--- Comment #11 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-24 08:12 ---
*** Bug 42480 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-24 08:12 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42181 ***
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from abel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 08:18 ---
The problem here is in the incorrect handling of the transformation history.
When an insn is transformed (i.e. substituted/speculated), this is recorded so
that the insn could be found during upward code motion. Part
--- Comment #1 from abel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 08:32 ---
Here, we broke pipelining of outer loops when optimizing the scheduler core.
The problems analyzed by Alexander are simple though. First, when testing
whether a loop is considered for pipelining, I decided to play
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 09:42 ---
-gno-strict-dwarf should be added to dg-options to make darwin happy.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42487
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 10:18 ---
Matthias confirmed to me privately that his bootstrap had gone past the
infinite loop in stage2 . There might be other issues with Thumb2 bootstrap -
we'll open new bugs in the future for those.
Updated subject
--- Comment #9 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 10:46 ---
Subject: Bug 40887
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Dec 24 10:46:00 2009
New Revision: 155453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155453
Log:
Fix PR target/40887
2009-12-24 Julian Brown
In function __xmlRaiseError of error.c ( libxml2.a ) if this particular c file
is compiled with optimization -O2 ( -foptimize-sibling-calls ) call to this
function from xmlFatalErrMsgStrIntStr() parser.c ( libxml2.a ) will never take
place, and, seems to cause dead-lock situation.
Tested recompile
--- Comment #1 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 11:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=19386)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19386action=view)
saves .ok compiled with -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
--- Comment #2 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 11:57 ---
(gdb) disass $pc-30 $pc+30
Dump of assembler code from 0x4933e3 to 0x49341f:
0x004933e3 __xmlRaiseError+179: add%al,(%eax)
0x004933e5 __xmlRaiseError+181: add%al,%bh
0x004933e7 __xmlRaiseError+183:
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org 2009-12-24 12:00 ---
Subject: Re: ICE when resolves overloaded functions
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-23 23:00
---
Dodji, is this just a duplicate of PR38600?
Yes, I think so.
--
--- Comment #4 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 12:03 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38600 ***
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 12:03 ---
*** Bug 40044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #53 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 13:02 ---
I cannot reproduce this anymore on ia64 -- at least not for VRP and CPROP. The
slowest pass is now expand:
dominator optimization: 0.40 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.40 ( 1%) wall
2188 kB ( 3%) ggc
tree CCP
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 13:12 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg01114.html fixes part of this bug,
but I still get a bootstrap comparison failure.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41862
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 13:54 ---
I think the example is valid. ifort and sunf95 accept it.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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 hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 14:46
---
Fixed already Rev 142978 (29th December 2008)
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-24 14:48
---
I know if you move the function it links (btw your link asks me for an HTTP
login), but if you follow the discussion in the newsgroup it was concluded that
this (the above) is actually perfectly valid standard
Consider:
namespace B { struct C {}; }
namespace A { namespace C { } using namespace B; }
struct A::C c;
GCC complains:
error: 'C' in namespace 'A' does not name a type
Not knowing much about the subtleties of name lookup myself, I'm relying on the
following two sources for the code's
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-24 15:39
---
Try this one:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#329
Anyway, if you could point us to the specific sentence in the thread saying
that it's legal, it would be useful. And, well,
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 16:02 ---
This isn't going to happen till we teach csa and the other optimizers about
load and store multiple as first class objects in the IR.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
Benjamin, apparently the framework isn't passing -std=gnu++0x (I suspect isn't
passing -pthread either). Can you have a look?
--
Summary: performance/30_threads/future/polling.cc fails at
compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
--- Comment #1 from jlpoole at pon dot net 2009-12-24 16:23 ---
I learned from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2008-08/msg00031.html (Andrew Haley)
how to invoke the test suite:
make check-target-libjava
Here are my results:
make check-target-libjava
...
[assorted make executions]
...
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 16:59 ---
It is fixed by revision 145494:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-04/msg00115.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42488
--- Comment #11 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-24 17:23
---
This is possibly the part in which gets confirmed that the code is standard
compliant, although it reports the exact same paragraph you linked (the old
version):
This is simular to bug #31541, but different version of gcc.
v4.4.2-152840-release-2.19-2009-10-27_ntv/bin/gcc/configure --disable-nls
--disable-c-mbchar --disable-plugin --disable-werror --disable-shared
--enable-languages=c,c++ --with-gmp=/emc/ucode/Linux-2x-i686/gmp-4.2.2
--- Comment #2 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 19:54
---
Subject: Bug 35013
Author: hutchinsonandy
Date: Thu Dec 24 19:53:57 2009
New Revision: 155459
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155459
Log:
2009-12-24 Andy Hutchinson
--- Comment #3 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 19:58
---
Fixed 4.5
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 20:01
---
Fixed 4.5
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2009-12-24 20:24 ---
Thank you for commiting that patch. I am also receiving bootstrap comparison
failures at x86_64 (r155455, -O2 -fgcse-sm):
gcc/double-int.o differs
libcpp/expr.o differs
r155434 without -fgcse-sm bootstraps fine (I didn't
--- Comment #5 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 20:32
---
Subject: Bug 42457
Author: hutchinsonandy
Date: Thu Dec 24 20:32:38 2009
New Revision: 155460
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155460
Log:
2009-12-24 Andy Hutchinson
--- Comment #6 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 20:33
---
Fixed 4.5
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2009-12-24 20:35 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
When I applied patch from comment #2 (it does the same as the commited patch)
to r153685, it bootstraped fine as well.
