[Bug target/19923] [4.0/4.1 Regression] openssl is slower when compiled with gcc 4.0 than 3.3
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-06-18 06:24 --- Looks to me like gcc-3.4.3 is known to fail, too, depending on the CPU. Anthony Danalis and I came up with a little script to run foo4.i on various processors with various values for -mtune, which I'll attach; here are the results for four different x86 variants. The last two columns are the time on gcc-3.4.3 and gcc-4.0.0 divided by the time on gcc-2.95.3, so any value above 1.0 in the last column is a performance regression. Rows are sorted by the last column. The first five rows represent performance regressions for gcc-3.4.3; the first three also represent performance regressions for gcc-4.0.0. family,model,name pic? tune [t_295, t_343, t_400] [t_295/t_295, t_343/t_295, t_400/t_295] 6,8, Pentium III (Coppermine), -fPIC athlon-xp [9.25, 16.22, 18.79] [1.00, 1.75, 2.03] 15,2, Xeon(TM) CPU 2.60GHz, -fPIC pentium4 [1.91, 3.89, 3.27][1.00, 2.04, 1.71] 6,8, Pentium III (Coppermine), -fPIC pentium3 [9.15, 10.10, 13.20] [1.00, 1.10, 1.44] 15,2, Xeon(TM) CPU 2.60GHz, -fPIC athlon-xp [1.91, 2.00, 1.95][1.00, 1.05, 1.02] 6,8, Pentium III (Coppermine), -fPIC pentium4 [9.27, 10.49, 8.87] [1.00, 1.13, 0.96] --- ok below this line --- 6,8, Pentium III (Coppermine),pentium4 [14.74, 13.71, 14.12] [1.00, 0.93, 0.96] 15,4, Athlon(tm) 64 3000+, -fPIC pentium4 [4.12, 3.68, 3.74][1.00, 0.89, 0.91] 15,4, Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz, -fPIC pentium4 [2.48, 2.18, 2.09][1.00, 0.88, 0.84] 15,4, Athlon(tm) 64 3000+, -fPIC athlon-xp [4.12, 3.50, 3.20][1.00, 0.85, 0.78] 15,4, Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz, pentium4 [2.17, 1.07, 1.07][1.00, 0.49, 0.49] 6,8, Pentium III (Coppermine),pentium3 [14.22, 6.26, 6.46] [1.00, 0.44, 0.45] 6,8, Pentium III (Coppermine),athlon-xp [14.93, 6.26, 6.27] [1.00, 0.42, 0.42] 15,4, Athlon(tm) 64 3000+,pentium4 [3.65, 1.39, 1.39][1.00, 0.38, 0.38] 15,4, Athlon(tm) 64 3000+,athlon-xp [3.65, 1.39, 1.40][1.00, 0.38, 0.38] 15,2, Xeon(TM) CPU 2.60GHz, pentium4 [6.42, 0.97, 0.98][1.00, 0.15, 0.15] -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19923
[Bug target/19923] [4.0/4.1 Regression] openssl is slower when compiled with gcc 4.0 than 3.3
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-06-18 06:38 --- To be clear, here are the two most worrying rows from the above table, expanded a bit. These are the runtimes of foo4.i in seconds. The cpu family, model, and name are as shown by /proc/cpuinfo. cpu family 15, model 2, Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.60GHz: -fPIC -mtune=pentium4 -O3 gcc-2.95.3: 1.91 seconds gcc-3.4.3: 3.89 gcc-4.0.0: 3.27 cpu family 6, model 8, Pentium III (Coppermine) -fPIC -mtune=pentium3 -O3 gcc-2.95.3: 9.15 gcc-3.4.3: 10.10 gcc-4.0.0: 13.20 gcc-4.0.0 produces code that runs 1.7 and 1.4 times slower than gcc-2.95.3 on these (fairly common!) cpus, even when the proper -mtune is used. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19923
Time99
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd;
html
head
titleTime99/title
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=gb2312
style type=text/css
!--
body {
margin-left: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
}
--
/style/head
body
table width=62% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
tr
tddiv align=centera href=http://www.time99.com;img
src=http://ad.time99.com/Images/050610.jpg; width=621 height=346
border=0/a/div/td
/tr
tr
tddiv align=centera href=http://jishuqi.cn/;img border=0
alt= src=http://jishuqi.cn/timead01/d.php?count;/aa
href=http://jishuqi.cn/;img style=visibility:hidden alt=
src=http://c.hitcounter.cn/chit.cfm?u=timead01;/a/div/td
/tr
/table
div align=left/div
/body
/html
[Bug libfortran/21593] FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
08:44 ---
The problem is in the different behavior of ftruncate on /dev/null:
$ cat a.c
#include unistd.h
#include errno.h
#include fcntl.h
#include stdio.h
int main (void)
{
int fd = open (/dev/null, O_RDWR);
ftruncate (fd, 0);
printf (%d\n, errno);
close (fd);
return 0;
}
On linux, this code outputs 22 (EINVAL), while on freebsd it outputs 0. I
suppose the reason of the failure is similar for other platforms.
I'm sure what to do, but I don't think I'll take too much time thinking about
it, since this a low-priority bug really.
While we wait for this to be solved, I think we should make sure the testcase
only runs on linux and solaris (for which this is known to work).
