[Bug rtl-optimization/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results

--- Comment #124 from David dot Monniaux at imag dot fr 2008-11-11 07:46 --- Vincent Lefèvre is right: the issue is quite subtle. (I should mention that Vincent is an expert in computer arithmetics, which I'm not.) As he rightly points, conformance to IEEE-754 should be evaluated for a

[Bug tree-optimization/38079] gcc segfaults when using -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=9

--- Comment #1 from David dot Monniaux at imag dot fr 2008-11-11 07:00 --- Created an attachment (id=16649) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16649&action=view) gcc -c -O3 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=9 set_str.i segfaults This code comes from GNU MP 4.2.4. -- http:

[Bug tree-optimization/38079] New: gcc segfaults when using -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=9

$ gcc -O3 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=9 -c set_str.i (lots of blah-blah) set_str.c:326: note: get vectype with 4 units of type const unsigned char set_str.c:326: note: vectype: const vector unsigned char set_str.c:326: note: set_str.c: In function ‘__gmpn_set_str’: set_str.c:54: internal compiler err

[Bug middle-end/37843] [4.4 Regression] unaligned stack in main due to tail call optimization

--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-11 06:49 --- The current patch is at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00180.html -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/15795] No way to teach operator new anything about alignment requirements

--- Comment #40 from David dot Monniaux at imag dot fr 2008-11-11 06:24 --- Yes, at least the manual should be updated to reflect this non-obvious behavior. Possible fixes for the programmer: 1) Overload operators new. new[] for a class wrapping the vector datatypes. It works as long a

[Bug target/38054] Assertion failed in change_decl_assembler_name()

--- Comment #5 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2008-11-11 06:27 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Patch at: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00321.html > That patch also fixes the FAIL of testsuite\g++.old-deja\g++.dg\other>g++ pr35504.C . Currently it fai

[Bug middle-end/31029] Fold does not fold C - a == a

--- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-11-11 06:00 --- (In reply to comment #7) > Actually we can fold C - a == a only for odd C. > But more generally a +- b == a to b == 0. > right... that works as well for this optimization. The original argument was on the range of a a

[Bug fortran/37999] Fortran shape and kind intrinsic

--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 05:28 --- Closing, not a bug any more. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/38068] Friend Functions of the Base accessing Derived Class Members

--- Comment #2 from anubhav dot saxena at wipro dot com 2008-11-11 01:48 --- (In reply to comment #1) > *** Bug 38078 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I had only logged 38068. I am not sure how and why 38078 came into picture. Also I am unable to figure out if this is co

[Bug c++/38078] Friend Functions of the Base accessing Derived Class Members

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 01:33 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38068 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/38068] Friend Functions of the Base accessing Derived Class Members

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 01:33 --- *** Bug 38078 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38068

[Bug c++/38078] New: Friend Functions of the Base accessing Derived Class Members

struct aderived; struct aderived2; struct abase{ abase() : pblc(0), prtd(0), prvt(0){} public: int pblc; protected: int prtd; private: int prvt; friend void frb(abase *pb, aderived *pd); }; struct aderived : protected abase{ void fn(abase *pb, ader

[Bug other/38077] New: strict aliasing is not controllable via the option pragma or is not documented that way

When I was helping someone with a strict aliasing issue, I noticed that since the fix for PR 37106, the option pragma cannot control strict aliasing. This is not documented at all but I think it would be a good idea to be able to control this option also. -- Summary: strict aliasing

[Bug tree-optimization/37955] [4.4 Regression] internal compiler error: in vectorizable_store, at tree-vect-transform.c:5447

--- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 01:00 --- Is this now a duplicate of PR37742, which according to the reporter still fails for the original test-case? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37955

[Bug c/37106] [4.4 Regression] ICE with -fpic or -fPIC: in mems_in_disjoint_alias_sets_p, at alias.c:278

--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 00:52 --- Blah, turning on/off strict aliasing via the option pragma would be a good idea. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37106

[Bug rtl-optimization/37397] IRA performance impact on SPEC CPU 2K/2006

--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 00:03 --- Subject: Bug 37397 Author: hjl Date: Tue Nov 11 00:02:20 2008 New Revision: 141757 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141757 Log: 2008-11-10 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR rtl-opt