With -O2 -fgcse-sm, that is. (I don't know if that was a luck, some latent
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 21:03 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-12-24
21:25 ---
Some issues with -foptimize-sibling-calls were fixed in GCC 4.5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
--- Comment #4 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 21:29 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Some issues with -foptimize-sibling-calls were fixed in GCC 4.5
Backport it to 4.4 branch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 21:34 ---
Works on the trunk.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from yakov at emc dot com 2009-12-24 21:43 ---
Subject: Re: cannot take address of bit-field
I know; is there a patch that could be used for gcc-4.4.2?
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 21:34
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 21:46 ---
Subject: Bug 41305
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 24 21:46:14 2009
New Revision: 155461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155461
Log:
PR c++/41305, DR 384
* name-lookup.c
--
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 #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 21:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19387)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19387action=view)
patch
Here's a fix. I'm going to hold off on applying it for now since it isn't a
regression.
--
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-24 21:55
---
Cool. Should the testcase use dg-do link?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #5 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 22:09 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Some issues with -foptimize-sibling-calls were fixed in GCC 4.5
Which revision fix in trunk??
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
--- Comment #8 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 22:13 ---
This appears to be a problem with cgraph_externally_visible_p.
function_and_variable_visibility sets the TREE_PUBLIC flag in
decl to zeor when cgraph_externally_visible_p returns false.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-24 22:14 ---
Ah, good point. I've updated the patch accordingly in my local pre-4.6 git
branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38392
--- Comment #15 from H9XLrv5oXVNvHiUI at spambox dot us 2009-12-24 22:15
---
Hey thank you! I'd like to test the patch if I only I'd be able to compile 4.5
successfully. You have any idea on when could this patch make it to a final
release?
--
--- Comment #6 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 22:44 ---
Cause endless maximum cpu usage in application run-time.
--
t7 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
checking if ccache gcc -m32 supports -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions... no
checking for ccache gcc -m32 option to produce PIC... -fPIC -DPIC
checking if ccache gcc -m32 PIC flag -fPIC -DPIC works... yes
checking if ccache gcc -m32 static flag -static works... no
checking if ccache gcc -m32 supports
--- Comment #1 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-24 23:52 ---
--with-system-zlib is not default.
--
t7 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from Curatica at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 00:08 ---
Thanks (not sure what 4.1.0 referred to)...
--
Curatica at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 01:24 ---
It may be fixed by revision 151260:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-09/msg6.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from Curatica at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 02:04 ---
Please, understand that for me this is just a disinterested, academic
discussion: no offense. I am not sure that I agree with the theory.
The standard (8.5.1) states that:
T x = a;
is a copy-initialization but
--- Comment #2 from k_suresh_babu at yahoo dot com 2009-12-25 02:43 ---
Subject: Re: class members not getting assigned access thru another method
Hi,
So a constructor can't call another method if that is the case then it is ok.
You can close the issue.
regards,
sureshbk.
--- On
, compiled gcc-trunk.
Tested
gcc version 4.5.0 20091224 (experimental) Revision 155461 MINGW64-1684
Referential numerous bug-reports:
* http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41424
* http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/forums/forum/723797/topic/3482477
Very mingw-w64 specific I think
--- Comment #8 from t7 at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 02:51 ---
No simple test-case code can be provided you have to read libxml2 source
error.c about less then 1000 lines.
Without running program in the gdb, fprintf to stderr in the beginning of the
__xmlRaiseError() there was no
For the following code:
extern void func();
extern char outbuf[];
extern int outcnt;
extern int bool_var;
void test ()
{
char flags;
flags = 0;
outcnt = 0;
if (outcnt == 1) func ();
if (outcnt == 1) func ();
if (outcnt == 1) func ();
if (bool_var) flags = 2;
outbuf[outcnt] = flags;
if
Compile the attached test case with options -mthumb -Os -fpic, gcc generates:
goo:
push{r3, r4, r5, lr}
ldr r4, .L7
ldr r3, .L7+4// A
.LPIC0:
add r4, pc
ldr r3, [r4, r3] // B
ldr r3, [r3]
mov r5, r0
--- Comment #1 from carrot at google dot com 2009-12-25 07:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=19388)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19388action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42495
--- Comment #2 from carrot at google dot com 2009-12-25 07:52 ---
instruction. It uses the same number of instructions. -Os should do the same
It uses the same number of registers.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42495
61 matches
Mail list logo
