For anyone could succeed compiling gcc-4.6, could you paste a correct
ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type macro ?
just run this grep command under your build directory,
gcc-4.6-build$ grep -RsInw ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type gcc/
gcc/gtype-desc.h:2451:#define ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type() ((struct
Hello all,
I am moving basic blocks around and currently the cfg is getting very,
very awkward. My guess is that I am doing something I shouldn't [as
usual].
For each SWITCH_EXPR I found on the code I generate a CFG which I have
to replace with the SWITCH_EXPR. The switch is always the last
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am moving basic blocks around and currently the cfg is getting very,
very awkward. My guess is that I am doing something I shouldn't [as
usual].
For each SWITCH_EXPR I found on the code I generate a CFG
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am moving basic blocks around and currently the cfg is getting very,
very awkward. My guess is that I am doing something I shouldn't [as
usual].
For
14.9.2010 11:29, Dennis, CHENG Renquan kirjoitti:
For anyone could succeed compiling gcc-4.6, could you paste a correct
ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type macro ?
just run this grep command under your build directory,
gcc-4.6-build$ grep -RsInw ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type gcc/
/home/andrew/builder/gcj/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/andrew/builder/gcj/./prev-gcc/
-B/home/andrew/build/gcj/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/andrew/build/gcj/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/andrew/build/gcj/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
I have reproduced it and the patch below fixes the issue, sorry for
breaking things. Dennis, could you see if it works for you?
When gcc-core tarball is used without other frontends, gengtype does
not get to see that lang_type is in fact variable_size and when the
frontends are present, their
Hello All,
I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins.
The intuition is that some plugins could be pleased if they could add
their own plugins (much like today's plugins can add their own pragmas
or attributes).
I imagine several use cases for such a feature, for example
* a
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Hello All,
I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins.
The intuition is that some plugins could be pleased if they could add
their own plugins (much like today's plugins can add their own
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:36, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins.
We need to have a good use case before adding any more plugin hooks.
In the case of this proposal, you also need a fixed code and a class
for the builtins
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins.
Shouldn't there be a final consensus about the existing hooks, and
actual users of them, before adding more and more and more plugin
hooks?
Ciao!
Steven
Hello All
See also my message http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00270.html
about plugin hooks for plugin-provided builtins?
I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for plugin-provided
additional macros.
The intuition is that some plugins would be delighted if they could
add their own
Hello,
i know it's no good form to reply to self, or be that insistent, but
i've been hit again.
In the bug report discussion, i've been told by A. Pinski that, as of
now, forward declarations shall have matching attributes. That's fine,
i suppose. What's not is that:
. that new behavior, as far
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Paolo Carlini wrote:
long long, by specifying that cinttypes adds overloads for intmax_t
only when the latter is an actual extended integer type, thus does not
boil down to any standard integer type.
I'm looking for help in figuring out whether this situation can really
Hello,
I could really use -Wdouble-promotion but, atm, it appears quite impractical,
$ cat double.cc
#include cstdio
void foo(...);
int main() {
float f = 1;
foo(f);
printf(%f, f);
}
$ /usr/local/gcc-4.6-20100913/bin/g++ -Wdouble-promotion double.cc
double.cc: In function
On 09/14/2010 04:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
INTMAX_TYPE is not currently defined for any target to use an extended
integer type.
Thanks Joseph. Then I guess we can implement the proposed resolution
rather easily ;)
Paolo.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:12:18AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:36, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
I was thinking of adding a new plugin hook for builtins.
Plugin hooks should only be added when an actual need arises. Adding
hooks for the
tbp tbp...@gmail.com writes:
Would it be possible to have some clarifications? Shall i file a PR
for a warning? Sacrifice a goat?
Please do file a PR if there isn't one already. Thanks.
Ian
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 04:30:09PM +0200, tbp wrote:
Hello,
I could really use -Wdouble-promotion but, atm, it appears quite impractical,
$ cat double.cc
#include cstdio
void foo(...);
int main() {
float f = 1;
foo(f);
printf(%f, f);
}
$
tbp tbp...@gmail.com writes:
I could really use -Wdouble-promotion but, atm, it appears quite impractical,
$ cat double.cc
#include cstdio
void foo(...);
int main() {
float f = 1;
foo(f);
printf(%f, f);
}
$ /usr/local/gcc-4.6-20100913/bin/g++ -Wdouble-promotion
Hello,
My pass is now generating a correct CFG structure (statements are in the
right place and edges between bbs are ok), however in the end due TODO,
it fails.
