[Bug testsuite/45361] gcc.target/i386/volatile-2.c failed
--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-09-13 07:08 --- (In reply to comment #13) The patch in comment #3 broke the (previously passing) test for all ix86 targets. It seems strange to try and remedy that by disabling the test for nonpic targets (as the change at r163685 does), rather than by disabling the test for ix86 targets, and indeed the consequence is that the test is not, in fact, disabled for all ix86 targets, such as i686-pc-cygwin. I tested r.164046. Well, scans definitely pass on x86_64 AND i686 linux without -fpic. Why it fails for the -fpic targets should be clear from the assembly dumps. The fix you are referring to added (%rip) with and ? operator, so it matches either previous string (previously passed) or a new one. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45361
[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions
--- Comment #29 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-09-13 09:09 --- But it can still be updated and committed before the end of stage 1. :-) I hope so!-) I also think this pr is related to pr43829. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
[Bug middle-end/45567] [4.5/4.6 Regression] __builtin_popcountl ICEs with -ftree-ter
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 09:17 --- Created an attachment (id=21783) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21783action=view) gcc46-pr45567.patch Untested fix. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45567
[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 09:35 --- I have a patch. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2010-09-09 12:43:28 |2010-09-13 09:35:04 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45611
[Bug fortran/36841] Eliminate gfortran_sum_r8 call for calculation involving multidimensional array multiplication followed by a sum along first dimension
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:18 --- I believe just gfc_conv_intrinsic_arith needs to be adjusted so that it also handles se-ss case, at least for optimize !optimize_size. Currently it just handles the case where those intrinsics return a scalar. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36841
[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:47 --- Subject: Bug 45611 Author: rguenth Date: Mon Sep 13 10:47:28 2010 New Revision: 164244 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164244 Log: 2010-09-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de PR tree-optimization/45611 * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (rewrite_use_nonlinear_expr): Fix typo. (copy_ref_info): Likewise. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45611
[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:48 --- Should be fixed now. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45611
[Bug tree-optimization/45421] [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in sem_aggr.sort_case_table
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:55 --- Presumably re-fixed by Richard now. :-) Reopen if not. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45611 *** -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45421
[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:55 --- *** Bug 45421 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45611
[Bug target/45616] internal compiler error: in note_invalid_constants, at config/arm/arm.c:11243
--- Comment #5 from ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 11:04 --- Reporter needs to try again with different configure options. (We may still want a more user-friendly way of catching the original problem though.) -- ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45616
[Bug tree-optimization/34737] Scheduling of post-modified function arguments is not good
--- Comment #6 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 11:38
---
we get better code in the head. Both the cases [test1 and test2] produce the
same piece of code:
i.e for the following test case:
void foo(char *p);
void test1(char * p)
{
foo(p++);
foo(p++);
foo(p++);
foo(p++);
}
void test2(char * p)
{
foo(p); p++;
foo(p); p++;
foo(p); p++;
foo(p); p++;
}
we get:
test1:
push r28
push r29
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
/* stack size = 2 */
.L__stack_usage = 2
mov r28,r24
mov r29,r25
rcall foo
mov r24,r28
mov r25,r29
adiw r24,1
rcall foo
mov r24,r28
mov r25,r29
adiw r24,2
rcall foo
mov r24,r28
mov r25,r29
adiw r24,3
rcall foo
/* epilogue start */
pop r29
pop r28
ret
.size test1, .-test1
.global test2
.type test2, @function
test2:
push r28
push r29
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
/* stack size = 2 */
.L__stack_usage = 2
mov r28,r24
mov r29,r25
rcall foo
mov r24,r28
mov r25,r29
adiw r24,1
rcall foo
mov r24,r28
mov r25,r29
adiw r24,2
rcall foo
mov r24,r28
mov r25,r29
adiw r24,3
rcall foo
/* epilogue start */
pop r29
pop r28
ret
.size test2, .-test2
--
abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abnikant dot singh at atmel
||dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34737
[Bug middle-end/33970] Missed optimization using unsigned char loop variable
--- Comment #12 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 12:09
---
I have verified the attached test case and test case with other comments and
found the code generated is correct i.e. the variable is not promoted to
integer in gcc-4.3.3, gcc-4.4.3, gcc-4.5.0 and also the latest head.
