http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #14 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques
2011-07-20 07:09:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 24796
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24796
full testcase source with required files from Crypto++ 5.6.1 and build command
the (slight
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45930
Christian Volkmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Formatted namelist reads of arrays
don't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-07-20 08:44:33 UTC ---
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, grokbrsm at free dot fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
>
> --- Comment #12 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques
> 2011-07-19 16:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49792
Summary: OpenMP workshare: Wrong result with array assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #17 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques
2011-07-20 10:09:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Confirmed. Works with -O0, fails with -O[12] at least. Still fails on the
> 4.6 branch.
>
> Compiling salsa.cpp with -O1 is enough to trigger t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49793
Summary: Narrowing conversion from int to double with
-std=c++0x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49793
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49794
Summary: [4.7 regression] Solaris 10/x86 bootstrap broken by
C++ build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
Summary: vectorization of conditional code happens only on
local variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-07-20
12:00:32 UTC ---
Interesting. Then I would be curious to know what other respected compilers vs
OpenMP do in this area, eg, Intel..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-07-20 12:32:21 UTC ---
my actual code looks more like this
void loop() {
for (int i=0; i!=N; ++i) {
d[i]=a[i]+b[i];
if (c[i]<0) d[i] = -d[i];
}
}
where d[i] IS written unconditionally (and d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-07-20
12:35:53 UTC ---
gcc-4.6-20110715 still ICEs on this test case, so unfortunately the PR49094 fix
didn't solve this problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-20
12:41:07 UTC ---
That is something different, yeah, in that case the transformation doesn't
introduce new data races and is desirable as well, not just for vectorization.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-20 12:58:31 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 20 12:58:28 2011
New Revision: 176506
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176506
Log:
PR target/49780
* config/i386/predic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-20 13:25:32
UTC ---
I'm using an x86_64 Ubuntu Lucid system. I'm using unmodified revision 176479
of mainline. I used ppl-0.11 and cloog-0.16.2 from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure. I confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-20 13:31:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm using an x86_64 Ubuntu Lucid system. I'm using unmodified revision 176479
> of mainline. I used ppl-0.11 and cloog-0.16.2 from
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-20
13:35:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 20 13:35:20 2011
New Revision: 176508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176508
Log:
2011-07-20 Richard Guenther
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18908
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-20
13:36:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 20 13:36:30 2011
New Revision: 176510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176510
Log:
2011-07-20 Richard Guenther
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49787
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-20
14:08:44 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Jul 20 14:08:42 2011
New Revision: 176512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176512
Log:
PR bootstrap/49787
* configure.ac: M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-20 14:11:55
UTC ---
Is it repeatable for you? I don't know how to investigate this if I can't
repeat it myself. I also don't see how this could be related to the change to
building with C++, though o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-20 14:16:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Is it repeatable for you? I don't know how to investigate this if I can't
> repeat it myself. I also don't see how this could be related to the change to
> build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42603
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-20
14:21:09 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 20 14:21:05 2011
New Revision: 176513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176513
Log:
PR c++/6709 (DR 743)
PR c++/42603 (DR 950)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6709
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-20
14:21:09 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 20 14:21:05 2011
New Revision: 176513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176513
Log:
PR c++/6709 (DR 743)
PR c++/42603 (DR 950)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49796
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 483.xalancbmk/447.dealII in SPEC CPU
2006 failed to build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49796
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49794
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-07-20 15:29:58
UTC ---
I'm sorry, I can't see any useful information in that link. It seems to simply
repeat the information that is already in this bug report. Am I missing
something?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-07-20
15:34:59 UTC ---
I think you need to make sure that a / the linker plugin works. IIRC HJ
uses his own binutils branch and GNU ld.
So in case you are using gold (and configury correctly detects tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49796
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-20
15:47:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Btw, I think we're running into a bug in the new IPA-CP code (see the SPEC 2k6
> LTO build fails HJ also reported). Thus, CCing martin.