Here's the pass definition:
,
| struct tree_opt_pass pass_clusterswt =
| {
|clusterswt, /* name */
|
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Please do file a PR if there isn't one already. Thanks.
I have no idea if that could happen outside C++ and couldn't find
anything relevant, thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45668
That's the best i can do.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I automatically update dominators? Or do I have to do it for
each new basic_block I create with recompute_dominator?
/* Free and compute again all the dominators information. */
static inline void
On 9/14/10 8:46 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
My current work aims to translate some Gimple into OpenCL source
code, thus providing GCC with the ability to take advantage of GPU
running their proprietary OpenCL compilers without asking the user to
learn OpenCL.
My understanding is that
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Sebastian Pop seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I automatically update dominators? Or do I have to do it for
each new basic_block I create with recompute_dominator?
/* Free and compute again
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list g...@gcc.gnu.org.
...
This is among the kinds of things which -Wdouble-promotion is documented
to warn about, so, yes, this is how it's meant to be.
Honestly i've
Sebastian Pop seb...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I automatically update dominators? Or do I have to do it for
each new basic_block I create with recompute_dominator?
/* Free and compute again all the dominators
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:52, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
mark_irreducible_loops is actually failing with a segmentation fault:
It looks like you don't work at a level where the loops are built.
So don't call mark_irreducible_loops, just use what Richi suggested:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Sebastian Pop seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Just free them. All following users are required to eventually
compute them anyway. Thus,
free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
Thanks, it works! :)
--
PMatos
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Marcus Daniels mdani...@lanl.gov wrote:
On 9/14/10 8:46 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
My current work aims to translate some Gimple into OpenCL source
code, thus providing GCC with the ability to take advantage of GPU
running their proprietary OpenCL
Sebastian Pop seb...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:52, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
mark_irreducible_loops is actually failing with a segmentation fault:
It looks like you don't work at a level where the loops are built.
So don't call mark_irreducible_loops, just
So I get in stderr:
,
| g (nD.1176)
| {
| bb 2:
| Invalid sum of outgoing probabilities 0.0%
| goto bb 6;
|
| Invalid sum of incoming frequencies 0, should be 4600
| L0:;
| f (1[0]);
| goto bb 5;
|
| Invalid sum of incoming frequencies 0, should be 5400
| L1:;
| f
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:39:21 -0600
Marcus Daniels mdani...@lanl.gov wrote:
On 9/14/10 8:46 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
My current work aims to translate some Gimple into OpenCL source
code, thus providing GCC with the ability to take advantage of GPU
running their proprietary
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
laurynas.bivei...@gmail.com wrote:
I have reproduced it and the patch below fixes the issue, sorry for
breaking things. Dennis, could you see if it works for you?
When gcc-core tarball is used without other frontends, gengtype does
not get to
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:01:34 +0200
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
But is the overall idea enough, or did I misunderstood builtins?
Builtins use a fixed code (in DECL_FUNCTION_CODE) and have
a class (BUILT_IN_MD, BUILT_IN_NORMAL, etc.). Thus without
making the code
tbp tbp...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list g...@gcc.gnu.org.
...
This is among the kinds of things which -Wdouble-promotion is documented
to warn about, so, yes, this is how it's
On 9/14/10 10:58 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
It seems to me a source to source compiler should definitely retain
high level constructs like array operators, DO ALL, OpenMP directives, etc
One can use #pragma-s builtin-s attributes for these. This is why I was
trying to push the idea of
Hi,
this may be a FAQ - in my class today when discussing how gcc
generates code for x86, I was stumped when I showed an example of how
gcc handles attempts to modify (read-only) string literals/constants.
(I'm sending this to gcc rather than gcc-help because I'm asking for a
design rationale - I
Interesting example indeed!
