13 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2007-11-14 13:27
---
(In reply to comment #10)
I do not have access to std::basic_ios from MyStream. Solution here?
Yes you do. The warning can be prevented by initialising the virtual base:
MyStream() : std::ios(),
--- Comment #25 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-11-14
13:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] gfortran.dg/char_cshift_2.f90
fails with -O3 -funroll-loops fails on Intel Darwin
Yes, it does. Thanks a lot for the quick fix.
Note that even if the patch is
--- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 13:13
---
Right - the tester is limited to using 1GB of ram artificially. I probably
need
to fix the setup to report errors instead of sofar numbers in the oom cases.
--
--- Comment #31 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2007-11-14 13:37
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines
To answer Steven's original question, here is a run with
euler-20% /pkgs/gcc-mainline/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2007-11-14 13:38
---
Isn't this warning simply bogus? In other contexts if a default constructor is
available it will be used without warning, whether explicitly used or not.
e.g.
non-virtual bases in constructor initializer lists
--- Comment #32 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 14:08
---
So, re-confirmed then.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Consider the following module:
module fred
implicit none
private
integer,parameter::i=1
integer::j
end module fred
With gcc version 4.3.0 20071109 (experimental) (GCC), no warnings are issued:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Explore]$ gfortran -Wall -Wextra -c fred.f90
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Explore]$
Normally
(I realize this is a dup)
struct X { int i; int j; };
#define FOO struct X
#define FOO10(x) FOO x ## 0; FOO x ## 1; FOO x ## 2; FOO x ## 3; FOO x ## 4;
FOO x ## 5; FOO x ## 6; FOO x ## 7; FOO x ## 8; FOO x ## 9;
#define FOO100(x) FOO10(x ## 0) FOO10(x ## 1) FOO10(x ## 2) FOO10(x ## 3)
FOO10(x ##
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-11-14
15:57 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands,
at postreload.c:392
gcc 4.1 can compile the attached source without any problems, but gcc-4.2
(at -O) and trunk (20070916, at
--- Comment #33 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 16:57
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines
On 14 Nov 2007 13:37:54 -, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #31 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 18:05
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 17:51 ---
The submitter's testcase fails on powerpc-linux with the current 4.1 and 4.2
branches but has passed on mainline for several months. In comment #9 I said
that results seemed to be intermittent; if it would be
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 18:35 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
The submitter's testcase fails on powerpc-linux with the current 4.1 and 4.2
branches but has passed on mainline for several months. In comment #9 I said
that results seemed to be
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 18:39 ---
It would be better if you could include a preprocessed testcase
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#detailed).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2007-11-14 19:06
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines
PS: Should the Reported against field in bugzilla be changed to
4.3.0?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #34 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2007-11-14 19:04
---
Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:57 AM, dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote:
Memory usage peaked at 10.3GB (just from monitoring top).
Any idea where?
Not
The following program should fail to link, since anonymous::B::x is declared
but not defined. However, the program compiles, links, and runs with gcc 4.2.1
and with a relatively recent 4.3 snapshot.
This same program fails to build under gcc 4.1 and earlier, icc 8.1, and Comeau
test drive.
(update_bb_profile_for_threading): Avoid the division for the
scaling if the old probability is greater than the new base.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20071114-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cfg.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 19:33 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 19:21 ---
IIRC this is not required to be diagnostic anyways. What is happening is that
we now mark the static data member as local to the TU which forces it to be
outputted.
This is only an issue in an anonymous namespace.
--- Comment #4 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 19:10 ---
For f(), combine wants a pattern to match
(set (reg:DI 76)
(sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (plus:DI (subreg:DI (mult:SI (reg:SI 16 $16 [ x
])
(const_int 4 [0x4])) 0)
(reg:DI 17
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 19:08
---
Should be OK now.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 19:22 ---
What happens if you add -fno-strict-aliasing ? And maybe even try with
warnings turned on.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34090
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 19:32 ---
Subject: Bug 34088
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 14 19:32:45 2007
New Revision: 130187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130187
Log:
PR middle-end/34088
* tree-ssa.c
I tried to figure out what is going on here, but it's getting
to complicated in the libstdc++ innards for me to spot the problem.
In any case, this little program
---
#include vector
#include algorithm
struct S
{
unsigned int line;
std::vectordouble entries;
bool
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 20:28 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Andrew, could you please try to reduce the test case for this bug with your
tools?
last time I tried, it was just bogus and right now I don't have time to deal
with it as I am way busy
--- Comment #9 from wilson at tuliptree dot org 2007-11-14 20:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in
reload_cse_simplify_operands (insn does not satisfy its constraints)
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 08:29 +, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
--- Comment #8 from tbm at cyrius
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 20:40
---
I didn't see a patch attached to the bug report, and I was behind on my
gcc-patches reading again.
