--- Comment #20 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-18 22:11 ---
build_array_ref calls
return build_indirect_ref (cp_build_binary_op (PLUS_EXPR, ar, ind),
"array indexing");
with ar as pointer and ind as integer. cp_build_binary_op turns ind into
pointe
--- Comment #19 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-18 21:47 ---
For
for(unsigned i=0;i<1;i++) result += a.begin[i];
x.ii.004t.gimple looks like
const int * D.2454;
long unsigned int D.2455;
long unsigned int D.2456;
const int * D.2457;
const int * D.2458;
D.2455 = (long u
--- Comment #18 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-18 20:02 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Testcase in comment #16 failed on ia32, x86-64 and ia64 with -O3. 051t.alias3
> dump looks strange. 102t.final_cleanup dump is:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] bad]$ cat x.cc.102t.final_cleanup
>
> ;; Func
--- Comment #17 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-04-18 20:00 ---
Testcase in comment #16 failed on ia32, x86-64 and ia64 with -O3. 051t.alias3
dump looks strange. 102t.final_cleanup dump is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bad]$ cat x.cc.102t.final_cleanup
;; Function int main() (main)
int main() ()
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http:/
--- Comment #16 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 07:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=13110)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13110&action=view)
minimal reproducer
I got it down to 29 lines. There aren't any includes, defines are typedefs
left.
Attempts to further
--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-26 04:38
---
I'll happily confirm I can reproduce it on my i686-pc-linux-gnu machine
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #14 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 03:37 ---
> Yes.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00817.html
> It also fixed vect-101 testcase, in addition to 464.h264ref from spec2006.
> It initially caused a failure in 403.gcc, but this was later found to
> be a lat
--- Comment #13 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-26 02:42
---
Subject: Re: -fPIC -O3 optimizer bug (32-bit target only)
On 26 Feb 2007 02:26:12 -, rwgk at yahoo dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #12 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 02:26 ---
--- Comment #12 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-26 02:26 ---
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This change actually made us more conservative with points-to, it certainly
> won't cause *more* things to be optimized away.
Was the change supposed to fix a certain problem?
If not I suggest the two
--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-12 16:37
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Daniel, any idea?
>
None.
This change actually made us more conservative with points-to, it certainly
won't cause *more* things to be optimized away.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #10 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-12 16:03 ---
Daniel, any idea?
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #9 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-12 15:47 ---
My binary search (using the gcc-4_2-branch) stopped here:
119790 OK
119791 fails
The corresponding commit was:
% svn log -r 119791
r119791 | dber
--- Comment #8 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-12 05:23 ---
I'm in the process of narrowing down the revision bracket the really hard way
(make bootstrap; make; make install for each revision, using a binary search).
Currently my best bracket is:
119819 fails
119788 works
I should h
--- Comment #7 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-12 00:02 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I immediately believe that Andrew's and Wolfgang's findings are accurate, but
> I
> never claimed that the mainline has a problem. I never even tried it.
I didn't want to imply that there was
--- Comment #6 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-11 05:30 ---
I immediately believe that Andrew's and Wolfgang's findings are accurate, but I
never claimed that the mainline has a problem. I never even tried it.
My interest it to make sure that our code works with any new gcc release,
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-02-11 04:07 ---
I also can't reproduce this with
bangerth/x> /tmp/bangerth/bin/bin/c++ -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../svn/configure --enable-checking --enable-languages=c,c++
--prefix
--- Comment #4 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-02-03 20:42 ---
I've repeated my test with
g++ (GCC) 4.2.0 20070203 (prerelease)
SVN revision: 121547
on two platforms:
x86_64 Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod)
The results are still the same as last we
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-01-28 20:03 ---
I've repeated my test with
g++ (GCC) 4.2.0 20070128 (prerelease)
SVN revision: 121258
on three platforms:
x86_64 Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
% g++ -fPIC -O3 dbg_gcc_bugzilla_30567.cpp
% ./a.out
1
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 06:57 ---
This works for me with "4.2.0 20061204" and "4.3.0 20070122":
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pr30567]$ ~/gcc-4.2/bin/g++ -O3 -fPIC dbg.cpp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pr30567]$ !./
./a.out
1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #1 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2007-01-24 00:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=12945)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12945&action=view)
standalone reproducer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30567
21 matches
Mail list logo
