http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
08:13:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I am debugging why some of the gfortran tests are failing. I have tracked NN
> failures down to this code in caf/mpi.c around line 155.
I think you are loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51055
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid, wrong-code
Depends
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51000
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
08:29:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 10 08:29:52 2011
New Revision: 181250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181250
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51000
* tree-vect-patt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51000
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
Bug #: 51074
Summary: No constant folding performed for VEC_PERM_EXPR,
VEC_INTERLEAVE*EXPR, VEC_EXTRACT*EXPR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-11-10 09:29:52 UTC ---
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-09
> 17:17:54 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51031
--- Comment #15 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-11-10 09:35:53 UTC ---
this morning segfault in ld!
svn update
At revision 181250.
./configure --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
--disable-bootstrap --enable-lto
I get
Making all i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51031
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-11-10 09:51:03 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 181249, the link error is
ld: codegen problem, can't use rel32 to external symbol
___emutls_v._ZN3GTM12_gtm_thr_tlsE in __ITM_malloc from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
10:01:36 UTC ---
I think the size == 0 issue can only happen for static ("save") coarrays such
as
integer, save :: caf(1:0)[*]
print *, size(caf)
end
For allocatable coarrays, one always allocat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #10 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-11-10
10:10:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
>
> > The zero_extend is a fixed part of the insn pattern in question:
> >
> > (define_insn "*lea_4_zext"
> > [(set (match_ope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #7 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-10 10:14:28 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Nov 10 10:14:24 2011
New Revision: 181251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181251
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51058
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51075
Bug #: 51075
Summary: ICE with deferred-length character pointer component
in derived types
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50605
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-11-10
10:28:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 25776
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25776
Simple testcase
Simplified testcase, -O3 -fno-early-inlining required, fails for me at i686 but
will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51076
Bug #: 51076
Summary: [F2008][tracking] Pointer initialization in init
expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
10:42:15 UTC ---
Shouldn't libitm be built with the "stage1" g++ as it is a target library,
even with --disable-bootstrap?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
10:42:46 UTC ---
Ah, probably it fails to enable C++ as stage1 language.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
10:50:54 UTC ---
The case I was worried was if we have a single VECTOR_CST before the loop and
then create 16 different vectors out of it using different permutations, then
perhaps the permutations of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
Bug #: 51077
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Endless recursion with
__builtin_object_size
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51070
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
11:02:06 UTC ---
Patch which makes sure that for static coarrays the minimal size is 1.
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
@@ -4234,6 +4238,11 @@ generate_coarray_sym_init (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
11:08:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 25777
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25777
gcc47-pr51077.patch
Patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #23 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2011-11-10 11:09:02 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
I tried this, in the hope of fixing a problem that I have with the
last big part of the class array patch. To my surprise, it caused
errors like:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51068
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|4.7 Regressio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51069
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51065
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51077
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
11:17:53 UTC ---
Ick ;) Quite obvious when it doesn't cause any fallout.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
Bug #: 51078
Summary: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count
algorithm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #1 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 11:39:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 25779
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25779
performance test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #2 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 11:40:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 25780
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25780
output of performance test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #3 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 11:41:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 25781
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25781
gnuplot script to plot test data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #4 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 11:42:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 25782
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25782
plot of performance boost against container size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #5 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 11:43:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 25783
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25783
plot of performance boost against container size, logarithmic by size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-10
11:55:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 25783 [details]
> plot of performance boost against container size, logarithmic by size
This is the more useful one - thanks.
Before l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51070
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
12:00:41 UTC ---
For
:
# g_224.0_23 = PHI
# MEM = PHI
D.2957_3 = g_92[g_224.0_23];
g_92[g_224.0_23] = 0;
g_352[g_224.0_23] = 1;
g_224.1_10 = g_224.0_23 + 1;
if (g_224.1_10 != 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51079
Bug #: 51079
Summary: [C++0x] Conversion function template ignored in the
presence of non-template conversion function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
12:22:52 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 10 12:22:46 2011
New Revision: 181253
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181253
Log:
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51030
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
12:24:56 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 10 12:24:52 2011
New Revision: 181254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181254
Log:
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51030
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
12:50:51 UTC ---
Of course in principle the issue is that an SSA name can have an expression
leader that references the SSA name itself.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51021
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 13:10:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> It's a bit unfortunate that this just ICEs if the modified
> address is no longer recognized.
>
> But if the lea_address_operand predicate is fixed as outl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51080
Bug #: 51080
Summary: [C++11] constexpr function array size error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-10 13:10:43
UTC ---
I double checked the test log. This looks to have only caused one test
failure. I thought it caused more.
Do I need to test your patch locally? Or are you committing it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 13:28:37
UTC ---
A shot-in-the-dark patch that fixes compilation:
Index: simplify-rtx.c
===
--- simplify-rtx.c (revision 181252)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
13:33:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Do I need to test your patch locally? Or are you committing it?
I plan to commit it - but I am not sure how soon; it might take some days.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-11-10
13:34:02 UTC ---
Is this with your patch from comment 6? You really can't have a CONST_INT
inside a zero_extend; the abort is justified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 13:38:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Is this with your patch from comment 6? You really can't have a CONST_INT
> inside a zero_extend; the abort is justified.