I understand this i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49473
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42603
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
Summary: CLooG use of LANGUAGE_C conflicts with MIPS compilers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-20
16:16:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Why are you calling this a workaround. It looks like it is fixing
> a bug in the user's program.
In an ideal world, all code would use only standard Fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-20 16:39:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 24799
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24799
The real proposed patch
Oh, for Pete's sake. I attached the wrong patch. Here's the right on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49796
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49794
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49795
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-07-20 16:59:20 UTC ---
actually -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores does the "trick" with -Ofast
things are not fully consistent though
of these four loop I get the following
notice how the combination -ftr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
2011-07-20 17:15:19 UTC ---
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:18:01PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
>
> --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-20
> 16:16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-20
17:23:31 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jul 20 17:23:28 2011
New Revision: 176527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176527
Log:
PR target/36467
PR target/49687
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-07-20
17:23:31 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Jul 20 17:23:28 2011
New Revision: 176527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176527
Log:
PR target/36467
PR target/49687
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-20
17:24:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The undocumented extension cannot be flagged by any combination of
> -Wall, -Wextra, -fcheck=all, -Wsurprising and/or -std=f95,f2003,f2008.
Different run-ti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36467
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49783
Ludovic Brenta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
,lo8(-128)
brne .L11
pop r28
ret
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110720 (experimental)"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-07-20 17:48:34 UTC ---
And it's indeed caused by the new IPA-CP code (Revision 176424,
commit 821d0e0f73d79232eb827c3988c34d5a1fbeb422).
Reverting the commit "solves" the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-20 19:01:30 UTC ---
I forgot to mention some justification for the value of PHI_LOOP_BIAS, and I
notice it has a misleading comment by it at the moment. The value is a
constant that should be large
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Netzel
2011-07-20 20:51:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 24800
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24800
sample objective-c code that still causes the warning
Said warning does still occur when linking ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
Tobias Netzel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobias.netzel at googlemail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade
2011-07-20 21:09:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> If the bug reporter can, I think he should convert all the input files to the
> Fortran 90 syntax of namelists. However, one needs to be careful t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2011-07-20 21:22:36 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #3)
>> If the bug reporter can, I think he should convert all the input
>> files to the Fortran 90 syntax of namelists. However, one needs
>> to be careful to not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140
--- Comment #21 from Sébastien Kunz-Jacques
2011-07-20 21:23:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Ah, the crypto++ comments were just hijacking an unrelated bug for which no
> details have been provided. Please don't do this.
Well, the sympto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #18 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-20
21:25:37 UTC ---
Iain, I'm thinking we should do your code unconditionally for darwin10 and
later. In darwin10.h, we put:
#define LINKER_PEDANTICALLY_WANTS_CSTRING 1
and then in the code:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47997
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Netzel
2011-07-20 21:53:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Iain, I'm thinking we should do your code unconditionally for darwin10 and
> later. In darwin10.h, we put:
To me it seems that specifying LINKER_PEDANTIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2011-07-20
21:53:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165979
> PR libgfortran/46010
The problem is that "dtp->u.p.ionml->touched" becomes 0 (initially i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49786
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
rep
ret
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L3:
xorl%eax, %eax
.p2align 4,,9
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.sizefoo, .-foo
.section.rodata.cst8,"aM",@progbits,8
.align 8
.LC0:
.quad
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110720 (experimental)&quo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-20
23:05:54 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 20 23:05:52 2011
New Revision: 176541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176541
Log:
Remove checks that base and index registers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-20
23:07:00 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 20 23:06:57 2011
New Revision: 176542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176542
Log:
Allow only subregs of DImode hard regs.
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21 00:56:19
UTC ---
It comes from constant pool:
(gdb) bt
#0 integer_asm_op (size=8, aligned_p=1) at
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-x32/gcc/varasm.c:2421
#1 0x00df1a96 in default_assemble_integer (x=0x7f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-07-21
79 matches
Mail list logo