Replace the declaration of s to
char s[] = hello;
and see Hello being printed :-)
The point is: in your program is is only a pointer. When you pass s
as a parameter to printf, the compiler assumes that only s is being
used so the (effective) assignment
*s
On 9/14/2010 10:59 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
printf(%f, f);
double.cc:5:7: warning: implicit conversion from 'float' to 'double'
My two cents, but that looks exactly right to me. Passing the float
to printf is going to convert it to a double and it will be printed as
a double, so
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:50:11PM +0530, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
The point is: in your program is is only a pointer. When you pass s
as a parameter to printf, the compiler assumes that only s is being
used so the (effective) assignment
*s = 'H'
is deleted as dead code when optimization
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
What is it that you want?
I'd like to have a warning for when a value of type float is
implicitly promoted to double, for performance reasons (on x86). Note
that in that context, caring about variadic functions makes little
Godmar Back god...@gmail.com writes:
this may be a FAQ - in my class today when discussing how gcc
generates code for x86, I was stumped when I showed an example of how
gcc handles attempts to modify (read-only) string literals/constants.
(I'm sending this to gcc rather than gcc-help because
Hello Uday,
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:50:11PM +0530, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
[..]
The point is: in your program is is only a pointer. When you pass s
as a parameter to printf, the compiler assumes that only s is being
used so the (effective) assignment
*s = 'H'
is deleted as dead code
tbp tbp...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
What is it that you want?
I'd like to have a warning for when a value of type float is
implicitly promoted to double, for performance reasons (on x86).
Let me put it a different way: what is
Attached please find two dumps t.c.032t.mergephi1 and t.c.033t.cddce1.
The assignment is present in the former while it disappears in the
latter. The latter dump is the output of the dead code elimination
pass pass_cd_dce. So this is indeed an instance of dead code elimination.
But may be you
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Attached please find two dumps t.c.032t.mergephi1 and t.c.033t.cddce1.
The assignment is present in the former while it disappears in the
latter. The latter dump is the output of the dead code elimination
pass
You got me there :-)
Yes you are right. The reason I gave for dead code elimination is not
sound! Should have thought a bit before writing :-(
Uday.
Axel Freyn wrote, On Wednesday 15 September 2010 12:05 AM:
Hello Uday,
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:50:11PM +0530, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
[..]
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I think this is simply a bug. It doesn't happen with current gcc. With
gcc 4.4.3 the assignment is being eliminated because it is considered to
be dead code.
I agree that it is an error for gcc to simply eliminate
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Let me put it a different way: what is it that you want, expressed in
terms of C/C++ code? What should the compiler be warning about?
Hmm. I think the provided example captures most of what i care about,
float area(float
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:21:51 -0600
Marcus Daniels mdani...@lanl.gov wrote:
On 9/14/10 10:58 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
It seems to me a source to source compiler should definitely retain
high level constructs like array operators, DO ALL, OpenMP directives, etc
One can use #pragma-s
On 14/09/2010 19:47, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
But may be you are right, what facilitate dead code elimination
be based on modification of read-only data. However, if that is
the case, I wonder what is the reason why change happens when s is
an array...
Because the array, unlike the string,
tbp tbp...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Let me put it a different way: what is it that you want, expressed in
terms of C/C++ code? What should the compiler be warning about?
Hmm. I think the provided example captures most of what
Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Attached please find two dumps t.c.032t.mergephi1 and t.c.033t.cddce1.
The assignment is present in the former while it disappears in the
latter. The latter dump is the output
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 15:22, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
I'm just trying to figure out what are the features in 4.6 which will
be useful to my work. I know that in a couple of weeks, they are frozen
(since 4.6 is ending stage 1). The gengtype patch series
No. End
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:40:59 -0400
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Incidentally, this is an issue I would like to address. We need
someone interested in maintaining the GC machinery. Any volunteers?
Laurynas?
What do you mean by maintaining the GC machinery?
What is not working
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 16:48, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Is it becoming a GC or gengtype reviewer?
Yes.
Diego.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:09, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
So far my best guess is that your definition is
warn about implicit conversions from float to double except for those
conversions caused by default argument promotion applied to arguments
passed to unnamed parameters. Is
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:09, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100914 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100914/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Howdy,
I am looking at bug number 99 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99 and I am adding a test
case for it.
