tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45121
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-29 01:06 ---
It is caused by revision 162653:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg01007.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-29 03:49 ---
It is caused by revision 162653:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg01007.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-27 13:33 ---
It is caused by revision 158253:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00357.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45096
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45096
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-28 02:29 ---
It is caused by revision 162578:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00932.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-26 18:41 ---
It is a valgrind bug. I opened:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618360
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45068
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-24 20:26 ---
This is caused by revision 161655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-24 23:02 ---
It failed for me with gcc 4.2.0 and 4.3.0:
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ cat pr45043.cc
template typename class A;
template typename T A T ::B::~B ()
{}
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ /export/gnu/import/rrs/117167/usr/bin/gcc -S
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-24 23:03 ---
[...@gnu-26 rrs]$ /export/gnu/import/rrs/125623/usr/bin/gcc -S pr45043.cc
pr45043.cc:2: error: \u2018A template-parameter-1-1 ::B\u2019 is not a type
pr45043.cc:2: internal compiler error: tree check: expected
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-25 01:21 ---
It is caused by revision 162418:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00772.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45042
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-23 13:20 ---
It is caused by revision 162443:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00797.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45042
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45046
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-23 19:04 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-23 23:43 ---
It was introduced between revision 16 and 162255.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-24 00:40 ---
This is caused by revision 162223:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00577.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #40 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 14:07
---
(In reply to comment #39)
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
on ia64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 16:46 ---
Fixed as of revision 162399.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #42 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 16:47
---
(In reply to comment #40)
(In reply to comment #39)
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
on ia64.
Revision
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 19:33 ---
Fixed as of revision 162396.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 20:17 ---
Fixed by revision 162390:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00744.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45035
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-23 02:32 ---
It is caused by revision 162430:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00784.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-23 04:14 ---
It is triggered by revision 121254:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-01/msg00960.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-21 13:30 ---
Those tests failed on Linux/ia64:
FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/lineno-simple1.C scan-assembler
_ZN1C3fooEv:[^\\t]*(\\t.file[^\\t]*)?\\t# \\S*:6\\n
FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/lineno-simple1.C scan-assembler
_ZN1CC[12]Ev
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-21 16:50 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Is the problem a bad mangling or bad line numbers? In a built tree, could you
run:
$objdir/gcc/cc1plus -g -dA
$srcdir/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/pr44641.C -o pr44641.s
and send
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45027
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-21 23:14 ---
It is caused by revision 162384:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00738.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45005
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-20 13:59 ---
On Linux/x86-64, it caused:
Running target unix/-m32
FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocate_with_typespec.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocate_with_typespec.f90 -O (test for excess errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-20 15:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=21266)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21266action=view)
The preprocessed source
/export/gnu/import/rrs/162337/bld/./gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/rrs/162337/bld/./gcc
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-20 16:21 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Created an attachment (id=21268)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21268action=view) [edit]
gcc46-pr45006.patch
Untested fix. Either of the hunks should be sufficient
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45013
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45013
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-21 04:38 ---
Failed with revision 162330 and worked with revision
162328. Revision 162330:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00684.html
is very likely to be the cause.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-19 13:19 ---
According to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01409.html
this is an x86 backend bug.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-19 13:27 ---
The design of target attribute is incomplete and
its implementation is broken. See PR 37565.
I'd like to see a new design/implementation. We
should deal with all issues, including header files,
in the new design
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44989
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-19 13:42 ---
Revision 162269 is bad and revision 162264 is good.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44989
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-19 15:38 ---
It disappeared at least since revision 161672.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-19 18:01 ---
For the time being, I suggest you compile it with
a different file. One approach is to implement
something similar to cpu dispatcher in icc via
GNU_IFUNC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44987
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 15:22
---
(In reply to comment #3)
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
HJ, any chance you could run make check on the stage1 compiler on ia64 to find
a testcase?
New
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 18:01 ---
It is caused by revision 139286:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg00848.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
x86-64
tests
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44979
-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44980
--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 18:52
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view) [edit]
Another patch
I am testing it now.
I've managed to reproduce some
--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 19:03
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view) [edit]
Another patch
This patch passed the last failure. I will report any
--- Comment #23 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 20:34
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view) [edit]
Another patch
I've managed to reproduce some differences with -g vs
--- Comment #30 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 22:22
---
(In reply to comment #24)
Created an attachment (id=21243)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243action=view) [edit]
Patch v4
I found another potential bug in the interaction between
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 13:37 ---
It is caused by revision 161655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44971
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 15:28 ---
On Linux/ia64, I got
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.o differs
gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
make[5]: *** [compare] Error 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 16:12 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
On Linux/ia32, revision 162270:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00624.html
caused:
make[6]: Leaving directory `/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld'
Comparing stages 2
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 16:56 ---
It also miscompiled 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 on
Linux/i386 with
-m32 -O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math -funroll-loops
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:35 ---
The difference in recog.o is in peep2_find_free_register:
@@ -5271,8 +5271,8 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
4884: 74 5e je 48e4
peep2_find_free_register+0x
d4
4886: 8d 74
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:39 ---
The patch uses uid of the insn. Will DEBUG_INSN affect
uid processing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:42
---
With stage3 gcc, I got
[...@gnu-29 stage3-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/
-isystem /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 18:07 ---
It is caused by revision 161655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 00:32
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Created an attachment (id=21239)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239action=view) [edit]
Better patch.
Here's something that's a little more likely to work.
I
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-16 13:02 ---
It is caused by revision 161744:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00097.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-16 13:31
---
The problem isn't new:
[...@gnu-6 case3]$ cat x.c
#include x.h
void
foo (long double x, struct A y, long double z)
{
int i;
struct A a = { { 0, 1, 2, 3 } };
if (x != 8.0L || z != 8.0L)
__builtin_abort
--- Comment #19 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-16 13:41
---
Created an attachment (id=21223)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21223action=view)
A patch with psABI warning
This patch changes and warns psABI:
[...@gnu-6 case3]$ make
/export/build/gnu/gcc
--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-16 13:55
---
The following testcases are affected:
gcc.c-torture/compile/20070522-1.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/pr33617.c
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr38151.c
gcc.dg/compat/struct-align-1
gcc.dg/compat/struct-align-2
gcc.dg/compat
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-16 15:31 ---
It is caused by revision 158477:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00583.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 13:11 ---
How should we align
struct A { long b[8] __attribute__((aligned (32))); };
when it is passed on stack?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 13:26 ---
Caller and call expander try to honor type alignment.
See PR 35771 and PR 35767. I think we should replace
BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT with MAX_STACK_ALIGNMENT.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 13:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
If we want to be ABI compatible, I'm afraid it needs to be 16 byte aligned
only.
We don't align aligned(64) structs to 64 bytes either, even with -mavx.
That is because we couldn't
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 13:42 ---
We have aligned double to 4 byte when passing on stack
in 32bit. I guess it is OK to use a smaller alignment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 13:56 ---
When we pass 32byte aligned type on stack with 16byte
alignment, do we mark it as 16byte aligned or 32byte
aligned?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 14:10 ---
For 32bit, we should align it to 4 byte.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 14:38 ---
It is caused by revision 161655:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 16:05 ---
How about this patch?
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 4fd2aab..65e13a3 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -6594,8 +6594,8
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 16:20
---
Created an attachment (id=21216)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21216action=view)
A patch
I am testing this patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #12 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 16:41
---
Created an attachment (id=21217)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21217action=view)
A new patch
How about this patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 16:47
---
struct A {
long b[8] __attribute__((aligned (32)));
__m128i x;
};
What alignment should we use to pass it on stack?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44948
--- Comment #14 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 19:07
---
(In reply to comment #13)
struct A {
long b[8] __attribute__((aligned (32)));
__m128i x;
};
What alignment should we use to pass it on stack?
I think when such a struct is passed on stack
tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44958
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 22:29
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #2)
If we want to be ABI compatible, I'm afraid it needs to be 16 byte aligned
only.
We don't align aligned(64) structs to 64 bytes either, even with -mavx
--- Comment #16 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 22:47
---
I think we should always properly align the struct.
Otherwise, we have to deal with:
struct A { long b[8] __attribute__((aligned (32))); };
extern bar (struct A *p);
void
foo (struct A y)
{
bar (y
--- Comment #17 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-15 23:26
---
Created an attachment (id=21220)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21220action=view)
Another patch
This patch always aligns struct properly in 64bit
and aligns struct properly in 32bit if its
--- Comment #19 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-14 15:52
---
(In reply to comment #15)
I found the similar case with gcc 4.4.4 of MacPorts and gcc 4.4.0 of MinGW.
-- begin testcase --
// g++ -O -msse2 test.cpp
typedef long long __m128i __attribute__ ((__vector_size__
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 16:07 ---
It is caused by revision 161384:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01302.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44915
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 18:25 ---
It is caused by revision 149210:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-07/msg00087.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44921
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 18:46 ---
This patch:
Index: postreload.c
===
--- postreload.c(revision 162085)
+++ postreload.c(working copy)
@@ -1281,7 +1281,7
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44921
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 22:43 ---
I think the whole pragma GCC target is incomplete/broken.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 23:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The variable can not actually be used uninitalized, since min_cost is
initalized to INT_MAX, and the return type of rtx_cost is int.
So it is enough to shut up the compiler warning
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-12 23:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
The variable can not actually be used uninitalized, since min_cost is
initalized to INT_MAX, and the return type of rtx_cost is int.
So it is enough to shut
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-11 20:59 ---
It works with gcc 4.5.0. It is a 4.5.1 regression.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
301 - 400 of 3333 matches
Mail list logo