The assembly for the following piece of code:
int sub2(unsigned char); // external function
void foo(void) {
unsigned char x;
for(x=0;x128; x++)
{
sub2(x); //x is becomes a int (16bit)
// sub2(x+1); //x is char (8bit)
}
}
in gcc-4.3.3 is:
foo:
push r17
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
ldi r17,lo8(0)
.L2:
mov r24,r17
rcall sub2
subi r17,lo8(-(1))
cpi r17,lo8(-128)
brne .L2
/* epilogue start */
pop r17
ret
.size foo, .-foo
--
abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abnikant dot singh at atmel
||dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33970
[Bug fortran/45654] New: -fwhole-file doesn't warn about INTERFACE vs. definition mismatches
Sorry if this is a dup. Is there any reason why with -fwhole-file we don't warn about: subroutine foo(ptr, ptr2, f) integer, pointer :: ptr(:), ptr2(:) logical :: f if (f) then allocate (ptr(6)) else nullify(ptr) end if end subroutine subroutine bar() real, pointer :: ptr(:), ptr2(:) real, target :: a(6) interface subroutine foo(ptr, ptr2, f) real, pointer :: ptr(:), ptr2(:) logical :: f end subroutine end interface ptr2 = a call foo(ptr, ptr2, .true.) ptr = a + 6 end subroutine ? -- Summary: -fwhole-file doesn't warn about INTERFACE vs. definition mismatches Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45654
[Bug web/45655] New: GCC WIki Needs Text Colorizing Capability
The GCC Wiki does not have the text colorizing macro installed (or else it doesn't seem to work as it's supposed to). See http://moinmo.in/MacroMarket/Color2 for more details on it. -- Summary: GCC WIki Needs Text Colorizing Capability Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: web AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: tom dot browder at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45655
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] New: [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
With revision r163997 this test passed. From revision r163998 and on, including at least r164242 this test has failed as follows: Running /tmp/reg_a4_998/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ... ... (non-regressions elided) FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g execution test With the message in the logfile being: Executing on host: /tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran -B/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../ /tmp/reg_a4_998/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g -pedantic-errors -isystem /tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./newlib/targ-include -isystem /tmp/reg_a4_998/gcc/newlib/libc/include -B/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./libgloss/cris/ -L/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./libgloss/cris -L/tmp/reg_a4_998/gcc/libgloss/cris -B/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./newlib/ -L/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./newlib -sim3 -B/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./libgfortran/.libs -L/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./libgfortran/.libs -L/tmp/reg_a4_998/gccobj/cris-elf/./libiberty -lm -o ./forall_4.exe (timeout = 300) PASS: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) program stopped with signal 6. FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g execution test A shortened test-case is attached, in which the second call to abort is executed. Apparently the -g is critical. There is the following assembly-code difference without/with -g. Note the actual *code* difference among the expected debug-label differences, in which the comparison-part of the cstore is lost: ... @@ -62,18 +103,24 @@ _main: cmpq 4,$r9 bne .L16 nop +.LBE48: +.LBE47: + .loc 1 32 0 clear.d [$sp+32] clear.d [$sp+36] clear.d [$sp+40] clear.d [$sp+44] - move.b 1,$r13 - cmp.d [$sp+16],$r13 +.LBB49: + .loc 1 33 0 seq $r9 - cmp.d [$sp+24],$r13 + move.d [$sp+24],$r13 + cmpq 1,$r13 seq $r13 lslq 16,$r13 or.d $r13,$r9 oR.d 16777472,$r9 +.LBE49: +.LBB50: move.b $r9,$r9 bne .L18 nop ... There is no such actual code difference with r163997. N.B: CRIS is a cc0 target. Author of patch for this revision CC:ed. -- Summary: [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: cris-axis-elf http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:00 --- Created an attachment (id=21784) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21784action=view) shortened gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #2 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:21 --- Uh, I just disabled tree-sinking in some cases. This can't be directly the reason for the problem, rather it must have uncovered a latent problem. Will try to investigate. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:37 --- (In reply to comment #1) -O3 -g I forgot to mention, also: -fno-delayed-branch (reorg is always the usual suspect when latent bugs are exposed, but not so this time.) I guess it's fair to include Alexandre what with the latent-bug-code-difference-with--g observation. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-09-13 14:37:09 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug testsuite/45361] gcc.target/i386/volatile-2.c failed