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Last reconfirmed|2005-05-17 08:04:28 |2005-06-18 08:44:51
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21593
[Bug tree-optimization/22103] [4.1 Regression] Statement makes a memory store .., complex
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 08:51 --- Subject: Bug 22103 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-18 08:51:44 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog tree-sra.c Added files: gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile: complex-2.c Log message: PR tree-opt/22103 * tree-sra.c (generate_copy_inout): Handle SSA_NAME complex destinations. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=2.9177r2=2.9178 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-sra.c.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=2.62r2=2.63 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/complex-2.c.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=NONEr2=1.1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22103
[Bug tree-optimization/22103] [4.1 Regression] Statement makes a memory store .., complex
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 08:58 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22103
[Bug fortran/16606] gfortran error with a valid derived type definition
--- Additional Comments From enok at lysator dot liu dot se 2005-06-18 09:08 --- The problem seems to appear with pointer declaration to a derived type with any kind of member initialization. The following code fails too: SUBROUTINE N TYPE T INTEGER :: I = 0 END TYPE T TYPE(T), POINTER :: P END SUBROUTINE N This bug is breaking my code completely. Is there any workaround? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16606
[Bug libstdc++/22111] New: [4.0 Regression] libstdc+++ ABI
When running the testsuite for GCC 4.0.1 RC 2 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01068.html) I get the following error: FAIL: abi_check The above testsuite failure does not occur with GCC 4.0-20050616 snapshot (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01025.html) -- Summary: [4.0 Regression] libstdc+++ ABI Product: gcc Version: 4.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: themis_hv at yahoo dot co dot uk CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,mark at codesourcery dot com GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22111
[Bug libstdc++/22111] [4.0 Regression] libstdc++ ABI
-- What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.0 Regression] libstdc+++ |[4.0 Regression] libstdc++ |ABI |ABI http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22111
[Bug tree-optimization/22100] [4.1 regression] internal compiler error: in tree_verify_flow_info
-- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 10:41:28 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22100
[Bug tree-optimization/22100] [4.1 regression] internal compiler error: in tree_verify_flow_info
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 10:42 --- Investigating... -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2005-06-18 10:41:28 |2005-06-18 10:42:10 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22100
[Bug tree-optimization/22100] [4.1 regression] internal compiler error: in tree_verify_flow_info
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-18 10:43 --- Confirmed. Not fixed by RTH's recent patch to fix vectorizer failures, but still most likely related to Honza's patch to kill RBI. -- What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org, ||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22100
[Bug c/22112] New: Another fallout from alias warning patch
Stevenb noticed another fallout from Nathan's alias warning patch: ../../mainline/gcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h: In function 'x86_64_fallback_frame_state': ../../mainline/gcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h:55: warning: dereferencing type- punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules This can be seen on a x86-64 bootstrap. -- Summary: Another fallout from alias warning patch Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: giovannibajo at libero dot it CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org,stevenb at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22112
[Bug tree-optimization/22100] [4.1 regression] internal compiler error: in tree_verify_flow_info
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 11:34 --- Honza messed up. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot |org |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22100
[Bug tree-optimization/22035] [4.1 Regression] complex float comparison broken
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 11:52 --- Subject: Bug 22035 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-18 11:51:48 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog Added files: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg: f2c_6.f90 Log message: PR tree-opt/22035 * gfortran.dg/f2c_6.f90: New test. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.5650r2=1.5651 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/f2c_6.f90.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=NONEr2=1.1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22035
[Bug java/22113] New: Buffer overflow in the lexical analyser while reading FP literals
There is a buffer overflow error in GCJ while reading in large FP literals, as shown by Jacks testcase 3.10.2-round-6 (and others). On my machine, this manifests itself only when parse.y or lex.c is recompiled at -O0 after a full bootstrap, like so: cd $GCC_SRC_DIR/gcc/java touch parse.y cd $BUILD_DIR make BOOT_CFLAGS='-O0 -g3' bubblestrap Compile the attached testcase before and after this. In my case, it gives the expected Floating point literal too large error only in the former case. The array literal_token in do_java_lex() in lex.c is 256 characters long, but the subsequent code merrily overwrites long literals past this limit. A silly patch to overcome this particular error is: Index: lex.c === --- lex.c 2005-06-18 17:04:00.0 +0530 +++ lex.c 2005-06-18 17:06:14.0 +0530 @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@ do_java_lex (YYSTYPE *java_lval) int parts[TOTAL_PARTS]; HOST_WIDE_INT high, low; /* End borrowed section. */ - char literal_token [256]; + char literal_token [512]; int literal_index = 0, radix = 10, long_suffix = 0, overflow = 0, bytes; int found_hex_digits = 0, found_non_octal_digits = -1; int i; But of course this won't do. We need to have a better fix for this issue. I'm filing this bug so that we don't lose track of this issue. -- Summary: Buffer overflow in the lexical analyser while reading FP literals Product: gcc Version: 4.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: java AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22113
[Bug java/22113] Buffer overflow in the lexical analyser while reading FP literals
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 12:11 --- Created an attachment (id=9107) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9107action=view) Jacks testcase 3.10.2-round-6 that demonstrates this problem. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22113