No, this is with the patch from co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51070
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
13:46:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 10 13:46:27 2011
New Revision: 181255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181255
Log:
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51070
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
13:47:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 25784
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25784
gcc47-pr51074.patch
Folding patch. For __builtin_shuffle it works well.
For the interleaved stores
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51074
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
13:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 25784 [details]
> gcc47-pr51074.patch
>
> Folding patch. For __builtin_shuffle it works well.
Looks good.
> For the interleaved sto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #16 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-11-10
14:04:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > Is this with your patch from comment 6? You really can't have a CONST_INT
> > inside a zero_extend; the abort is justified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #7 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 14:06:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Before looking at your patch, do you have a copyright assignment in place for
> contributing to GCC?
No, but I'm ready to sign it. What should I do now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-11-10
14:22:48 UTC ---
Revision 181251 fixes the ICEs for the codes in comment #0 and #1 (thanks).
However at revision 181255 compiling the original mdbx.f90, the extracted
subroutine, or the reduced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
Bug #: 51081
Summary: -std=f2003: Internal procedure in proc-pointer
assignment: Mention that it is valid in F2008
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51031
--- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth 2011-11-10
14:39:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> On x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 181249, the link error is
>
>
> ld: codegen problem, can't use rel32 to external symbol
> ___emutls_v._ZN3GTM12_gtm_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Summary|-std=f20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-10
14:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> subroutine int2()
> 1
> Error: FUNCTION attribute conflicts with SUBROUTINE attribute in 'int2' at (1)
Seemingly both INT and INT2 have s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51082
Bug #: 51082
Summary: Proc-pointer: Wrong result for a pointer to a
proc-pointer component
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51051
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Mansfield 2011-11-10
15:01:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Similar ICE happens when building libstdc++-v3 for
> > arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi.
>
> Can you please test the referred patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-10
15:06:40 UTC ---
> However, it is rejected by the lea_address_operand predicate check
> due to its mode (VOIDmode != SImode). This is a bit odd because most
> standard predicates accept a CONST_INT n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-10
15:29:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 10 15:28:57 2011
New Revision: 181256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181256
Log:
2011-11-10 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51042
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51023
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-11-10
15:36:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 10 15:36:48 2011
New Revision: 181257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181257
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51023
* combine.c (simp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50976
--- Comment #17 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-11-10
15:53:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 25785
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25785
Potentail patch #2a.
Here's a version of the second patch that actual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ubizjak at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Component|rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47590
hariharans at picochip dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51038
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51040
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod 2011-11-10
16:39:36 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Thu Nov 10 16:39:32 2011
New Revision: 181259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181259
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51040
* optabs.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
--- Comment #4 from gee 2011-11-10 17:04:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25787
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25787
preprocessed source
$ g++ Engine.ii -c -O2
src/Engine.cpp: In member function 'void boost::python::class_::def_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Bug #: 51083
Summary: gnu++0x: resolving overloaded functions belonging to
different namespaces
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse 2011-11-10
17:28:46 UTC ---
Hello,
I can't seem to find a mention of the compiler flags you used for your
benchmarks, what are they? -Ofast -funroll-loops?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51084
Bug #: 51084
Summary: bounds checking not optimized to a single comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51085
Bug #: 51085
Summary: "volatile const" structures (in C) go in the .data
section, not .rodata as expected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
jochenzimmermann at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://www.freefilehosting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-11-10 17:43:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Shouldn't libitm be built with the "stage1" g++ as it is a target library,
> even with --disable-bootstrap?
Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #2 from jochenzimmermann at gmx dot de 2011-11-10 17:43:40 UTC ---
It appears the attachment was too large... Also I failed a reproducing the
problem with a minimal testcase.
Please see URL for the source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51073
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill 2011-11-10 17:49:19
UTC ---
Patch doesn't compile.
/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c: In function
‘generate_coarray_sym_init’:
/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:4240:59: e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
Bug #: 51086
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE in move_insn, at
haifa-sched.c:3437
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51086
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-11-10 18:02:02 UTC
---
Created attachment 25789
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25789
preprocessed input
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
--- Comment #4 from jochenzimmermann at gmx dot de 2011-11-10 18:06:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 25790
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25790
compressed preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #9 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy
2011-11-10 18:08:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I can't seem to find a mention of the compiler flags you used for your
> benchmarks, what are they? -Ofast -funroll-loops?
-march=native -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51080
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #20 from Uros Bizjak 2011-11-10 18:10:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > However, it is rejected by the lea_address_operand predicate check
> > due to its mode (VOIDmode != SImode). This is a bit odd because most
> > standard p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51037
bin2008.gcc.bugzilla at undecidable dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25756|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-10
18:20:03 UTC ---
As a general observation about this kind of road to performance improvement:
before manually unrolling loops, I think we should **carefully** analyze why
the loop unrolling optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50762
--- Comment #21 from Ulrich Weigand 2011-11-10
18:22:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
>
> The documentation is wrong, so following patch removes all the blurb about
> handling of constants.
>
> Index: doc/md.texi
> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51080
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51083
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