--- Comment #15 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:41 --- (In reply to comment #14) Well, scans definitely pass on x86_64 AND i686 linux without -fpic. Why it fails for the -fpic targets should be clear from the assembly dumps. The fix you are referring to added (%rip) with and ? operator, so it matches either previous string (previously passed) or a new one. Doh. Sorry Uros, it was late at night and my eyes were somewhat glazed over and I missed that. The problem is entirely caused by the leading underscore that symbols don't use on linux/ELF but do use on windows/COFF. (I was also wrong about it previously passing, it just didn't fail before because it wasn't there before, I didn't spot that your patch was within a day of the testcase first being added.) The fix is obvious (s/obj/_?obj/ in the match patterns) and I'll send a patch to the list shortly. -- davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45361
[Bug c++/19816] C++ front-end produces a cast instead of just a.b (empty base class)
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:57 --- This isn't a bug. We produce a cast here because no field is generated for an empty base class. From class.c: /* We do not create a FIELD_DECL for empty base classes because it might overlap some other field. We want to be able to create CONSTRUCTORs for the class by iterating over the FIELD_DECLs, and the back end does not handle overlapping FIELD_DECLs. */ -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19816
[Bug c++/42033] libstdc++ seems to miss std::basic_stringchar, std::char_traitschar, std::allocatorchar ::basic_stringchar*(char*, char*, std::allocatorchar const)
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 15:22 --- What's going on with this? Is there something I can do to help resolving it for good? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42033
[Bug c++/45657] New: Wrongly computed exception specification for destructor
This code is invalid, but is accepted by GCC:
// snip
struct Viral {
struct Dose { };
protected:
~Viral() throw (Dose) { }
};
struct Base : virtual Viral {
virtual ~Base() throw() { }
};
struct Derived : Base { };
// snap
~Derived calls ~Viral, which adds Dose to its exception spec. This yields to
a looser exception spec for ~Derived than for the overridden ~Base, which
should yield to an ill-formed program.
--
Summary: Wrongly computed exception specification for destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: schaub-johannes at web dot de
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45657
[Bug fortran/45596] Implement simple static points-to analysis in Fortran FE
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 15:36 --- Created an attachment (id=21785) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21785action=view) gcc46-pr45596.patch Updated patch. This one should handle the case where pointer assigment just points into some other var's array section and similar (ie. when there is a possible overlap with some other var, but not necessarily the same rank/start/bounds) and has some limited interprocedural points-to handling. tonto.f90 isn't still handled, because for the pointer ALLOCATE it compares the pointer symbol on which the ALLOCATE is called, and with create_ doing the ALLOCATE on self that's the same symbol in both cases (although GFC_PT_CALL in both cases is through different variables). -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #21735|0 |1 is obsolete|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45596
[Bug bootstrap/45658] New: [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC
Even with PR bootstrap/45611 fixed, I get a comparison failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.10: Comparing stages 2 and 3 Bootstrap comparison failure! gcc/ada/ali.o differs make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1 Comparing the stage 2 and 3 assembler output, I find: --- prev-gcc/ali.s 2010-09-13 16:02:34.927594820 +0200 +++ gcc/ali.s 2010-09-13 15:59:59.206803966 +0200 @@ -12677,6 +12677,9 @@ .LLC68: .ascii \ found in file \ .align 8 +.LLC69: + .ascii 00 + .align 8 .LLC62: .ascii .align 4 @@ -12695,9 +12698,6 @@ .LLC7: .long 1 .long 17 - .align 8 -.LLC69: - .ascii 00 .section.text .align 4 .global ali__scan_ali @@ -15059,7 +15059,7 @@ stb %i4, [%fp-1273] .loc 1 690 0 ld [%g2+4], %g3 - cmp %g1, %g3 + cmp %g3, %g1 be,pn %icc, .LL1369 add%g1, 1, %g3 .loc 1 694 0 @@ -15198,7 +15198,7 @@ .LLBB1750: .LLBB1749: .loc 1 690 0 - cmp %g1, %g4 + cmp %g4, %g1 bne,a,pt %icc, .LL1566 add%g1, 1, %g1 .LL1515: @@ -18154,8 +18154,10 @@ callmemcpy, 0 mov14, %o2 mov 48, %i5 - stb %i5, [%fp-1474] + sethi %hi(.LLC69+1), %g1 stb %i5, [%fp-1275] + ldub[%g1+%lo(.LLC69+1)], %g1 + stb %g1, [%fp-1474] .LL1312: .loc 1 1988 0 discriminator 1 ld [%fp-1380], %g2 I've got to start reghunting for the culprit patch. -- Summary: [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: ro at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2* GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2* GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2* http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