[Bug target/22112] Another fallout from alias warning patch
-- What|Removed |Added Component|c |target GCC target triplet||x86_64-linux-gnu Version|unknown |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22112
[Bug AWT/21978] GCC 4.0 Awt and Swing problem
--- Additional Comments From abilalh at yahoo dot com 2005-06-18 12:57 --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) Yes you have to recompile GCC/GCJ. i recomplie gcc4.0 with --enable-java-awt=gtk configure option but it gave error on make bootstrap command that gtk version greater than 2.0 is needed , then i installed gtk 2.4.14 version which need , pango,atk, and glib updated versions, then i installed the pango, atk and glib updated versions, then i run the command on gcc directory i.e. ./configure --prefix=/opt/gcc4.0 --enable-java-awt=gtk this is the following out put [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc-4.1-20050417]# ./configure --prefix=/opt/gcc4.1 --enable-java-awt=gtk creating cache ./config.cache checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking target system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether ln works... yes checking whether ln -s works... yes checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... yes checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a cross-compiler... no checking whether we are using GNU C... yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking for gnatbind... gnatbind checking whether compiler driver understands Ada... yes checking how to compare bootstrapped objects... cmp --ignore-initial=16 $$f1 $$f2 checking for correct version of gmp.h... yes checking for MPFR... no The following languages will be built: c,c++,java,objc *** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories: target-libada gnattools target-libgfortran (Any other directories should still work fine.) checking for bison... bison checking for bison... bison -y checking for gm4... no checking for gnum4... no checking for m4... m4 checking for flex... flex checking for flex... flex checking for makeinfo... makeinfo checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar... no checking for ar... ar checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-as... no checking for as... as checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-dlltool... no checking for dlltool... dlltool checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-ld... no checking for ld... ld checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-nm... no checking for nm... nm checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-ranlib... no checking for ranlib... ranlib checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-windres... no checking for windres... windres checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-objcopy... no checking for objcopy... objcopy checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-objdump... no checking for objdump... objdump checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar... no checking for ar... ar checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-as... no checking for as... as checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-dlltool... no checking for dlltool... dlltool checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-ld... no checking for ld... ld checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-nm... no checking for nm... nm checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-ranlib... no checking for ranlib... ranlib checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-windres... no checking for windres... windres checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no checking if symbolic links between directories work... yes updating cache ./config.cache creating ./config.status creating Makefile [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc-4.1-20050417]# then i run the make bootstrap command and some last lines are listed below Using host-linux.o for host machine hooks. checking whether NLS is requested... yes checking for catalogs to be installed... be ca da de el es fr ja nl rw sv tr checking what assembler to use... /usr/bin/as checking what linker to use... /usr/bin/ld checking what nm to use... nm checking what objdump to use... objdump checking assembler for .balign and .p2align... yes checking assembler for .p2align with maximum skip... yes checking assembler for working .subsection -1... yes checking assembler for .weak... yes checking assembler for .nsubspa comdat... no checking assembler for .hidden... yes checking linker for .hidden support... yes checking assembler for .sleb128 and .uleb128... yes checking assembler for eh_frame optimization... yes checking assembler for section merging support... yes checking assembler for COMDAT group support... no checking assembler for COMDAT group support... no checking assembler for thread-local storage support... yes checking linker -Bstatic/-Bdynamic option... yes checking assembler for filds and fists mnemonics... yes checking assembler for cmov syntax... no checking assembler for GOTOFF in data... yes checking assembler for dwarf2 debug_line support... yes checking assembler for buggy dwarf2 .file directive... no checking assembler for --gdwarf2 option... yes checking assembler for --gstabs option... yes checking linker read-only and read-write section mixing... read-write checking linker PT_GNU_EH_FRAME support... yes checking linker position independent executable support... no checking linker --as-needed support... no Using ggc-page for garbage collection. checking whether to enable
[Bug target/22112] Another fallout from alias warning patch
--- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 13:04 --- can someone send me the .i file and/or sys/ucontext.h, I don't have an x86-64 system available. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 13:04:38 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22112
[Bug target/22083] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS is wrongly defined on AIX 5.1
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 13:26 --- Subject: Bug 22083 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-18 13:26:20 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/config/rs6000: aix51.h Log message: PR target/22083 * config/rs6000/aix51.h (TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS): Remove definition. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=2.9180r2=2.9181 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/aix51.h.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.28r2=1.29 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22083
[Bug libstdc++/22111] [4.0/4.1 Regression] libstdc++ ABI
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-18 13:48 --- I see this also on 4.1.0 20050617. -- What|Removed |Added CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org, ||jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Keywords||ABI Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 13:48:52 date|| Summary|[4.0 Regression] libstdc++ |[4.0/4.1 Regression] |ABI |libstdc++ ABI http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22111