[Bug rtl-optimization/37948] [4.4 Regression] IRA generates slower code

--- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 00:01 --- Subject: Bug 37948 Author: hjl Date: Mon Nov 10 23:59:57 2008 New Revision: 141756 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141756 Log: 2008-11-10 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Backport from main

[Bug tree-optimization/38072] [4.3 Regression] ICE during inlining of valid code

--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 23:57 --- Confirmed, still fails today on 4.3 branch. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug middle-end/36125] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/13450.cc: ICE in verify_gimple_expr, at tree-cfg.c:3962

--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-11-10 23:52 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/13450.cc: ICE in verify_gimple_expr, at tree-cfg.c:3962 > Can you attach preprocessed source, if it is still reproduceable? Attached

[Bug rtl-optimization/37514] [4.4 Regression] Wrong code generated for 20021120-1.c with -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer on sh4

--- Comment #5 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 23:25 --- Currently worked around with the patch in #4. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37514

[Bug rtl-optimization/37948] [4.4 Regression] IRA generates slower code

--- Comment #9 from vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 23:23 --- Subject: Bug 37948 Author: vmakarov Date: Mon Nov 10 23:21:45 2008 New Revision: 141753 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141753 Log: 2008-11-07 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug rtl-optimization/37514] [4.4 Regression] Wrong code generated for 20021120-1.c with -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer on sh4

--- Comment #4 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 23:11 --- Subject: Bug 37514 Author: kkojima Date: Mon Nov 10 23:10:10 2008 New Revision: 141752 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141752 Log: PR rtl-optimization/37514 * config/sh/sh.h (O

[Bug target/38052] [4.4 Regression] genautomata segfaults when -O2 is enabled

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target Keywords||build, wrong-c

[Bug c++/38076] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/anon5.C

In 32 bit mode the failure is: /var/tmp//ccPCZsXJ.s:44:non-relocatable subtraction expression, "__ZN12_GLOBAL__N_11c1tE" minus "L001$pb" /var/tmp//ccPCZsXJ.s:44:symbol: "__ZN12_GLOBAL__N_11c1tE" can't be undefined in a subtraction expression In 64 bit mode, the failure is Undefined symb

[Bug tree-optimization/37433] [4.4 Regression] tree check: expected function_decl, have string_cst in ccp_fold, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:1050

--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 22:39 --- (In reply to comment #10) > on arm I get > That is a target issue, please file it as a separate bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37433

[Bug c++/15795] No way to teach operator new anything about alignment requirements

--- Comment #39 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 22:33 --- *** Bug 38063 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/38063] C++ operator new returns misaligned address

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 22:33 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15795 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/38068] Friend Functions of the Base accessing Derived Class Members

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|blocker |normal http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38068

[Bug java/38075] New: Scanner(System.in) causes next*() to behave incorrectly

When the below code (see How-To-Repeat) is compiled and run, the program waits for input after initializing the Scanner. That input is then returned to the first input.next() call, and each input.next() call returns the user input given during the previous call. Environment: System: Linux hybrid

[Bug c++/36089] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] Funny rejects valid with constant integral expression

-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug middle-end/38074] New: [4.4 Regression] missed inlining since IRA merge on Core2 Duo

With gfortran 4.3.2 the functions ddx and ddy in the channel.90 polyhedron test with: gfortran -S -m64 -O3 -ffast-math -finline-limit=312 channel.f90 but not for -finline-limit=311. Since the IRA merge, this is no longer the case even if I use -finline-limit=6000. This causes a ~5% increase in t

[Bug fortran/35810] [TR 15581 / F2003] Automatic reallocation on assignment to allocatable variables

-- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirm

[Bug middle-end/38073] [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault

--- Comment #1 from mitul dot thakkar at amd dot com 2008-11-10 19:41 --- Created an attachment (id=16647) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16647&action=view) Reduced Test Case -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38073

[Bug middle-end/38073] New: [graphite] ICE: Segmentation fault

gcc -c -O3 -fgraphite-identity test_seg.c test_seg.c: In function 'test_seg': test_seg.c:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See for instructions. GDB is giving following message

[Bug tree-optimization/38072] ICE during inlining of valid code

--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 19:27 --- Still happens on the 4.3 branch as of 4.3.3 20080918. Building a new compiler. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38072