[Bug bootstrap/45658] [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
[Bug rtl-optimization/45354] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed: fallthru edge crosses section boundary (bb 6) with gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-cunroll-2.c
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
[Bug target/45363] [4.5 Regression] libgcc fails to configure: cc1: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction: 4
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45363
[Bug middle-end/45566] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: in convert_to_eh_region_ranges, at except.c:2446 with -freorder-blocks-and-partition -fnon-call-exceptions -fprofile-use
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45566
[Bug middle-end/45567] [4.5/4.6 Regression] __builtin_popcountl ICEs with -ftree-ter
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 15:53 --- Looks kindof obvious. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45567
[Bug middle-end/45569] [4.5 Regression] ICE: verify_stmts failed: statement marked for throw in middle of block with -fnon-call-exceptions
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45569
[Bug fortran/45659] New: LTO / function pointers with iso_c_binding
Not quite sure if this CP2K derived testcase is really a bug, but for the
testcase below, I get the following warning and later an error (this might be
different issues?) :
gfortran -flto test_c.c test.f90
test_c.c:3:8: warning: type of build_eri does not match original declaration
[enabled by default]
test.f90:3:0: note: previously declared here
cat test_c.c
#includestdio.h
void (*build_eri)();
void foo()
{
printf(foo\n);
};
void init()
{
build_eri=foo;
};
cat test.f90
MODULE M1
USE ISO_C_BINDING
TYPE(C_FUNPTR), BIND(C) :: build_eri
INTERFACE
SUBROUTINE foo() BIND(C)
END SUBROUTINE foo
END INTERFACE
INTERFACE
SUBROUTINE init() BIND(C)
END SUBROUTINE init
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE test
PROCEDURE(foo), POINTER :: foo_ptr
CALL init()
CALL C_F_PROCPOINTER(build_eri,foo_ptr)
CALL foo_ptr()
END SUBROUTINE
END MODULE
USE M1
CALL test
END
this can now be turned in an error using :
gcc -c -flto test_c.c
gfortran -c -flto test.f90
ar -r all.a test_c.o test.o
gfortran -fuse-linker-plugin -flto -O3 all.a
/data03/vondele/binutils-2.20.1/build/bin/ld: error: all.a: multiple definition
of 'build_eri'
/data03/vondele/binutils-2.20.1/build/bin/ld: all.a: previous definition here
test.f90:3:0: warning: type of build_eri does not match original declaration
[enabled by default]
test_c.c:3:8: note: previously declared here
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
--
Summary: LTO / function pointers with iso_c_binding
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45659
[Bug rtl-optimization/45593] [4.5/4.6 regression] segfault with -Os
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45593
[Bug c++/45606] [4.5/4.6 Regression] match a method prototyped a typedef alias with the original type (using stdlib)
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45606
[Bug target/45650] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] FreeBSD/ia64 builds fails: hidden symbol `_Unwind_FindTableEntry' isn't defined
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
[Bug c++/45651] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in import_export_decl, at cp/decl2.c:2344
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
[Bug c++/45651] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in import_export_decl, at cp/decl2.c:2344
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 16:01 --- Seems a rather annoying regression, let's ask H.J. a binary search... -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
[Bug fortran/45659] LTO / function pointers with iso_c_binding
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:12 --- It works for me. I suppose you have older gold with known bugs? I have GNU gold (GNU Binutils; SUSE:openSUSE 11.1 2.20.51.20091013-0.1) 1.9 Copyright 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 or (at your option) a later version. This program has absolutely no warranty. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45659
[Bug c++/45645] pr44972.C fails with error: �__assert_fail� was not declared in this scope
--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:43 --- Same on *-*-solaris2* (probably on all non-Linux targets). -- ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ro at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-09-13 16:43:59 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
[Bug rtl-optimization/45652] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-3 FAILs with -O2 -fselective-scheduling2
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:53
---
Confirmed. Not related to PR43949 since selective scheduling does not use
cselib. The miscompilation seems to come from RTL aliasing: sel-sched lifts a
load that references stack via a general-purpose register above a store via
%rsp.