[Bug libstdc++/22111] [4.0/4.1 Regression] libstdc++ ABI
-- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22111
[Bug ada/22055] ACATS ICE cxg1004 cxg1005 cxg2007 cxg2018 cxg2021 expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa tree-ssa.c:750
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-06-18 13:51 --- Now 5 tests with this ICE. +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.1.0 20050618 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: | | tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at | |tree-ssa.c:750| | Error detected at cxg2007.adb:291:5 | +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.1.0 20050618 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: | | tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at | |tree-ssa.c:750| | Error detected at cxg2018.adb:355:5 | +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.1.0 20050618 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: | | tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at | |tree-ssa.c:750| | Error detected at cxg2021.adb:386:5 | -- What|Removed |Added Summary|ACATS ICE cxg1005 cxg1004 |ACATS ICE cxg1004 cxg1005 |cxg2021 expected ssa_name, |cxg2007 cxg2018 cxg2021 |have var_decl in verify_ssa |expected ssa_name, have |tree-ssa.c:750 |var_decl in verify_ssa tree- ||ssa.c:750 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22055
[Bug c++/22114] New: Incorrect diagnostic for specialization of a nested class template
The code in the attached file is correct (Comeau 4.3.0.1 agrees with me), but g++ reports an error: doxybug.cpp:13: error: too few template-parameter-lists -- Summary: Incorrect diagnostic for specialization of a nested class template Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: cpp at tempest-sw dot com CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22114
[Bug c++/22114] Incorrect diagnostic for specialization of a nested class template
--- Additional Comments From cpp at tempest-sw dot com 2005-06-18 14:13 --- Created an attachment (id=9108) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9108action=view) sample code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22114
Re: [Bug target/22112] Another fallout from alias warning patch
nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 13:04 --- can someone send me the .i file and/or sys/ucontext.h, I don't have an x86-64 system available. It also happens on i686-pc-linux-gnu
[Bug target/22112] Another fallout from alias warning patch
--- Additional Comments From graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2005-06-18 14:21 --- Subject: Re: Another fallout from alias warning patch nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 13:04 --- can someone send me the .i file and/or sys/ucontext.h, I don't have an x86-64 system available. It also happens on i686-pc-linux-gnu -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22112
[Bug c++/22114] Incorrect diagnostic for specialization of a nested class template
-- What|Removed |Added Attachment #9108|text/x-cpp |text/plain mime type|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22114
[Bug c++/22114] Incorrect diagnostic for specialization of a nested class template
-- What|Removed |Added Known to fail||2.95.3 3.0.4 3.3.3 3.4.0 ||4.0.0 4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22114
[Bug testsuite/21967] [4.1 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-2.c and gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-4.c fail
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 15:35 --- Also observed for mmix-knuth-mmixware, cris-axis-elf and cris-axis-linux-gnu appearing in the time-frame LAST_UPDATED Tue Jun 7 09:57:32 UTC 2005 to Wed Jun 8 03:30:13 UTC 2005 and has failed ever since then. -- What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu dot org Last reconfirmed|2005-06-08 20:07:23 |2005-06-18 15:35:26 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21967
[Bug libfortran/21593] FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-06-18 15:48 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90 On linux, this code outputs 22 (EINVAL), while on freebsd it outputs 0. I suppose the reason of the failure is similar for other platforms. It outputs 0 on hpux 11.11. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21593
[Bug middle-end/21992] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure: many objc execution tests fail, first objc/execute/_cmd.m execution
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 16:10 --- Also observed on cris-elf and cris-axis-linux-gnu, same timeframe and ever since. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 16:10:15 date|| Summary|[4.1 regression] mmix-knuth-|[4.1 regression] testsuite |mmixware testsuite failure: |failure: many objc execution |many objc execution tests |tests fail, first |fail, first |objc/execute/_cmd.m |objc/execute/_cmd.m |execution |execution | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21992
[Bug libfortran/21593] FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot
edu 2005-06-18 16:19 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90
int main (void)
{
int fd = open (/dev/null, O_RDWR);
ftruncate (fd, 0);
printf (%d\n, errno);
close (fd);
return 0;
}
On linux, this code outputs 22 (EINVAL), while on freebsd it outputs 0. I
suppose the reason of the failure is similar for other platforms.
I'm sure what to do, but I don't think I'll take too much time thinking about
it, since this a low-priority bug really.
According to null(4) man page, reading or writing to /dev/null
on FreeBSD always succeeds. According to the ftruncate man page,
upon successful completion, the value 0 is returned.
The redhat system that I checked, identifies /dev/null as a
special file in null(4). The ftruncate man page specifically
states the behavior for regular files. So redhat has wiggle
room with its use of errno.
POSIX
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/toc.htm
If fildes refers to any other file type, except a shared memory
object, the result is unspecified.
So, we need to check both the return value of ftruncate and
the value of errno.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21593
[Bug libfortran/21593] FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-06-18 16:52 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: gfortran.dg/dev_null.f90 The redhat system that I checked, identifies /dev/null as a special file in null(4). The ftruncate man page specifically states the behavior for regular files. So redhat has wiggle room with its use of errno. The HP-UX 11.11 manpage says for ftruncate: The effect of ftruncate() and truncate() on other types of files is unspecified. The return value from the ftruncate call in the test program is 0. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21593
[Bug middle-end/21985] [4.0/4.1 Regression] miscompiled or wrong code snippet?