[Bug tree-optimization/38072] ICE during inlining of valid code

--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 19:20 --- Here is a better backtrace: #0 remap_ssa_name (name=0xb7d3c000, id=0xbfda005c) at /home/apinski/src/gcc-sony/gcc-4.3-clean/gcc/gcc/tree-inline.c:192 #1 0x08127db4 in copy_body_r (tp=0xb7d3dc28, walk_subtrees=0xbfd9

[Bug middle-end/37861] [4.3 Regression] Bogus array bounds warning

-- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org

[Bug middle-end/38070] ICE in compare_values_warnv

--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 18:32 --- > It might be that only number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne needs to be changed, > I looked at other uses of fold_build* in tree-ssa-loop-niter.c and quite > some others also look at least fishy (at least those generating

[Bug middle-end/38070] ICE in compare_values_warnv

--- Comment #2 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 18:08 --- Well, the invalid {LE,GT}_EXPRs trees are build right there in the patched function, which is also the one that introduces the use of sizetype at all (since the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR merge it seems, from 2007-06-15). --

[Bug middle-end/37323] [4.4 Regression] __builtin_apply failures

-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/38072] ICE on valid code.

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 17:48 --- It was ICEing in 0x002084ac in remap_ssa_name (name=0x18e9c40, id=0xb4cc) at /Users/apinski/src/local/gcc/gcc/tree-inline.c:192 -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/38070] ICE in compare_values_warnv

--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 17:46 --- I think the problem is likely in the SCEV code again. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/38072] ICE on valid code.

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 17:44 --- Works on the trunk. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Compon

[Bug c++/38072] ICE on valid code.

--- Comment #1 from c dot galambos at omniperception dot com 2008-11-10 17:39 --- Created an attachment (id=16646) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16646&action=view) Preprocessor output . -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38072

[Bug c++/38072] New: ICE on valid code.

ICE on what I believe to be valid code. I've seen this happen on all 4.3.x variants I've tired, but works fine with earlier versions gcc. The error disappears when optimisation is not used. The following is the setup I've used for the report: 'g++ -v' gives: Using built-in specs. Target: i686

[Bug middle-end/38070] New: ICE in compare_values_warnv

This is similar to PR36817, but has different reasons. % cat x.c void fail (void) { unsigned int w[5], *wi; wi = &w[2]; do { unsigned int x = wi[-2]; *wi = x; } while (++wi < w+5); } % ./gcc/cc1 -O3 -quiet x.c x.c: In function ‘fail’: x.c:2: internal compiler error: in compar

[Bug c++/38069] function pointer exception specification not checked during assignment

--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-10 17:09 --- *** Bug 38071 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38069

[Bug c++/38071] function pointer exception specification not checked during assignment

--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-10 17:09 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38069 *** -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/38071] New: function pointer exception specification not checked during assignment

According to the spec, you can't assign the value of a less-restrictive function pointer to a more-restrictive function pointer. Relevant C++ Spec section: 15.4 -3- (except.spec) == Code below taken directly from the C++ spec above. =

[Bug c++/38069] function pointer exception specification not checked during assignment

--- Comment #1 from yacwroy at gmail dot com 2008-11-10 16:35 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12255 *** -- yacwroy at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/12255] exception-specifications unchecked during assignment of pointer to function

--- Comment #5 from yacwroy at gmail dot com 2008-11-10 16:35 --- *** Bug 38069 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- yacwroy at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/37862] Parenthesised indirection alters class member access

--- Comment #5 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-11-10 16:22 --- Oops - almost forgot - the bug needs a testcase for the g++ testsuite, so I have uploaded a patch to add that as well. Cheers Nick -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37862

[Bug c++/37862] Parenthesised indirection alters class member access

--- Comment #4 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-11-10 16:22 --- Created an attachment (id=16645) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16645&action=view) Testcase for the bug -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37862

[Bug rtl-optimization/37948] [4.4 Regression] IRA generates slower code

--- Comment #8 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2008-11-10 16:12 --- H.J., thanks for finding the problem and reducing the test case. The problem could be solved by using extended register coalescing. Now IRA coalesces only move insns (-fira-coalesce). But unfortunately usage of -f

[Bug fortran/37159] RANDOM_SEED: PUT= check array size at compile time

--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 15:01 --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Admitted, it does not say SIZE = 8, because this value may be > > compiler- and system-dependent (may also be 12 for gfortran on some > > platforms), which is