It is linked to in the 'Patch URL' field.
I will reply there.
Thanks in advance.
--
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 20:54
---
Fixed by the patch for PR34058 et al.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from ed at catmur dot co dot uk 2007-11-14 21:16 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I don't see why this is different from the case where the header file cannot
be
opened.
It isn't, I guess - is there a bug about that?
And in that case, as Tom says, it seems like there
--- Comment #2 from sam at rfc1149 dot net 2007-11-14 22:15 ---
Fixed by commit 130180
--
sam at rfc1149 dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
The random and the rand functions generates the same set of random numbers,
every time the code is executed. Though it would generate 2 different random
numbers if the function was called two times in a same code, if the code is
compiled and executed again, it generates the same set of random
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 22:28 ---
You forgot to seed the random number generator. This is not a bug in GCC no
matter which you look at it, the random function is not part of GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from rsanghavi at gmail dot com 2007-11-14 22:32 ---
Andrew,
Thanks for answering my question.
But, even if you seed it, the result is the same unless you seed it with a
random number. I use (time(0) + random number) as seed in my code.
I am unaware and so asking you, if
--- Comment #11 from wilson at tuliptree dot org 2007-11-14 21:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] ICE in
reload_cse_simplify_operands (insn does not satisfy its constraints)
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 20:40 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
It is linked to in the
--- Comment #16 from tom_francen at midtechcorp dot com 2007-11-14 23:16
---
i'm receiving a very similar error under solaris 2.10, binutils and core utils
(latest versions), gnu make, etc. gcc 4.1.2 built fine ... gcc 4.2.1 and 4.2.2
fail with the same error below ...
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 23:21
---
Subject: Bug 33923
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:21:15 2007
New Revision: 130188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130188
Log:
PR target/33923
* config/ia64/ia64.h
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 23:04
---
*** Bug 34097 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
i'm on solaris 2.10, attempting to build gcc versions 4.2.2 (also failed
w/4.2.1). i've SUCCESSFULLY built 4.1.2, 3.4.6, and other versions.
i complete through 5 hours of the build process (creating nearly 7mb of
nohup.out output) before erroring with what follows belows.
my configure statement
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 23:04 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21206 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 23:24
---
Works with -O3 --param max-partial-antic-length=0 now.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from wilson at tuliptree dot org 2007-11-14 23:46 ---
Subject: Re: gcj seems not to pass the option to ld
correctly
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 23:16 +, tom_francen at midtechcorp dot com
wrote:
i'm receiving a very similar error under solaris 2.10, binutils and
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20071114 (experimental) [trunk revision 130173] (GCC)
# gdb /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc/gnat1
GNU gdb 6.6
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change
--- Comment #3 from wilson at specifix dot com 2007-11-15 01:41 ---
Subject: Re: Random number generates the same set of numbers
rsanghavi at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #2 from rsanghavi at gmail dot com 2007-11-14 22:32 ---
But, even if you seed it, the result is the
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-11-15 02:18 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What happens if you add -fno-strict-aliasing ?
That's it!
And maybe even try with
warnings turned on.
-Wall doesn't lead to any warnings.
I've been compiling the boost_python runtime library
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-11-15 04:26 ---
So done.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-11-15 04:33 ---
Confirmed with 2.95 and 4.2.1.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-11-15 04:38 ---
Confirmed, a regression introduced in 4.0.x.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-11-15 04:40 ---
It may also be that the compiler sees that the store is dead and
removes it. Did you check whether the store appears in the assembler
output?
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-11-15 04:35 ---
Confirmed with gcc 2.95 and 4.2.1.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-11-15
05:00 ---
Subject: Re: xgcc: Internal error: Segmentation fault (program gnat1)
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Platform:
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine)
Linux idle.lbl.gov 2.6.22.9-91.fc7 #1 SMP Thu Sep 27 20:47:39 EDT 2007 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
% g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /net/rosie/scratch2/rwgk/gcc_trunk/configure
The following invalid testcase triggers an ICE on mainline:
templatetypename T struct A
{
typedef typename T::X Y __attribute__((vector_size(8)));
};
Aint a;
bug.cc: In
The following invalid testcase triggers an ICE on mainline:
templatetypename struct A {};
templatetypename...T void foo(AT, AT);
templatetypename...T void foo(AT, AT) {}
75 matches
Mail list logo