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 17:09 --- Regarding comment #10, I can confirm that the test fails on mmix-knuth-mmixware too (a 64-bit target), ever since it was committed; but not on cris-elf, cris-axis-linux-gnu (32-bit targets). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21985
[Bug target/21742] [4.1 Regression] unrecognized insn for struct-layout-1 tests with complex members
-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summary|unrecognized insn for |[4.1 Regression] |struct-layout-1 tests with |unrecognized insn for |complex members |struct-layout-1 tests with ||complex members Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21742
[Bug target/19923] [4.0/4.1 Regression] openssl is slower when compiled with gcc 4.0 than 3.3
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-06-18 17:46 --- The above tests did not use -mcpu on gcc-2.95.3, so they were comparing apples to oranges, kind of. I reran them on a PIII with gcc-2.95.3 -mcpu=$tune -O3 and gcc-[34] -mtune=$tune -O3. The problem persists even when using the most appropriate tuning option for the CPU in question. cpu family 6,model 8, Pentium III (Coppermine): -fPIC -mcpu=pentium -O3 gcc-2.95.3: 7.61 gcc-3.4.3: 27.43 gcc-4.0.0: 17.57 cpu family 6,model 8, Pentium III (Coppermine): -fPIC -mcpu=pentiumpro -O3 gcc-2.95.3: 9.27 gcc-3.4.3: 10.09 gcc-4.0.0: 13.96 cpu family 15, model 2, Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.60GHz: -fPIC -mtune=pentium4 -O3 gcc-2.95.3: 1.91 seconds gcc-3.4.3: 3.89 gcc-4.0.0: 3.27 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19923
[Bug ada/22026] [4.1 Regression] ACATS FAIL C45331A fixed point wrong code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 17:57 --- VRP is causing it: min.14_397 = min.14_393; max.6_398 = max.6_377; D.554_399 = min.14_397 + max.6_398; - if (D.554_399 != 0) goto L29; else goto L30; - -L29:; D.555 = C.17; -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22026
[Bug tree-optimization/22026] [4.1 Regression] ACATS FAIL C45331A fixed point wrong code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
18:02 ---
Confirmed, C testcase:
int f(int x, int y)
{
if (x != 0)
if (y != 0)
{
int t = x + y;
if (t != 0)
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
void abort ();
int main (void)
{
int t = f(1, -1);
if (t != 0)
abort ();
}
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|ada |tree-optimization
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 18:02:32
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22026
[Bug tree-optimization/22055] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cxg1004 cxg1005 cxg2007 cxg2018 cxg2021 expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa tree-ssa.c:750
-- What|Removed |Added Component|ada |tree-optimization Summary|ACATS ICE cxg1004 cxg1005 |[4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE |cxg2007 cxg2018 cxg2021 |cxg1004 cxg1005 cxg2007 |expected ssa_name, have |cxg2018 cxg2021 expected |var_decl in verify_ssa tree-|ssa_name, have var_decl in |ssa.c:750 |verify_ssa tree-ssa.c:750 Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22055
[Bug ada/18659] [4.1 Regression] 6 ACATS ICEs in tree-sra.c:1507
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-06-18 18:16 --- Still present on x86-linux as of LAST_UPDATED: Sat Jun 18 09:02:59 UTC 2005 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18659
[Bug fortran/19926] Incorrect rank with PARAMETER and array element.
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:16 --- Subject: Bug 19926 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-18 18:16:22 Modified files: gcc/fortran: ChangeLog primary.c Log message: PR fortran/19926 * primary.c (gfc_match_rvalue): expr_type can be EXPR_CONSTANT for an array; check that sym-as is NULL. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.465r2=1.466 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/primary.c.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.25r2=1.26 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19926
[Bug fortran/19926] [4.0 only] Incorrect rank with PARAMETER and array element.
--- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:20 --- Fixed in 4.1. I close this when I commit to 4.0.2. -- What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Known to work||4.1.0 Summary|Incorrect rank with |[4.0 only] Incorrect rank |PARAMETER and array element.|with PARAMETER and array ||element. Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19926
[Bug fortran/19926] [4.0 only] Incorrect rank with PARAMETER and array element.
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:27 --- Subject: Bug 19926 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-18 18:27:06 Modified files: gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog Added files: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg: pr19926.f90 Log message: PR fortran/19926 * gfortran.dg/pr19926.f90: New test. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=1.5653r2=1.5654 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr19926.f90.diff?cvsroot=gccr1=NONEr2=1.1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19926
[Bug fortran/22101] use of type(x), pointer:: next = null() causes compilation to fail with a spurious error message
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:31 --- Reduction of this one: type solid integer :: i = 0 end type solid type(solid), pointer :: a end so, this is indeed PR 16606. Thanks for reporting! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 16606 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22101
[Bug fortran/16606] gfortran error with a valid derived type definition
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:31 --- *** Bug 22101 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||d dot m dot Ingram at MMU ||dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16606
g++: change in templates in gcc-4
Hey, question.. Just wondering if gcc is supposed to behave this way now.
For example, I have a template:
template class T class foo
{
...
void method1(T a1) {...}
T method2() {...}
...
};
Notice, method1 accepts a parameter of type T and method2 returns a
value of type T.
Well, if foo is instantiated as fooint then everything is fine.
However, lets say we typedef an array type and instantiate foo with it...
typedef int bar[10]; // bar is a type: int[10]
foobar f;
Now, method1 is accepting an array parameter (fine), but method2 is
returning an array value (error)
In gcc-3, there was no error until you tried to call f.method2(), but in
gcc-4 it gives the error when foobar is instantiated whether the
method is called or not. I used this feature intentionally in gcc-3,
but I wanted to know if it's an ANSI thing one way or another. And if
it's not ANSI compliant now, then I guess it needs to be fixed in gcc.
