[Bug c++/19263] [3.4/4.0 regression]: wrong-code: explicit inicialization of v8qi miscompiled

2005-01-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12 17:30 --- Yeah, with PR c++/15172, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg1.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19263] [3.4/4.0 regression]: wrong-code: explicit inicialization of v8qi miscompiled

2005-01-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12 18:00 --- This seems to be because of the CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (init) = NULL; added in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg00832.html by Richard. If I remove it, the testcase works, as well as this bigger one

[Bug c++/19263] [3.4/4.0 regression]: wrong-code: explicit inicialization of v8qi miscompiled

2005-01-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12 18:30 --- Tested to also test static initializers: typedef signed char v8qi __attribute__ ((vector_size (8))); extern C void abort (void); static unsigned char S[16]; struct A { int i; v8qi j, k; int l; };

[Bug c++/19263] [3.4/4.0 regression]: wrong-code: explicit inicialization of v8qi miscompiled

2005-01-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12 19:16 --- Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00663.html. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/19263] [3.4/4.0 regression]: wrong-code: explicit inicialization of v8qi miscompiled

2005-01-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05 14:48 --- Confirmed. Here is the reduced testcase without any x86 builtins usage: typedef signed char v8qi __attribute__ ((vector_size(8))); extern C void abort(void); static unsigned char S[8]; void

[Bug c++/19263] [3.4/4.0 regression]: wrong-code: explicit inicialization of v8qi miscompiled

2005-01-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05 14:57 --- Using Phil's regression hunter, I found the failure was caused between 20041026 and 20041103. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19263