bad cmdline: cc1 -O2 -fselective-scheduling2 -fdbg-cnt=sel_sched_insn_cnt:31
good cmdline: cc1 -O2 -fselective-scheduling2 -fdbg-cnt=sel_sched_insn_cnt:30
The no-aliasing decision comes from (base_alias_check):
1742 /* If one address is a stack reference there can be no alias:
1743 stack references using different base registers do not alias,
1744 a stack reference can not alias a parameter, and a stack reference
1745 can not alias a global. */
1746 if ((GET_CODE (x_base) == ADDRESS GET_MODE (x_base) == Pmode)
1747 || (GET_CODE (y_base) == ADDRESS GET_MODE (y_base) == Pmode))
1748return 0;
Related GDB session:
Breakpoint 4, base_alias_check (x=0x76f20920, y=0x76f2d018,
x_mode=DImode, y_mode=SImode) at
/home/monoid/checkout/git/gcc-selfixes/gcc/alias.c:1687
1687 rtx x_base = find_base_term (x);
(gdb) up
#1 0x0076da1d in true_dependence_1 (mem=0x76f2d030,
mem_mode=SImode, mem_addr=0x76f2d018, x=0x76f30870,
x_addr=0x76f20920,
varies=0x14041f2 rtx_varies_p, mem_canonicalized=0 '\000') at
/home/monoid/checkout/git/gcc-selfixes/gcc/alias.c:2440
2440 if (! base_alias_check (x_addr, mem_addr, GET_MODE (x), mem_mode))
(gdb) call debug_rtx(mem)
(mem/s/c:SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(const_int 12 [0xc])) [5 ap.fp_offset+0 S4 A32])
(gdb) call debug_rtx(x)
(mem/s:DI (reg:DI 4 si) [0 MEM[(struct S * {ref-all})addr.0_2]+0 S8 A64])
(gdb) down
#0 base_alias_check (x=0x76f20920, y=0x76f2d018, x_mode=DImode,
y_mode=SImode) at /home/monoid/checkout/git/gcc-selfixes/gcc/alias.c:1687
1687 rtx x_base = find_base_term (x);
(gdb) n
...
(gdb) list
1741
1742 /* If one address is a stack reference there can be no alias:
1743 stack references using different base registers do not alias,
1744 a stack reference can not alias a parameter, and a stack reference
1745 can not alias a global. */
1746 if ((GET_CODE (x_base) == ADDRESS GET_MODE (x_base) == Pmode)
1747 || (GET_CODE (y_base) == ADDRESS GET_MODE (y_base) == Pmode))
1748return 0;
1749
1750 return 1;
(gdb) call debug_rtx(x_base)
(address (reg:DI 4 si))
(gdb) call debug_rtx(y_base)
(address:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp))
(gdb) fin
Run till exit from #0 base_alias_check (x=0x76f20920, y=0x76f2d018,
x_mode=DImode, y_mode=SImode)
at /home/monoid/checkout/git/gcc-selfixes/gcc/alias.c:1746
0x0076da1d in true_dependence_1 (mem=0x76f2d030, mem_mode=SImode,
mem_addr=0x76f2d018, x=0x76f30870, x_addr=0x76f20920,
varies=0x14041f2 rtx_varies_p, mem_canonicalized=0 '\000') at
/home/monoid/checkout/git/gcc-selfixes/gcc/alias.c:2440
2440 if (! base_alias_check (x_addr, mem_addr, GET_MODE (x), mem_mode))
Value returned is $58 = 0
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-09-13 16:53:59
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45652
[Bug c++/45657] Wrongly computed exception specification for destructor
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:55 --- Not a regression, and G++ 4.6 correctly rejects it: pr.cc:12:8: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual Derived::~Derived() throw (Viral::Dose)' pr.cc:9:11: error: overriding 'virtual Base::~Base() throw ()' EDG (Comeau online) also accepts it. -- redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Known to work||4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45657
[Bug c++/45657] Wrongly computed exception specification for destructor
--- Comment #2 from schaub-johannes at web dot de 2010-09-13 17:02 --- Great(In reply to comment #1) Not a regression, and G++ 4.6 correctly rejects it: pr.cc:12:8: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual Derived::~Derived() throw (Viral::Dose)' pr.cc:9:11: error: overriding 'virtual Base::~Base() throw ()' EDG (Comeau online) also accepts it. Great, thanks for checking on 4.6. Can we mark it as resolved? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45657
[Bug c++/45645] pr44972.C fails with error: �__assert_fail� was not declared in this scope
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:04 ---
the test already includes cassert so presumably the fix is simply to replace
line 77 with
T const* operator-() const { assert(this-is_initialized()) ; return
this-get_ptr_impl() ; }
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
[Bug c++/45657] Wrongly computed exception specification for destructor
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:06 --- Jason, do you know if this was fixed as part of your noexcept work, or is it still latent in trunk? -- redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45657
[Bug fortran/43829] Scalarization of reductions
--- Comment #30 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:09 --- (In reply to comment #29) I also think this pr is related to pr43829. It couldn't be more ;-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
[Bug c++/45645] pr44972.C fails with error: �__assert_fail� was not declared in this scope
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 17:12 --- I agree with Jon: the expansion of assert to __assert_fail, etc, isn't portable, the testcase should simply use assert. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
[Bug fortran/45659] LTO / function pointers with iso_c_binding
--- Comment #2 from Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch 2010-09-13 17:13 --- (In reply to comment #1) It works for me. I suppose you have older gold with known bugs? I have GNU gold (GNU Binutils; SUSE:openSUSE 11.1 2.20.51.20091013-0.1) 1.9 my date is more recent but the version number seems not. I think this is the latest version from http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/ ld -v GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.20.1.20100303) 1.9 BTW, the warning seems to come from before the linker (whatever that means with lto). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45659