Thanks,
Davy
[Bug fortran/21961] PURE function in INTERFACE block not resolved as being a function
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:42 --- Confirmed, we should not issue such warning. Here is a (slightly) reduced testcase: MODULE procedures PUBLIC :: test PRIVATE :: test2 INTERFACE test MODULE PROCEDURE test2 END INTERFACE test CONTAINS PURE INTEGER FUNCTION test2 () test2 = 0 END FUNCTION test2 END MODULE procedures MODULE actions USE procedures CONTAINS SUBROUTINE show print *, test () END SUBROUTINE show END MODULE actions PROGRAM module_procedure_1 USE actions CALL show END PROGRAM module_procedure_1 -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 18:42:50 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21961
Re: change in templates in gcc-4
Davy Durham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, question.. Just wondering if gcc is supposed to behave this way now. For example, I have a template: [...] In gcc-3, there was no error until you tried to call f.method2(), but in gcc-4 it gives the error when foobar is instantiated whether the method is called or not. I used this feature intentionally in gcc-3, but I wanted to know if it's an ANSI thing one way or another. And if it's not ANSI compliant now, then I guess it needs to be fixed in gcc. The behaviour of GCC 4 is compliant to the ANSI standard in this regard, so you will have to fix your code. For the next time, remember to provide a fully compilable testcase (for copy paste), and to clarify what the standard says through other means (newsgroups as comp.lang.c++.moderated and comp.std.c++, tests with the Comeau online compiler, etc.) so to report issues which are more likely real GCC bugs. Thanks anyway for taking the time of reporting this issue! -- Giovanni Bajo
[Bug fortran/21931] problem with fugly-logint flag and evaluating if statements
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 18:48 --- Well, it says: Reported against: 3.4.2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21931
[Bug target/22110] Wrong ld search paths passed to libtool for 64-bit compiles
--- Additional Comments From lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2005-06-18 19:37 --- This is fixed in today's cvs sources, perhaps because of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-06/msg00681.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22110
[Bug fortran/21902] ICE in build_array_type, at tree.c:4581
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 20:17 --- Yes it is (same backtrace and all). Well, PR15966 was GCC's most reported bug, but this was an ex aequo. Now, it's be a not-for-share gold medal. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15966 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21902
[Bug fortran/15966] ICE and segmentation fault on internal write
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 20:17 --- *** Bug 21902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15966
[Bug c++/22115] New: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure: g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C
With LAST_UPDATED: Sat Jun 18 12:53:47 UTC 2005 I get: Running /home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp ... ... FAIL: g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C (test for errors, line 15) FAIL: g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C (test for excess errors) With the message in the .log being: x/combined/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C: In function 'void foo()':^M x/combined/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C:15: error: invalid operands to binary +^M Last known to work on: Wed Jun 15 07:31:22 UTC 2005. Known to fail on: Thu Jun 16 09:31:56 UTC 2005. Maybe it's as simple as a missing update of g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C, but there wasn't any expected error there before as there was with the simd tests in testsuite/gcc.dg in that time-frame. Expert (and author of changes in the time-frame) CC:ed. -- Summary: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure: g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C Product: gcc Version: 4.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org CC: aldyh at redhat dot com,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: mmix-knuth-mmixware cris-axis-elf cris-axis-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22115
[Bug fortran/15966] ICE and segmentation fault on internal write
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 20:40 --- Well, this one should be so difficult. I think the tweak should be in io.c: /* Resolve everything in a gfc_dt structure. */ try gfc_resolve_dt (gfc_dt * dt) There is some code called Sanity checks on data transfer statements, where we might check for the case where the io_unit is a character array, and then substitute the code for its lower element. Since, I'm really not used to the guts of the front-end, I can't do more than that (and I'm not sure this analysis is correct), but this doesn't seem so difficult... -- What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-06-06 00:35:18 |2005-06-18 20:40:08 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15966
[Bug tree-optimization/22116] New: [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
The following C testcase ICEs at -O2:
void g(_Complex float);
_Complex float f(int data, _Complex float x, _Complex float y)
{
_Complex float i;
_Complex float t, u, v;
if (data)
{
i = x + __imag__ y;
g(i);
}
else {
v = 2;
i = 5;
}
t = x + __imag__ y;
g(t);
u = i;
return v * t * u;
}
--
Summary: [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22116
[Bug tree-optimization/22116] [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 20:53 --- This is at least ACATS test cxg1005 which fails because of this. -- What|Removed |Added CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org OtherBugsDependingO||22055 nThis|| Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22116
[Bug tree-optimization/22055] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cxg1004 cxg1005 cxg2007 cxg2018 cxg2021 expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa tree-ssa.c:750
-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||22116 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22055
[Bug tree-optimization/22116] [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18
20:56 ---
Here is something which is slightly reduced:
void g(_Complex float);
_Complex float f(int data, _Complex float x, _Complex float y)
{