The testcase looks like this:
//---start test case
/*
{do-run compile}
*/
templatetypename S class X {};
templatetypename Q int f(Xint, XQ);
templatetypename B
David Weiser david...@gmail.com writes:
I am looking at bug number 99 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99 and I am adding a test
case for it.
The testcase looks like this:
//---start test case
/*
{do-run compile}
*/
This should be
/* { dg-do compile } */
or,
The GCC middle end use is for me mandatory (since it is contractual). I
am expecting to work on Gimple to OpenCL translation, whatever that
means. The saling point it that starting from GCC gimple gives the
hypothetical enduser all the power of GCC.
Given the current limitations of Gimple,
2010/9/14 Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com:
Incidentally, this is an issue I would like to address. We need
someone interested in maintaining the GC machinery. Any volunteers?
Laurynas?
Thanks for the suggestion. In fact, I was meaning to apply. But I can
see a few things that need to be
--- Comment #4 from Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch
2010-09-14 06:04 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
In C means that the build_eri takes a variable arguments.
:-) thanks... using 'void (*build_eri)(void);' fixes the warning... now it is
an error only.
gcc -c -flto
--- Comment #8 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 06:23
---
Created an attachment (id=21787)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21787action=view)
Test case assembler output for 4.5.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33049
--- Comment #9 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 06:25
---
Lot better code size in gcc-4.5.0 and above [head]. See the attachment in
comment #8.
--
abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #34 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 07:06
---
Yeah, this is happening because of the type promotion in gcc/c-common.c in the
function c_promoting_integer_type_p. See this:
/* Nonzero if the type T promotes to int. This is (nearly) the
integral
--- Comment #35 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 07:13
---
In the head c-common.c is placed in gcc/c-family/c-common.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18065
--- Comment #3 from dj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 07:27 ---
Subject: Bug 44749
Author: dj
Date: Tue Sep 14 07:26:54 2010
New Revision: 164268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164268
Log:
PR target/44749
* config/mep/mep-protos.h (mep_save_register_info,
--- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-09-14 07:41 ---
Subject: Bug 42070
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Sep 14 07:40:44 2010
New Revision: 164269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164269
Log:
2010-09-10 Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu
PR
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-14 08:17
---
Created an attachment (id=21788)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21788action=view)
attached patch solves this problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18145
--- Comment #10 from irar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 09:21 ---
Subject: Bug 45470
Author: irar
Date: Tue Sep 14 09:21:15 2010
New Revision: 164270
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164270
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45470
* tree-vect-data-refs.c
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 09:32 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 09:48 ---
Subject: Bug 45660
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 14 09:48:04 2010
New Revision: 164271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164271
Log:
PR debug/45660
* dwarf2out.c (gen_decl_die): Call
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 09:49 ---
Subject: Bug 45660
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 14 09:49:13 2010
New Revision: 164272
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164272
Log:
PR debug/45660
* dwarf2out.c (gen_decl_die): Call
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 09:51 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 09:59 ---
Not sure how far loop fusion is currently in graphite...
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:11 ---
Subject: Bug 45567
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 14 10:11:11 2010
New Revision: 164274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164274
Log:
PR middle-end/45567
* builtins.c
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:12 ---
Subject: Bug 45567
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 14 10:12:21 2010
New Revision: 164275
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164275
Log:
PR middle-end/45567
* builtins.c
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:14 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:17
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45665
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:19 ---
They also fail on old glibc systems. Nathan, you need to add some
dg-effective-target machinery and check availability of runtime support.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:21 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45660
--- Comment #3 from nathan at codesourcery dot com 2010-09-14 10:23 ---
Subject: Re: All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2
On 09/14/10 11:19, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:19
---
They also fail on old
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:26
---
Subject: Bug 45407
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Sep 14 10:26:40 2010
New Revision: 164277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164277
Log:
PR target/45277
PR target/45363
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:26
---
Subject: Bug 45277
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Sep 14 10:26:40 2010
New Revision: 164277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164277
Log:
PR target/45277
PR target/45363
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:26
---
Subject: Bug 45363
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Sep 14 10:26:40 2010
New Revision: 164277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164277
Log:
PR target/45277
PR target/45363
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