[Bug fortran/36841] Eliminate gfortran_sum_r8 call for calculation involving multidimensional array multiplication followed by a sum along first dimension
--- Comment #7 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:14 --- (In reply to comment #4) (see pr43829) I think it is a duplicate of (or close to) pr43829. Marked as depending on it so that I don't forget it. -- mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||43829 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36841
[Bug middle-end/45312] [4.4 Regression] GCC 4.4.4 miscompiles the Linux kernel
--- Comment #22 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2010-09-13 17:54 --- Fixed everywhere but on 4.3 branch. Maybe commit the patch there too? -- belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- ||patches/2010- ||09/msg00834.html Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to fail|4.4.4 |4.5.1 4.4.4 4.3.5 Known to work|4.5.1 |4.6.0 4.5.2 4.4.5 Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45312
[Bug debug/45660] New: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in dwarf2out_finish
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options -g -fno-inline }
void
test ()
{
struct S
{
typedef void (**T) (void);
static T i (void) { return 0; }
};
S s;
if (s.i ())
*s.i () = 0;
}
ICEs with
rh632847.C:15:1: internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_finish, at
dwarf2out.c:22387
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
This has been introduced in r145440.
--
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in dwarf2out_finish
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45660
[Bug fortran/45659] LTO / function pointers with iso_c_binding
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:58 --- void (*build_eri)(); In C means something different from: void (*build_eri)(void); Please try with the void. --- CUT -- void (*build_eri)(); In C means that the build_eri takes a variable arguments. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45659
[Bug debug/45660] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in dwarf2out_finish
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:28 --- Created an attachment (id=21786) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21786action=view) gcc46-pr45660.patch Untested fix. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45660
[Bug c++/45657] Wrongly computed exception specification for destructor
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:35 --- I'm sure this was fixed by my work on implicitly deleted functions, which involved rewriting the calculation of exception specifications for implicitly declared functions. -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45657
[Bug tree-optimization/45661] New: sincos opportunity missed
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp cat tst.f90 subroutine foo(a,c,d,n) real, dimension(n),intent(in) :: a real, dimension(n),intent(out) :: c,d c = sin(a) d = cos(a) end subroutine foo i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp gfortran -O3 -S tst.f90 i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp grep sin tst.s callsinf i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp grep cos tst.s callcosf - The loops could be merged for better performance (no need to fetch a twice) - This could exploit use of the sincos function, where available -- Summary: sincos opportunity missed Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45661
[Bug fortran/36841] Eliminate gfortran_sum_r8 call for calculation involving multidimensional array multiplication followed by a sum along first dimension
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:50 --- So, are you goint to take care of this? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36841
[Bug c++/45651] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in import_export_decl, at cp/decl2.c:2344
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-13 18:53 --- It is caused by revision 115086: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-06/msg00805.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
[Bug fortran/29550] Optimize -fexternal-blas calls for conjg()
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:53 --- Sounds like something for front end optimization. Should we maybe generate the BLAS calls directly, instead of jumping through the library functions? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
[Bug fortran/42831] Unnecessary array temporary produced
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:59 --- This doesn't seem to happen any more. Can we close this? -- tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42831
[Bug fortran/42831] Unnecessary array temporary produced
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 19:04 --- Perhaps a testcase should be added (either with -Warray-temporaries or scanning dumps) to make sure we don't regress here? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42831
[Bug c++/45645] pr44972.C fails with error: �__assert_fail� was not declared in this scope
--- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-09-13
19:13 ---
I can confirm that the change...