_Complex float i, t;
if (data)
{
i = x + __imag__ y;
g(i);
}
else
i = 5;
t = x + __imag__ y;
g(t);
return t * i;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22116
[Bug fortran/20843] ICE on unformatted I/O to internal file
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 20:58 --- How come I didn't see this one? It's a duplicate of weel-known PR 15966. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15966 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20843
[Bug fortran/15966] ICE and segmentation fault on internal write
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 20:58 --- *** Bug 20843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15966
[Bug tree-optimization/22055] [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE cxg1004 cxg1005 cxg2007 cxg2018 cxg2021 expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa tree-ssa.c:750
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 21:09 --- I cannot tell if the following testcases are a dup of PR 22116: cxg2021 - a different ICE with -fdump-tree-all (or even just -fdump-tree-pre) cxg2018 - does not fail for me on powerpc-darwin cxg2021 - a different ICE with -fdump-tree-all (or even just -fdump-tree-pre) The ICE for those two testcases with -fdump-tree-all is: +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 4.1.0 20050618 (experimental) (powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0) GCC error: | | in get_loop_body, at cfgloop.c:807 | | Error detected at cxg2021.adb:386:5 | | Please submit a bug report; see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html.| All the rest are dups of bug 22116. -- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22055
[Bug tree-optimization/22116] [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 21:10 --- Adding RTH to the CC since it was his change which caused this. -- What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22116
[Bug fortran/20777] [4.0 only] Arithmetic IF not flagged obsolete
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 21:22 --- Subject: Bug 20777 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-4_0-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-18 21:22:09 Modified files: gcc/fortran: ChangeLog match.c gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg: pr17229.f Log message: PR fortran/20777 * match.c (match_arithmetic_if): Arithmetic IF is obsolete in Fortran 95. * gfortran.dg/pr17229.f: Take care of the new obsolescence warning for arithmetic IF statements. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.335.2.72r2=1.335.2.73 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/match.c.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.31.8.6r2=1.31.8.7 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.5084.2.243r2=1.5084.2.244 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr17229.f.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.1.2.1r2=1.1.2.2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20777
[Bug fortran/20777] [4.0 only] Arithmetic IF not flagged obsolete
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 21:23 --- Finally commited patch to 4.0. Fixed -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20777
[Bug tree-optimization/22116] [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-06-18 21:29 --- confirmed on x86_64-linux gcc version 4.1.0 20050618 (experimental) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ gcc -c -O2 t.c t.c: In function 'f': t.c:3: internal compiler error: tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:750 -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-18 21:29:27 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22116
[Bug fortran/16404] should reject invalid code with -pedantic -std=f95 ? (x8)
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 21:52 --- Since number 2 is already reported, we only have 3 and 6 left: ! test 3 REAL :: A REAL, TARGET :: B EQUIVALENCE(A,B) END ! test 6 ! If component of public derived type 'all_type' of type is declared to be ! private, derived type definition must contain PRIVATE statement. MODULE TEST PRIVATE TYPE info_type INTEGER :: value END TYPE info_type TYPE all_type TYPE(info_type) :: info END TYPE PUBLIC :: all_type END MODULE END -- What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-06-12 03:38:34 |2005-06-18 21:52:18 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16404
[Bug libstdc++/21796] (v7-branch) std::search not using std::find
--- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-06-18 22:18 --- Actually, *slaps forehead*, the problem of empty structs can just be avoided using EBO :) I'll knock up a patch doing just that :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21796
[Bug libstdc++/21796] (v7-branch) std::search not using std::find
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-06-18 22:21 --- Ah! And in that case the solution promises to be also very clean! Remember to post first a simple example, as usual. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21796
[Bug target/19923] [4.0/4.1 Regression] openssl is slower when compiled with gcc 4.0 than 3.3
--- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-06-18 22:45 ---
I asked the fellow who posted the original problem report to give
me the results of 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' on the affected machine.
Here it is:
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 8
model name : Pentium III (Coppermine)
stepping: 10
cpu MHz : 896.153
This is the same as one of the two affected CPU types here.
The slow routine appears to be the buffer cleaning routine,
though I haven't verified this with oprofile yet.
Here's its loop:
static char cleanse_ctr;
...
while (len--) {
*(ptr++) = cleanse_ctr;
cleanse_ctr += (17 + (unsigned char) ((int) ptr 0xF));
}
and the output of -O3 -fPIC for both gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-4.0.0:
--- gcc-2.95.3 ---
.L5:
movl [EMAIL PROTECTED](%ebx),%edi
movb (%edi),%al
movb %al,(%edx)
incl %edx
movb (%edi),%cl
addb $17,%cl
movb %dl,%al
andb $15,%al
addb %al,%cl
movb %cl,(%edi)
subl $1,%esi
jnc .L5
.L4:
--- gcc-4 ---
.L4:
movb(%esi), %al
movb%al, (%edx)
leal(%ecx,%edi), %eax
andl$15, %eax
incl%ecx
addb(%esi), %al
incl%edx
addl$17, %eax
cmpl%ecx, 12(%ebp)
movb%al, (%esi)
jne .L4
It's not obvious to me why the gcc-4.0.0 generated code
should be slower when run on some CPUs, if in fact it is.
Is it the fact that the loop condition is checked with
a cmp against memory instead of a flag being set by subtracting
1 from a register?