[Bug middle-end/37323] [4.4 Regression] __builtin_apply failures

--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-11-10 14:54 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] __builtin_apply failures > Created an attachment (id=16639) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16639&action=view) > --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachm

[Bug middle-end/36125] [4.4 Regression] FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/13450.cc: ICE in verify_gimple_expr, at tree-cfg.c:3962

--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 14:52 --- Can you attach preprocessed source, if it is still reproduceable? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36125

[Bug c++/38069] New: function pointer exception specification not checked during assignment

According to the spec, you can't assign the value of a less-restrictive function pointer to a more-restrictive function pointer. Relevant C++ Spec section: 15.4 -3- (except.spec) == Code below taken directly from the C++ spec above. =

[Bug c++/38068] New: Friend Functions of the Base accessing Derived Class Members

struct aderived; struct aderived2; struct abase{ abase() : pblc(0), prtd(0), prvt(0){} public: int pblc; protected: int prtd; private: int prvt; friend void frb(abase *pb, aderived *pd); }; struct aderived : protected abase{ void fn(abase *pb, ader

[Bug c++/36478] [4.3/4.4 regression] warning not emitted when code expanded from macro

--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:53 --- Patch posted. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassi

[Bug middle-end/35314] [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with __builtin_setjmp and -fmudflap

--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:52 --- Fixed on the trunk. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|

[Bug c++/38021] [4.4 Regression] C++ hang for new keywords

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:50 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/37159] RANDOM_SEED: PUT= check array size at compile time

--- Comment #11 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2008-11-10 13:50 --- (In reply to comment #10) > Admitted, it does not say SIZE = 8, because this value may be > compiler- and system-dependent (may also be 12 for gfortran on some > platforms), which is why the standard pr

[Bug middle-end/35314] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] ICE with __builtin_setjmp and -fmudflap

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:49 --- Subject: Bug 35314 Author: jakub Date: Mon Nov 10 13:48:06 2008 New Revision: 141741 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141741 Log: PR middle-end/35314 * tree-mudflap.c (mf_build_ch

[Bug c++/37862] Parenthesised indirection alters class member access

--- Comment #3 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-11-10 13:49 --- Hi Guys, I have uploaded a potential patch for the problem. It fixes the testcase originally provided and does not introduce any regressions into the g++ testsuite for an i686-pc-linux-gnu toolchain. That's the good

[Bug libstdc++/38067] monetary_members.cc: 4 * call to wrong C++ delete

--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-10 13:49 --- Fixed. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Statu

[Bug libstdc++/38067] monetary_members.cc: 4 * call to wrong C++ delete

--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:48 --- Subject: Bug 38067 Author: paolo Date: Mon Nov 10 13:47:12 2008 New Revision: 141740 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141740 Log: 2008-11-10 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR libstd

[Bug c++/38021] C++ hang for new keywords

--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:43 --- Subject: Bug 38021 Author: jakub Date: Mon Nov 10 13:41:37 2008 New Revision: 141739 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141739 Log: PR c++/38021 * parser.c (cp_parser_enum_specifier

[Bug c++/37862] Parenthesised indirection alters class member access

--- Comment #2 from nickc at redhat dot com 2008-11-10 13:36 --- Created an attachment (id=16644) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16644&action=view) Allow postfix parser to pass cp_id_kind information back to the primary parser -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show

[Bug libstdc++/38067] monetary_members.cc: 4 * call to wrong C++ delete

--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-11-10 13:34 --- Confirmed, I'll fix it momentarily. Thanks. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug fortran/37159] RANDOM_SEED: PUT= check array size at compile time

--- Comment #10 from dennis dot wassel at googlemail dot com 2008-11-10 13:32 --- Subject: Re: RANDOM_SEED: PUT= check array size at compile time > The documentation says only that the size argument has to be an integer. See > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/RANDOM_005fSEED.htm

[Bug target/36133] GCC creates suboptimal ASM : Code includes unneeded TST instructions

--- Comment #9 from ams at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 13:01 --- > > This tst instruction is unneeded as the LSR is setting the flags correctly > > already. > > This is NOT correct. LSL does write to the condition codes, but not all of it. > In particular, the bit involved in the not