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr44972.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr44972.C (revision 164251)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr44972.C (working copy)
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
T const get() const ;
-T const* operator-() const { ((this-is_initialized()) ?
static_castvoid (0) : __assert_fail (this-is_initialized(), pr44972.C,
78, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__)) ; return this-get_ptr_impl() ; }
+T const* operator-() const { assert(this-is_initialized()) ; return
this-get_ptr_impl() ; }
} ;
...eliminates the g++.dg/torture/pr44972.C -O0 failures on
x86_64-apple-darwin10 at both -m32 and -m64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
[Bug middle-end/45662] New: [4.6 regression] New x86 test failures
On Linux/x86, revision 164250: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00544.html caused FAIL: gcc.target/i386/funcspec-1.c scan-assembler addps[ \t] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/funcspec-1.c scan-assembler fsubs[ \t] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect vectorized 1 loops -- Summary: [4.6 regression] New x86 test failures Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45662
[Bug middle-end/45662] [4.6 regression] New x86 test failures
-- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45662
[Bug middle-end/45663] New: [4.6 regression] New test failures
On Linux/x86, revision 164252: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00546.html caused: FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 line 42 a.j == 14 FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 -flto line 42 a.j == 14 FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 -fwhopr line 42 a.j == 14 FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer line 42 a.j == 14 FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O3 -g line 42 a.j == 14 FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -Os line 42 a.j == 14 -- Summary: [4.6 regression] New test failures Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45663
[Bug testsuite/45664] New: All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2
-- Summary: All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2 Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: ro at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC build triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.10 GCC host triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.10 GCC target triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.10 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45664
[Bug testsuite/45664] All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 20:18 --- All the new ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2 (at least Solaris 10/x86): FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-1.C execution test FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-2.C execution test FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-3.C execution test FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-4.C execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-1.c execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-3.c execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-4.c execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-5.c execution test E.g. gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-1.exe exits with code 1. Nathan, could you please have a look? I've no idea what sort of ld and/or ld.so.1 support is required to make the attribute work. -- ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|All ifunc tests fail on |All ifunc tests fail on |Solaris 2 |Solaris 2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45664
[Bug rtl-optimization/45617] optimize bit shift+compare at RTL level
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:00 ---
Subject: Bug 45617
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 13 21:00:03 2010
New Revision: 164257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164257
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/45617
* combine.c (simplify_comparison): Optimize (X N) {,=,,=} C
even if low N bits of X aren't known to be zero.
