--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 06:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
which returns false. It gets quite complicated if we want to handle:
foo(1)%bar(1:1)%variable(:)(sub:string)
AFAICT this is already handled fine:
write(6,*)
triggered by some discussion in PR41113
SUBROUTINE S(a,n)
INTEGER :: n
REAL :: a(n,n,n,n)
a(:,:,:,:)=0.0
END SUBROUTINE
generates a four-fold look to do the zeroing, while it would be more efficient
to zero n**4 elements starting from a(1,1,1,1). I.e. since a is contiguous in
memory a memset or
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 06:15 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I have another example, I will file it as a different PR, but make a
'cross-link'
PR 41137
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41113
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 07:02 ---
Just for reference, the difference in time between the two variants is truly
impressive. About a factor of 11 with gcc 4.4 and 8 with gcc 4.5. Given that a
code like CP2K spents sometimes about 5-10% of its time in
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 07:08 ---
Subject: Bug 41131
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 21 07:08:15 2009
New Revision: 150985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150985
Log:
PR c++/41131
* tree.c (lvalue_p_1) case
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 07:10 ---
Subject: Bug 41131
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Aug 21 07:10:36 2009
New Revision: 150986
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150986
Log:
PR c++/41131
* tree.c (lvalue_p_1) case
--- Comment #1 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 07:18 ---
Hello, this issue is new to us. But please report this kind of link failures to
mingw-w64 project itself. This bug is unrelated to gcc itself.
It would be interesting, if you report to mingw-w64 project, which
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 07:23 ---
Fixed for 4.4/4.5 so far.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 07:39 ---
I think PR31009 is similar.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 08:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I think PR31009 is similar.
In fact, this is almost a dup of PR31016, since also here, I'm explicitly
talking about the case of known-to-be-contiguous arrays.
--
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 09:43 ---
Subject: Bug 41106
Author: janus
Date: Fri Aug 21 09:43:04 2009
New Revision: 150987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150987
Log:
2009-08-21 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 09:56 ---
I get the warning with FSF 4.4.1 and the 4.5.0 20090813 snapshot, looks like a
problem with ubuntu's 4.4.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41135
--- Comment #2 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-08-21 10:36 ---
Hello,
I can confirm this issue have been solved by mingw-w64 (updating mingw-w64-crt)
in the latest source in svn repository
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/develop).
---
sezero committed revision 1181 to the
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-21 12:12 ---
You nee to provide
Please read You need to provide (why do we see typos after having hit the
commit button?).
The util_p.f file contains two subroutines and three functions. You may want to
find the culprit(s) by
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 12:17 ---
Fixed with r150987. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Given the following testcase:
-
unsigned char foo;
void test ()
{
foo = 65280;
foo = 65280L;
foo = 65280U;
foo = 0xff00;
foo = 0xff00L;
foo = 0xff00U;
}
-
when compiling (gcc -c test.c) there will be
PROGRAM test
PROCEDURE(add), POINTER :: f
! Passing the function works
print *,greater(4.,add(1.,2.))
! Passing the procedure pointer fails
f = add
print *,greater(4.,f(1.,2.))
CONTAINS
REAL FUNCTION add(x,y)
REAL, INTENT(in) :: x,y
print *,add:,x,y
add = x+y
END FUNCTION add
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barron dot bichon at swri
|
--- Comment #1 from bugs at nospam dot pz dot podzone dot net 2009-08-21
13:31 ---
$ cat foo.c
unsigned char foo;
Also note the inconsistency between x86 gcc and avr-gcc:
void test(void)
{
foo = ~0xff; /* warning */
foo = ~0xfe; /* no warning */
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-21 13:35 ---
Beware the forbidden recursive I/Os!-(the test hangs on Darwin, see pr30617).
Otherwise, after using a temp for greater, I get a Bus error.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41139
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 13:51 ---
Beware the forbidden recursive I/Os!