[Bug fortran/37159] RANDOM_SEED: PUT= check array size at compile time

--- Comment #9 from michael dot a dot richmond at nasa dot gov 2008-11-10 12:59 --- (In reply to comment #8) > If you check, the minimum size of count is 8 as returned by the size= argument > if you use it. Try this. size is intent OUT. The documentation says only that the size argumen

[Bug target/36133] GCC creates suboptimal ASM : Code includes unneeded TST instructions

--- Comment #8 from gunnar at greyhound-data dot com 2008-11-10 12:54 --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #4) > > There are two causes where GCC generates unneeded TST instructions. > > A) General arithmetic > > lsr.l #1,D0 > > tst.l d0 > > jbne ... > > > > This tst

[Bug target/36133] GCC creates suboptimal ASM : Code includes unneeded TST instructions

--- Comment #7 from ams at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 12:29 --- (In reply to comment #4) > There are two causes where GCC generates unneeded TST instructions. > A) General arithmetic > lsr.l #1,D0 > tst.l d0 > jbne ... > > This tst instruction is unneeded as the LSR is setting t

[Bug middle-end/37807] Exponential compile time with MMX builtins.

--- Comment #15 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-10 12:24 --- Fixed. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/37809] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Incorrect code with MMX right shift __builtin_ia32_psradi

--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-10 12:24 --- Fixed everywhere. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/37809] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Incorrect code with MMX right shift __builtin_ia32_psradi

--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 12:22 --- Subject: Bug 37809 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 10 12:20:55 2008 New Revision: 141737 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141737 Log: Backport from mainline: 2008-11-10 Ralph Loader

[Bug middle-end/37807] Exponential compile time with MMX builtins.

--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 12:22 --- Subject: Bug 37807 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 10 12:20:55 2008 New Revision: 141737 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141737 Log: Backport from mainline: 2008-11-10 Ralph Loader

[Bug bootstrap/33304] Bootstrap failure on solaris2 using cc due to empty macro arguments

--- Comment #4 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 12:10 --- Subject: Bug 33304 Author: aph Date: Mon Nov 10 12:08:55 2008 New Revision: 141735 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141735 Log: 2008-11-10 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Backport from

[Bug c++/38067] New: monetary_members.cc: 4 * call to wrong C++ delete

I just had a look at some of the source code of the compiler gcc version 4.4.0 snapshot 20081107. $ egrep "new|delete" libstdc++-v3/config/locale/gnu/monetary_members.cc | fgrep __wcs_ps __wcs_ps = new wchar_t[__len]; delete __wcs_ps; __wcs_ps = ne

[Bug middle-end/37809] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Incorrect code with MMX right shift __builtin_ia32_psradi

--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 10:45 --- Subject: Bug 37809 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 10 10:43:35 2008 New Revision: 141734 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141734 Log: PR middle-end/37807 PR middle-end/37809 * c

[Bug middle-end/37807] Exponential compile time with MMX builtins.

--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 10:45 --- Subject: Bug 37807 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 10 10:43:35 2008 New Revision: 141734 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141734 Log: PR middle-end/37807 PR middle-end/37809 *

[Bug c++/36478] [4.3/4.4 regression] warning not emitted when code expanded from macro

--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 10:15 --- 2 locations won't help you either. void foo () { #define EMPTY while (0)EMPTY; } won't warn when compiled with g++ -Wempty-body -O2, but will with g++ -Wempty-body -O2 -save-temps (i.e. ccache etc.). I think it is u

[Bug middle-end/37861] [4.3 Regression] Bogus array bounds warning

--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 10:06 --- The previous patch resulted into a regression on m32c-unknown-elf and thus I prepared a less intrusive one below. See also: * http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/msg00058.html and * http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/

[Bug middle-end/37807] Exponential compile time with MMX builtins.

--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 09:09 --- Subject: Bug 37807 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 10 09:08:15 2008 New Revision: 141732 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141732 Log: PR middle-end/37807 PR middle-end/37809 *

[Bug middle-end/37809] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] Incorrect code with MMX right shift __builtin_ia32_psradi

--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-10 09:09 --- Subject: Bug 37809 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 10 09:08:15 2008 New Revision: 141732 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141732 Log: PR middle-end/37807 PR middle-end/37809 * c