--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:22
---
I don't see this failure in any of the recent retest results of hppa
(I've looked at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg00422.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg00417.html and
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:29
---
For 4.5.0.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-03 19:09
---
As Richard Henderson pointed out, declarations with DECL_VALUE_EXPR
should not appear in the function body at all. I have filed bug 41250
about this.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-06 17:31
---
Created an attachment (id=18311)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18311action=view)
workaround patch
I still believe that the gimplifier should not do this substitution
this late in the
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-06 17:55
---
Patch posted to mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00367.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40464
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 20:51 ---
The long-dead declaration is brought back to life by the following
line in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl() in gimplify.c:
tree value_expr = DECL_VALUE_EXPR (decl);
I don't know why that happens yet.
--
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 16:54 ---
Right. The number in identifiers I see are different, of course, but
what happens is this. Early SRA replaces structure b.3 with
SR.4_25. In BB2, it is assigned into from parameter b:
SR.4_25 = b._M_value;
This
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-29 09:27 ---
Can you please try this with -fno-tree-sra? If you have a revision
earlier than 147980 (new SRA) at hand, can you try that with
-fno-tree-sra? Thanks.
I'll try to reproduce this on gcc61 at the compile farm but
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-07-29
13:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL:
g++.dg/torture/pr34099.C -O1 (internal compiler error) at -O1 and
above
Can you please try this with -fno-tree-sra? If you have a revision
earlier
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-07-29
16:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL:
g++.dg/torture/pr34099.C -O1 (internal compiler error) at -O1 and
above
Attached tree dump.
Dave
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-29 17:09 ---
In the 'ch' pass, we have:
bb 2:
a.85 = a;
SR.155_25 = b._M_value;
...
This gets transformed in the 'cplxlower' pass to
bb 2:
a.85 = a;
SR.155$real_7 = REALPART_EXPR b.86._M_value;
SR.155$imag_1 =
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-29 01:29 ---
Introduced in revision 147980 (SRA).
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
14 matches
Mail list logo