This is not the issue here. The following variation has no recursive I/O, but
gives the same segfault:
PROGRAM test
PROCEDURE(add), POINTER :: f
logical :: g
! Passing the
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-21 13:58 ---
Beware the forbidden recursive I/Os!
This is not the issue here. ...
Indeed I know! but
(1) I had to make the change you have posted in comment #2 to run a test.
(2) The code in comment #0 is illegal and
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 14:00 ---
Side note: If one constructs an analogous test case with PPCs, this does not
have the missing-temporary problem. But it has a different one:
PROGRAM test
type :: t
PROCEDURE(add), POINTER, nopass :: f
end type
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 14:03 ---
(1) I had to make the change you have posted in comment #2 to run a test.
(2) The code in comment #0 is illegal and should not be used for the test
suite.
Of course. Thanks for pointing this out :)
--
--- Comment #2 from andreas dot freimuth at united-bits dot de 2009-08-21
14:16 ---
I supposed that the A constraints was introduced to support instructions that
use a combination of d and a registers as parameters. These instructions that
use DX:AX, EDX:EAX and RDX:RAX as source or
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 14:50 ---
This simple patch fixes comment #2:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(revision 150987)
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 15:11 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
D.1571 = o.f;
D.1572 = D.1571 (C.1569, C.1570);
g = (logical(kind=4)) greater (C.1568, D.1572);
Btw, it seems unnecessary to me that every PPC call generates a temporary
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc
/ -B/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/hom
e/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/home/dave/o
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 18:44 ---
TYPE_QUAL_RESTRICT is now supported, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-08/msg00208.html
TYPE_QUAL_CONST is to my knowledge a no op, for QUAL_VOLATILE, I have not
checked whether it is already (correctly) used or
--- Comment #4 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 19:22 ---
As to see on Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printf#printf_format_placeholders
%I32 means, for integer types, causes to expect a 32-bit (double word) integer
argument. May tests have shown that long type and int
--- Comment #1 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2009-08-21 19:28
---
Confirmed on 4.3.2.
--
eric dot weddington at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package agg-2.5-158.64
with the g++ 4.5 mainline snapshot 20090820
and the compiler said
In file included from aa_test.cpp:13:0:
../include/agg_span_gouraud_rgba.h: In member function 'void
agg::span_gouraud_rgbaColorT::prepare() [with ColorT = agg::rgba8]':
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-08-21 20:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=18409)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18409action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41144
--- Comment #6 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2009-08-21 20:10
---
Confirmed on 4.3.2.
--
eric dot weddington at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 20:27 ---
Here is another variant of the test case which fails at runtime:
PROGRAM test
type :: t
PROCEDURE(three), POINTER, nopass :: f
end type
type(t) :: o
logical :: g
o%f = three
g=greater(4.,o%f())
print *,g
--- Comment #7 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 21:11 ---
Sorry I was out on vacation. I will take a look.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40660
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 21:46 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41109 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 21:46 ---
*** Bug 41110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41109
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 21:47 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41109 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 21:47 ---
*** Bug 41134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41109
--
meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |meissner at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
My VSX changes broke reporting of some error messages, such as __vector
_Decimal128 unless -mvsx was used.
--
Summary: My VSX changes broke gcc.dg/dfp/altivec-types.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--- Comment #1 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 22:47
---
Created an attachment (id=18410)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18410action=view)
Restore error messages broken by VSX changes
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41145
--- Comment #5 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 22:48
---
Created an attachment (id=18411)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18411action=view)
Use correct target test to size pointers.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40671
--- Comment #1 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2009-08-22 00:43 ---
Here is asm output from GCC 4.2.5 (-m68060 -fomit-frame-pointer -O3):
#NO_APP
.text
.even
.globl _MUL64
_MUL64:
movm.l #0x3e00,-(sp)
move.l 24(sp),a1
move.l 28(sp),a0
#APP
46 matches
Mail list logo
