[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2016-02-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-19 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 33517 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33517&action=edit Here is my spec 2006 patch I need this patch on x86.

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-19 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-18 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 --- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > common /a/ i(10) > subroutine foo (j) > common /a/ i(1) > Is that valid Fortran at all? No. Fortran 2008 (in 5.7.2.5) has: "Named common blocks of the same n

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-18 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-18 Thread vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 --- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov --- Some SPEC benchmarks contain questionable code. It is true for SPEC2000 and true for SPEC2006. So the PR is not a surprise for me. Unfortunately, nobody from GCC community participates in SPEC org w

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2014-09-16 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2013-10-07 Thread carrot at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 --- Comment #3 from Carrot --- I don't have a reduced test case. But I have a reduced config file. ### ext = Linux64 backup_config = 0 makeflags = -j64 default=default=defau

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2013-10-05 Thread mikpelinux at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson --- Can you provide a reduced test case?

[Bug target/56993] power gcc built 416.gamess generates wrong result

2013-10-04 Thread carrot at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56993 --- Comment #1 from Carrot --- I did some more experimentation on this benchmark. O0/O1 generates correct result, but O2/Os generates wrong result. So the problem should be in some optimization pass that is enabled in O2/Os while disabled in O1.