--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:31 ---
Subject: Bug 22552
Author: domob
Date: Sun Dec 27 09:30:57 2009
New Revision: 155479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155479
Log:
2009-12-27 Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoud...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:33 ---
Implemented on trunk with (basically) the patch attached.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 09:34 ---
Will work on this, as Tobias suggested the warning could depend on -Wsurprising
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 11:37 ---
The correct fix is potentially a version of the fix for PR40133 / PR40134 for
arm-linux-gnueabi. Looking at this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42503
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 11:38 ---
One more observation: The Fortran test case works, with return as well as goto,
giving the correct error message, if one removes the 'if' statement:
subroutine sub
!$omp critical
return
!$omp end
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 11:59
---
Yes, unless Matthias has a good explanation and fix for what's going on, those
changes should be immediately reverted, I will do that anyway in 3-4 days max.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
I get an ICE when compiling this file using this command (file to be attached.)
C:\g++ -c -Wreturn-type -fno-strict-aliasing -O2 -frtti -fexceptions
-mthreads -o RenderMenuList.o RenderMenuList.ii
rendering/RenderMenuList.cpp: In member function
'WebCore::RenderMenuList::contr
olClipRect(int,
--- Comment #1 from jarrod dot chesney at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 12:15
---
Created an attachment (id=19396)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19396action=view)
The preprocessed file that causes the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42515
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 12:18
---
Note, however, that something is definitely wrong in the analysis: PR40133 and
PR40134 have been fixed **only in mainline**, thus per se those changes cannot
be involved in a breakage involving 4_4-branch. As
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 12:29
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42507 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 12:29
---
*** Bug 42515 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42507
--- Comment #2 from jarrod dot chesney at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 12:33
---
Created an attachment (id=19397)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19397action=view)
The preprocessed file that causes the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42507
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 12:53 ---
Interestingly, the test case also works when using an 'if ... then ... end if'
instead of a simple 'if':
subroutine sub
integer :: nRead
!$omp critical
if (nRead3) then
goto 100
end if
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 13:05 ---
The reason for the failure of comment #0 and #4 is that these cases run into
the following optimization in gimplify_cond_expr (gimplify.c):
if (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1) != NULL
TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (expr,
--- Comment #27 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-12-27 13:37 ---
Hi,
Is the following page up to date?
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-12-27 13:59 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Note, however, that something is definitely wrong in the analysis: PR40133 and
PR40134 have been fixed **only in mainline**, thus per se those changes cannot
be involved in a breakage
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-27 14:41
---
Thus you mean only 40134 is involved. Because 40133 *assumes* that on the
relevant linux targets there are no surprises with shared vs static libgcc.
In general, I want to make sure nothing changes in the
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 14:43
---
It may be caused by revision 147716:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00693.html
Same trigger as the other so the same partial reversion works:
Index: tree-scalar-evolution.c
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 15:57 ---
Here is a patch which fixes the ICE, and gives the correct error messages:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans.c (revision 155304)
+++
When compiling the following function for a coldfire target, such as mcf5249:
(using the following command line m68k-elf-gcc hswap.c -mcpu=5249 -S -O2)
unsigned hswap(unsigned x)
{
return (x 16) | (x 16);
}
gcc produces:
hswap:
link.w %fp,#0
move.l 8(%fp),%d1
move.l
--- Comment #1 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2009-12-27 17:19 ---
This is part of the rotlsi3 pattern which is disabled for coldfire since it
does not have rotate insns.
--
schwab at linux-m68k dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Consider this simple test case:
use omp_lib
implicit none
integer :: i
!$omp parallel do
do i=1,10
call sub(i)
end do
!$omp end parallel do
contains
subroutine sub (n)
integer :: n
print '(A,i3,A,i3)',loop =,n, | thread =,omp_get_thread_num()
call sleep(1)
end subroutine
end
--- Comment #28 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-12-27 18:33
---
Subject: Re: stdint.h-related issues (C99 issues)
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, laurent at guerby dot net wrote:
Is the following page up to date?
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
The table appears to be up to
--- Comment #29 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-12-27 18:37
---
Subject: Re: stdint.h-related issues (C99 issues)
Actually, the Broken marker for complex numbers support should now be
Done, as per what I said in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00460.html.
--
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 18:39 ---
An easy way to fix this is to simply disable the recursion check if -fopenmp is
given:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
--- Comment #14 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 18:53
---
On Linux/x86-64, revision 155479 gave:
==25359== Invalid read of size 8
==25359==at 0xC714EE: lst_interchange_select_inner
(graphite-interchange.c:708)
==25359==by 0xC714DC: lst_interchange_select_inner
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 18:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42178 ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 18:54
---
*** Bug 42510 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42178
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 19:36 ---
It is caused by revision 143502:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-01/msg00515.html
and revision 144314:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-02/msg00481.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #2 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 20:05
---
Thanks for the bug report. I've posted a proposed patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg01142.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42516
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 20:58 ---
Gcc 4.3.4 gave
pr41344.f: In function âxrotateâ:
pr41344.f:10: error: invalid exit from OpenMP structured block
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 21:32 ---
This is caused by revision 147995:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00974.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 21:34 ---
This is caused by revision 147995:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00974.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
While attempting to compile a-direct.adb the build fails with
/Users/simon/gcc-build/./gcc/xgcc -B/Users/simon/gcc-build/./gcc/
-B/opt/gcc-4.4.2-x86_64/x86_64-apple-darwin10.2.0/bin/
-B/opt/gcc-4.4.2-x86_64/x86_64-apple-darwin10.2.0/lib/ -isystem
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 22:40 ---
Subject: Bug 42231
Author: jamborm
Date: Sun Dec 27 22:39:58 2009
New Revision: 155481
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155481
Log:
2009-12-27 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-27 23:57 ---
It is caused by tuples merge:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-07/msg00919.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41344
--- Comment #7 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-12-28 00:46 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I believe it's the *absence* of the PR40134 fix on 4_4-branch that's causing
the backport of __sync_synchronize() support to regress. I'm currently testing
4.4-20091215 with relevant bits of
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-28 01:09 ---
The omplower pass turns
---
#pragma omp parallel private(ix) private(ndfl)
{
ix = 0;
{
integer(kind=4) D.1393;
D.1393 = dfm.ndfl;
#pragma omp for private(i)
for (i
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 01:41 ---
Subject: Bug 42231
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 28 01:41:07 2009
New Revision: 155485
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155485
Log:
2009-12-27 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 01:45
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #9 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2009-12-28 02:07 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Feedback not forthcoming.
Will try again as soon as I can build latest SVN.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35421
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-28 02:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=19398)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19398action=view)
A patch
Does this patch make any senses?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41344
43 matches
Mail list logo
