http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still doesn't correctly work as the following code shows:
if (_F.DA0 == 0B)
_F.DA0 = left;
…
finally
{
if (left != 0B)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
Bug ID: 58472
Summary: gomp4: ICE in in vectorizable_store, at
tree-vect-stmts.c:4192
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #13 from Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net ---
Created attachment 30861
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30861action=edit
Sort patch
Wow, this an embarrassing bug to get through testing. Obviously not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Chris,
(detail: could you pass -u10, or at least -p, to diff to make the patches
easier to read? It isn't required so you don't have to)
I don't really understand why the pivot is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The test gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_11.f90 fails on x86_64-apple-darwin10:
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
Valgrind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58473
Bug ID: 58473
Summary: [4.9 regression] FAIL:
ext/random/normal_mv_distribution/cons/default.cc
(test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58473
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58394
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #39 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #37)
In order to use movmisalign_optab
instructions when we can, we should probably only do it if tem is a
structure with a zero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
yes
cat omp4red.cc
float a[1024];
float b[1024];
float sumO1() {
float s = 0.f;
#pragma omp simd reduction(+:s)
for (int i=0;i1024;++i) {
s += a[i]*b[i];
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
on linux
c++ -O2 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1 -S omp4red.cc -fopenmp
omp4red.cc:8:13: note: loop vectorized
omp4red.cc: In function 'float sumO1()':
omp4red.cc:4:7:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks a lot guys, I appreciate all the help you are providing. While fixing
this, let's remember that this regressed even in the old 4.7.x branch. Thus, if
we are sure we are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
gcc -O2 libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-3.c -fopenmp
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-3.c: In function ‘foo’:
libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-3.c:14:1: internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #16 from Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net ---
Indeed, if std::sort had never used lower-level partitioning to get the pivot
in the correct location, we would never have had this problem in the first
place!
This is not too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Can I ask you also a rather simple test for
testsuite/performance/25_algorithms?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358
--- Comment #26 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 19 10:19:58 2013
New Revision: 202736
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202736root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-19 Mitsuru Kariya
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another example where addv could be used:
int test (int a)
{
if (a == 0x7FFF)
return a;
return a + 1;
}
currently compiles to:
-O2 -m2a:
mov.l .L6,r1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
[Ugh, bugzilla seems half broken at the moment]
I would suggest my current patch (which is simpler than it looks from the
diff) for previous versions, then investigate pivot.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Sep 19 11:40:29 2013
New Revision: 202737
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202737root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-19 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
seems so
gcc -O2 libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c/simd-4.c -fopenmp
c++ -O2 -S omp4red.cc -fopenmp| cat omp4red.s
.text
.align 4,0x90
.globl __Z5sumO1v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I bet the difference is probably that your tree-vect-stmts.o has been compiled
with -O2, while mine with -O0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
Yes I compile gcc with -O2 -ftree-vectorize
on linux I also do bootstrap-lto
strange that the compiler does not warn about this uninitialized variable:
it does for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58465
--- Comment #2 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
does this happen with clang trunk?
BTW, I hope to do a fresh merge in the nearest 2-3 weeks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
Bug ID: 58475
Summary: SH4 insn swapb does not satisfy its constraints:
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58475
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem is that
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 arith_reg_dest =r)
(ior:SI (and:SI (match_operand:SI 1 arith_reg_operand r)
accepts fpul registers in the predicate, but not in the constraints.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58476
Bug ID: 58476
Summary: bootstrap failure with Go enabled
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58446
Gregor Richards gcc-bug-espfv4bhi9 at gregor dot im changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30831|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58446
Gregor Richards gcc-bug-espfv4bhi9 at gregor dot im changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30834|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58446
Gregor Richards gcc-bug-espfv4bhi9 at gregor dot im changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30835|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58467
--- Comment #1 from Paul Smith psmith at gnu dot org ---
Housekeeping: it would be very nice to have a Doc component in bugzilla. As
it was I picked c because it was that part of the docs. Thx!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
w/o opening another bug report
c++ -O2 -S omp4red.cc -fopenmp -Wall
omp4red.cc: In function ‘float sumO1()’:
omp4red.cc:6:9: warning: ‘simduid.0’ is used uninitialized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58467
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #20 from Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net ---
Created attachment 30867
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30867action=edit
Performance tests for sort
This is some performance tests for performance checking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey M. Birnbaum jmbnyc at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #19)
I ran some quick tests and indeed the performance seems equal of better of
those of the old C++03 code. Note that the patch is very
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58464
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58465
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Smolsky oleg at smolsky dot net ---
Hey Kostya, unfortunately I have no way to check that. This happens in
our product code I cannot built it with Clang.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58476
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58463
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58464
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #24 from Tammy Hsu tammy at Cadence dot COM ---
Yes, it is a question. And thank you for the answer... :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 19 16:56:40 2013
New Revision: 202748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202748root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58472
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
If this is a question, the answer is YES.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58472
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 19 17:03:51 2013
New Revision: 202750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202750root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58472
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
The test gfortran.dg/defined_assignment_11.f90 fails on
x86_64-apple-darwin10:
==30916== Invalid read of size 4
==30916==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #22 from Tammy Hsu tammy at Cadence dot COM ---
Thanks a lot. We will test it out with our real application.
Just want to do things right, the patch is the one described in Attachment
30861. And I just need to patch the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58435
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Of course. Just look at the testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #25 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that naively doing what I am proposing in comment #14 (it's just an
iter_swap and a +-1) also makes reverse-sorted arrays a bad case, because of
the way we do partitioning, so it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58465
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Smolsky oleg at smolsky dot net ---
Also, I've just extracted the regex call into a tiny test app and there is no
deadlock... so, it is a bit puzzling...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58461
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Bug ID: 58477
Summary: ice in cgraph_speculative_call_info
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58435
--- Comment #6 from iavr at image dot ntua.gr ---
(In reply to pa...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5)
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 17 17:46:03 2013
New Revision: 202662
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your immediate response. However, I have to report that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
What's the difference between defined_assignment_11_db.f90 and
defined_assignment_11.f90?
In defined_assignment_11_db.f90 the print statements have been uncommented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58477
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Bug ID: 58479
Summary: slow compilation on x86_64-linux at -O1 (and above)
with -g, but checking disabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58478
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58478
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
Confirmed.
That's quick; thanks Marek!
Please also take a look at 58479 when you get a chance.
It's related (as well as 58318).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58318
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
A quick check with a non-bootstrapped cc1 but release checking makes the
slowdown go away.
Richard, there is related testcase that I have just reported (58479). It
manifests also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58478
Bug ID: 58478
Summary: very slow compilation at -O1 and above on a nested
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|slow compilation on |[4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58442
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann martin at netbsd dot org ---
I stared at the assembly a bit more (but my vax fu is weak):
we are in the last line of
216 #line 781 ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/vax/vax.md
217 ((INTVAL (operands[1]) == 8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58454
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
70 matches
Mail list logo