(And where's the best place to learn about how to predict
how long assembly snippets like this will take to run
on various modern CPUs, anyway?)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19923
[Bug target/22110] Wrong ld search paths passed to libtool for 64-bit compiles
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22110
[Bug libfortran/19216] list directed read with leading slash (NIST FM923)
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19216
[Bug libfortran/21950] All gfortran execution tests fail on Tru64 UNIX V4.0F: scalbn unresolved
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21950
[Bug tree-optimization/19633] local address incorrectly thought to escape
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19633
[Bug libgcj/21949] java.rmi.server.RMIClassLoader.getClassLoader() is private, should be public
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21949
[Bug target/21351] internal compiler error with sse
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.4.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21351
[Bug rtl-optimization/15584] Ada build with stage1 bootstrap compiler fails.
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.4.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15584
[Bug target/22077] [4.0/4.1 Regression] vec_all_eq does not produce good result
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-06-18 23:26
---
My apologies for not knowing this had a PR. Here's the proposed solution
that I sent to Fariborz and Dale for testing.
Index: combine.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/combine.c,v
retrieving revision 1.487
diff -c -3 -p -r1.487 combine.c
*** combine.c 15 Apr 2005 03:16:20 - 1.487
--- combine.c 17 Jun 2005 00:14:29 -
*** simplify_set (rtx x)
*** 5272,5277
--- 5272,5282
SUBST (SET_SRC (x), gen_rtx_COMPARE (compare_mode, op0, op1));
src = SET_SRC (x);
}
+ else if (GET_MODE (op0) == compare_mode op1 == const0_rtx)
+ {
+ SUBST(SET_SRC (x), op0);
+ src = SET_SRC (x);
+ }
else
{
/* Otherwise, update the COMPARE if needed. */
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22077
[Bug c/1623] GCC allows void function to return value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:29 --- Reopening to ... -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1623
[Bug c/1623] GCC allows void function to return value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:29 --- Mark as invalid. -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1623
[Bug c++/1791] wtf is synopsis?
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:36 --- Reopening to ... -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1791
[Bug c++/1791] wtf is synopsis?
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:36 --- Mark as invalid. -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1791
[Bug rtl-optimization/2590] [3.0 Regression] bad code generated with optimization and PIC (regression from 2.95)
-- What|Removed |Added Summary|bad code generated with |[3.0 Regression] bad code |optimization and PIC|generated with optimization |(regression from 2.95) |and PIC (regression from ||2.95) Target Milestone|--- |3.0.x http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2590
[Bug bootstrap/2639] [3.1 Regression] genattrtab segv
-- What|Removed |Added Summary|genattrtab segv |[3.1 Regression] genattrtab ||segv Target Milestone|--- |3.1.x/3.2.x http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2639
[Bug other/5022] gcc -lgcc only for gpl-compatible programs, others are suddenly illegal.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:49 --- Reopening to ... -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5022
[Bug other/5022] gcc -lgcc only for gpl-compatible programs, others are suddenly illegal.
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:49 --- Mark as invalid. -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5022
[Bug other/5027] Problem on install gcc 2.95.2 on AIX4.3.3 system
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:50 --- Reopening to ... -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5027
[Bug other/5027] Problem on install gcc 2.95.2 on AIX4.3.3 system
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:50 --- Mark as invalid. -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5027
[Bug c++/5094] partial specialisation cannot be friend??
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5094
[Bug c/5141] GCC 3.0.3 / 3.1 20011215 ICE (regression to gcc-2.95.3)
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.1.x/3.2.x http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5141
[Bug ada/18692] Ada should have a dg testsuite
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-18 23:58 --- I think in the next couple of weeks I am going to work on this. -- What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18692
[Bug AWT/21978] GCC 4.0 Awt and Swing problem
--- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:07 --- I think you're trying to configure and compile GCC in the source folder. Unfortunately, this is not yet supported. Try creating a new folder totally outside of the GCC source tree and then run configure and make bootstrap in this folder. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21978
[Bug tree-optimization/22116] [4.1 Regression] PRE of COMPLEX_EXPR causes ICE
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:16 --- Danny, would you look at this? I have no idea why PRE is claiming to insert an expression, Created phi prephitmp.27_34 = PHI i_15(1), pretmp.26_35(3); in block 2 but then not actually doing it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22116
[Bug middle-end/21916] [4.1 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in stage3
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:34 --- Fixed 20050618 at least as regards hppa2.0w-hpux. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21916
[Bug middle-end/21885] [4.1 Regression] compat testsuite failures
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:35 --- Fixed some time between 20050615 and 20050618 (each date at 07:00 UTC). -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21885
[Bug middle-end/21953] [4.1 Regression] Many tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 tests fail on Tru64 UNIX V5.1B
-- Bug 21953 depends on bug 21885, which changed state. Bug 21885 Summary: [4.1 Regression] compat testsuite failures http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21885 What|Old Value |New Value Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21953
[Bug c++/22115] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure: g++.dg/conversion/simd2.C
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:39 --- Also on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.23, hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, hppa64-hp-hpux11.23, i686-pc-linux-gnu, ia64-hp-hpux11.23. -- What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-19 01:39:34 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22115
[Bug middle-end/21916] [4.1 Regression] ICE: segmentation fault in stage3
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:39 --- Fixed, both targets. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21916
[Bug testsuite/19802] scan-not-hidden breaks with unknown object format
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 01:41 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-19 01:41:22 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19802