* gcc.target/i386/pr45617.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr45617.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/combine.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45617
[Bug c++/45645] pr44972.C fails with error: �__assert_fail� was not declared in this scope
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 21:01 --- Please properly post the patch to the mailing list and let's resolve this rather straightforward issue. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
[Bug debug/43937] [4.6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:08 --- Subject: Bug 43937 Author: ebotcazou Date: Mon Sep 13 21:08:13 2010 New Revision: 164258 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164258 Log: PR debug/43937 * varasm.c (output_constant_def_contents): Set TREE_ASM_WRITTEN on the DECL as well. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/varasm.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43937
[Bug debug/43937] [4.6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/inline-params.c
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:10 --- At long last. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- ||patches/2010- ||09/msg01137.html Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43937
[Bug rtl-optimization/45617] optimize bit shift+compare at RTL level
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:10 --- Committed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45617
[Bug fortran/36841] Eliminate gfortran_sum_r8 call for calculation involving multidimensional array multiplication followed by a sum along first dimension
--- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:35 --- (In reply to comment #8) So, are you goint to take care of this? Sure. -- mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mikael at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2008-07-23 09:40:10 |2010-09-13 21:35:52 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36841
[Bug target/44749] mep-elf fails to build
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 22:25 --- Subject: Bug 44749 Author: jsm28 Date: Mon Sep 13 22:25:09 2010 New Revision: 164260 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164260 Log: PR target/44749 * config/mep/t-mep (GTM_H): Add insn-constants.h. * config/mep/mep.c (mep_conditional_register_usage): Take no parameters. * config/mep/mep-protos.h (mep_conditional_register_usage): Update prototype. * config/mep/mep-pragma.c (CONDITIONAL_REGISTER_USAGE): Update call to mep_conditional_register_usage. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/mep/mep-protos.h trunk/gcc/config/mep/mep.c trunk/gcc/config/mep/mep.h trunk/gcc/config/mep/t-mep -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44749
[Bug target/44749] mep-elf fails to build
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 22:27 --- Note that while my commit fixes two causes of build failure for this target, a third cause of failure is still present. As I noted in my patch submission http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00664.html * mep-pragma.c gets a series of errors starting with rtl.h:22:9: error: attempt to use poisoned GCC_RTL_H because it is being treated as a front-end file but uses rtl.h and uses various RTL-related functionality. I don't know the right fix for this issue - for my testing I worked around it with #undef IN_GCC_FRONTEND but the right fix is more likely to be moving the RTL functionality into mep.c while keeping the code using front-end pragma interfaces in mep-pragma.c. Thus, this patch does not fix this issue. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44749
[Bug c++/45645] pr44972.C fails with error: �__assert_fail� was not declared in this scope
--- Comment #7 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-09-13 22:33 --- Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01144.html. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
[Bug c++/45665] New: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in grokdeclarator, at cp/decl.c:8797 on invalid code
Compiler output: $ gcc testcase.C testcase.C:2:11: error: type/value mismatch at argument 1 in template parameter list for 'templateclass struct S' testcase.C:2:11: error: expected a type, got '0' testcase.C:2:21: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in grokdeclarator, at cp/decl.c:8797 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. - testcase.C - template typename struct S; void (S 0::*ptr) (); -- Tested revisions: r164228 - crash r161659 - crash r159696 - OK r158978 - OK 4.5 r163761 - crash 4.5 r158978 - OK 4.4 r160770 - crash 4.4 r154975 - OK -- Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in grokdeclarator, at cp/decl.c:8797 on invalid code Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: zsojka at seznam dot cz http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45665
[Bug bootstrap/45666] New: ICE: /mingw/include/winnt.h:3350:5: Segmentation fault
../../gcc/xgcc -B../../gcc/ -isystem /mingw/include -c -I. -I../../../gcc-trunk/include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O1 -Wwrite-strings -Wc++-compat ../../../gcc-trunk/libiberty/make-temp-file.c -o make-temp-file.o In file included from /mingw/include/windef.h:137:0, from /mingw/include/windows.h:62, from ../../../gcc-trunk/libiberty/make-temp-file.c:40: /mingw/include/winnt.h:3350:5: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. -- Summary: ICE: /mingw/include/winnt.h:3350:5: Segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: t7 at gmail dot com GCC host triplet: x86_64-w64-mingw32 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45666
[Bug fortran/45532] gfortran namelist read error
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 04:37 --- Subject: Bug 45532 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Sep 14 04:37:02 2010 New Revision: 164266 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164266 Log: 2010-09-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org PR libfortran/45532 * io/list_read.c (nml_get_obj_data): Set first_nl if the previous is NULL. Modified: trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog trunk/libgfortran/io/list_read.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45532
[Bug fortran/45532] gfortran namelist read error
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 04:39 --- Subject: Bug 45532 Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Sep 14 04:39:13 2010 New Revision: 164267 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164267 Log: 2010-09-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org PR libfortran/45532 * gfortran.dg/namelist_64.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/namelist_64.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45532
[Bug fortran/45532] gfortran namelist read error
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 04:40 --- Fixed on trunk, will backport to 4.4 and 4.5 in a few days. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45532
[Bug bootstrap/45666] ICE: /mingw/include/winnt.h:3350:5: Segmentation fault
--- Comment #1 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 05:46 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45362 *** -- ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45666
[Bug preprocessor/45362] Dangling reference about saved cpp_macro for push/pop macro
--- