--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
08:39 ---
2004-11-11 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/16458
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_generate_compare): Generate an
unsigned equality compare when we know the operands are
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
08:41 ---
Subject: Bug 16458
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-11 08:40:43
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
This is a catch all bug report that all register allocator issues can depend on.
--
Summary: [meta-bug] We need a better register allocator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, meta-bug
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||16796
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18427
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
08:47 ---
2004-11-11 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/16796
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Add DF SF reg move peepholes.
partial fix. Now we need a better reg-alloc
--
What
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
08:49 ---
Subject: Bug 16796
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-11 08:49:17
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From rgrosseboerger at dspace dot de 2004-11-11
09:48 ---
Hi,
after looking at the corresponding machine description (GCC 3.3.5, i386.md, line
16619, Split SSE based moves into sequence) and comparing it with GCC 3.4.0,
the bugfix seems to be:
---
--- Additional Comments From c dot lemmen at fz-juelich dot de 2004-11-11
11:44 ---
Surprisingly (to me), adding a second call to the function resolves the problem,
i.e. in the examples below the following code works
subroutine baz
logical l
l = bar (3)
l = bar (3) !
--- Additional Comments From rgrosseboerger at dspace dot de 2004-11-11
12:22 ---
The proposed patch fixes the reduced testcase and my larger testcase that
crashes GCC 3.3.5 with -O2 -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math
I have run the C testsuite with no additional failures.
If
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-11
12:32 ---
A little analysys here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2004-11/msg01216.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
12:37 ---
Taking this bug. The code
void N::func(void)
is rejected because the declaration
friend void func(void);
doesn't declare 'func' inside namespace 'N'.
A separate declaration is necessary before the
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
12:44 ---
A template template parameter bug, probably a duplicate of PR18276.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
12:47 ---
Probably a template template parameter bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||my_bugzilla at softhome dot
||net
Whoops, where has the preprocessing option gone, used to be -cpp ?? Neither
does the -traditional-cpp option work for the fortran front end.
gfortran -cpp
gfortran unrecognized option #187;-cpp#171;
gfortran -v testcase_preprocess.f90
.Warning: testcase_preprocess.f90:16: Illegal preprocessor
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
14:17 ---
Revised patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg00890.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
Bug 15502 depends on bug 18218, which changed state.
Bug 18218 Summary: Miscompare in sixtrack benchmark caused by loss of precision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18218
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
14:34 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:05 ---
gfortran -x f95-cpp-input works
So does gfortran -x f77-cpp-input
maybe this should be documented.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|3.2.3 4.0.0 |3.2.3 4.0.0 3.4.4
Summary|[3.3/3.4 Regression]|[3.3 Regression] __func__
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:11 ---
Dorit posted a better patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg00889.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:15 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18423 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:15 ---
*** Bug 18381 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:17 ---
Another report of this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/msg00420.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18348
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18332
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18333
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18334
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18321
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18323
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:26 ---
I think we can consider this a regression as we did not need really to set
LC_ALL/LANG to C before even
if you had them set to something to include UTF8 but now we do.
--
What|Removed
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18336
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18337
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18338
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18339
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18340
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18343
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18345
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18349
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18350
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18351
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18352
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18344
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0 regression] ICE when |ICE when variable appears in
|variable appears in two data|two data statements
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 15:51
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs.
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
15:56 ---
Not a template template parameter bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14479
the following code ICEs with g++-3.3.5 and freezes g++-3.4.3
--- begin of tree.cc --
namespace numbers {
int subtrees = 4;
}
template class T
class Tree {
public:
Tree* L[numbers::subtrees];
Tree* R[numbers::subtrees];
public:
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-11
16:22 ---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
Have you actually tried compiling code identical to that you test but with
8388608L in place of (1L 23)
--- Additional Comments From ericw at evcohs dot com 2004-11-11 16:29
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1,
constant trees not being computed.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
I'm trying to compile Ant and i ran into and error. I simplified the code as
much as possible while still producing the error. It doesn't matter if you
use gcj or Sun's javac (1.3.1) to compile. And Sun's java will run the code
without problem.
Here's the code:
interface fnm
{
int
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|java|libgcj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18430
--- Additional Comments From brian_252 at yahoo dot com 2004-11-11 16:36
---
Here's someone reporting the error in practice:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-french/2003/09/msg01033.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18430
--- Additional Comments From brian_252 at yahoo dot com 2004-11-11 16:37
---
One workaround that i've tested is to change the interface into an abstract
class and change its descendents to extend it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18430
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
16:40 ---
A duplicate of PR 13439, fixed already in 3.4.0.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13439 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13439 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
16:40 ---
*** Bug 18430 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
16:51 ---
: Search converges between 2004-07-29-trunk (#498) and 2004-07-30-trunk (#499).
Reduced testcase every where:
int subtrees = 4;
template class T
struct Tree {
Tree* L[subtrees];
Tree* R[subtrees];
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
16:59 ---
2004-11-11 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/16457
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (mask64_2_operand): Stub to call
mask64_1or2_operand.
(mask64_1or2_operand): Broken out
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16457
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
17:03 ---
Subject: Bug 16457
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-11 17:03:40
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite :
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 17:19
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
17:27 ---
This is fixed on FSF HEAD 2004-11-11. Probably due to some
better alias analysis
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16801
--- Additional Comments From janis187 at us dot ibm dot com 2004-11-11
17:39 ---
The powerpc-eabisim build THINKS it needs fixincludes, so perhaps that's a
separate issue; the build fails at stmp-fixinc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18423
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
17:40 ---
FSF HEAD 2004-11-11 gives better code, with the invariants moved out of the
loop,
.main:
ld 9,[EMAIL PROTECTED](2)
lwz 11,0(9)
addi 11,11,20
extsw 11,11
cmpwi 7,11,0
We should produce the same code in the two loops
unsigned short *q;
#define NOSB 10
int last;
void h1()
{
int i;
for (i=0;ilast+NOSB;i++)
{
q[i] = 0;
}
}
-
unsigned short q[100];
#define NOSB 10
int last;
void h1()
{
int i;
for (i=0;ilast+NOSB;i++)
{
q[i] = 0;
}
}
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||powerpc-darwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18431
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
18:15 ---
Note with powerpc64 we get much worse than array case which stays the same:
L4:
sldi r2,r9,1
addi r0,r9,1
sthx r10,r2,r11
extsw r9,r0
bdnz L4
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
18:19 ---
Woops I I filed PR 18431 (which I think is the same problem well the testcases
are the same), I will note
I copied both -m32 and -m64 loops to show where the problem is and with arrays
we get much better
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From wanderer at rsu dot ru 2004-11-11 18:44
---
Same problem afterupgrade to released i386-unknown-freebsd5.3
and gcc version 4.0.0 20041110 (experimental)
--
What|Removed |Added
This may be related to 15181. This is a non-functional excerpt from a medium
sized code which stresses f95 some f95 features.
gfortran --version
GNU Fortran 95 (GCC 4.0.0 2004 (experimental))
x86 linux.
module gfortran_bug1
integer, parameter :: kdkind = kind(0.0d0)
type interval
--- Additional Comments From mbkennel at gmail dot com 2004-11-11 19:08
---
Created an attachment (id=7519)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7519action=view)
ICE test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18432
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
19:11 ---
Yes this is a dup of bug 15181.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15181 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
19:11 ---
*** Bug 18432 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
gcc version 4.0.0 20041014 (experimental)
gcj can compile resources in a jar file:
gcj -c file.jar
But, it can not compile resources from list of files:
filelist:
dir/somefile.jpg
dir/someother.jpg
gcj --resource -c @filelist
gcj: --resource requires -o
Adding the unneeded -o:
gcj
--
Bug 17550 depends on bug 17520, which changed state.
Bug 17520 Summary: [4.0 regression] Huge compile time for C code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17520
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
19:37 ---
Fixed by:
+2004-11-11 Sebastian Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+ * tree-scalar-evolution.c (follow_ssa_edge_in_condition_phi):
+ Give up as soon as the evolution is known not computable.
+
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
20:02 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From manus at eiffel dot com 2004-11-11 20:04
---
Sorry to come back and buzz you again. I just realized that because of this
change in behavior of gcc you broke not just my code, but also the code of the
people using our Eiffel compiler. Indeed our compiler
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
20:12 ---
Subject: Bug 17742
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-11 20:12:36
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-scalar-evolution.c
--- Additional Comments From dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-11-11 20:13 ---
This fixes the cygwin/mingw problem for me:
* config/i386/t-cygming: Don't override STMP_FIXINC.
Index: t-cygming
===
--
Bug 17926 depends on bug 17742, which changed state.
Bug 17742 Summary: [4.0 Regression] C Optimization error with -O1 on i686
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17742
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
20:14 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
20:15 ---
Confirmed. We are splitting ffs late which causes this problem (maybe doing an
expand instead of
splitter fixes the problem).
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
20:16 ---
Can you try this again as PR 17742 is now fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17926
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 20:28
---
Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs
3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
20:39 ---
Rewritting the code this way, shows how we ahould be optimizing the code:
void h()
{
int i;
unsigned short *q1 = q;
for (i=0;ilast+NOSB;i++)
{
*q1 = 0;
q1++;
}
}
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Null parameter values for |[4.0 Regression] Null
|anonymous constructor |parameter values for
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-11-11 21:42 ---
GRRR. I thought I had settled on a scheme that would address the SWITCH_EXPR
representation issues with 15524. It was a combination of a hash table to
get us from an edge to a CASE_LABEL_EXPR and the CASE_LEADER
When I tried a C + Ada only bootstrap of current mainline on
alpha-dec-osf5.1b, most of the bootstrap and building libada went along
fine. The bootstrap stopped only when trying to build gnatchop (or any
other of gnattools):
make -C tools -f ../Makefile CC=../../xgcc -B../../ CFLAGS=-O2 -g -O2
g++ -pedantic -Wall -g -c -o test_sequence.o test_sequence.cpp
sequence.hpp: In function `int main()':
sequence.hpp:19: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:6646
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
--- Additional Comments From mark at easterbrook dot org dot uk 2004-11-11
22:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=7520)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7520action=view)
Output from gcc -v
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18435
--- Additional Comments From mark at easterbrook dot org dot uk 2004-11-11
22:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=7521)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7521action=view)
Intermediate file (.ii)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18435
--- Additional Comments From mark at easterbrook dot org dot uk 2004-11-11
22:21 ---
(From update of attachment 7521)
The error occured when the template at line 32849 was added:
templateclass FInit
class...
If this is removed the error does not occur (obviously the code won't then
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
23:30 ---
Note the code has some invalid C++ in that if you compile with 3.4.0 you will
get some errors.
Also I could reproduce this on a 3.3 based compiler from Apple.
Also I don't get the ICE on the mainline
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
23:33 ---
I thought we declared that Ada building on alpha-dec-osf was broken and should
have been turned off.
This was because when Geoff fixed a PCH bug, alpha-dec-osf could not bootstrap
Ada anymore.
--
--
Bug 16994 depends on bug 15508, which changed state.
Bug 15508 Summary: Size evaluation of variable-length array seem to be skipped
in some cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15508
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11
23:41 ---
As the code is not valid C++, we are rejecting it. Note I think this would be
fixed if we decied ever to
add back this support for VLAs.
--
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
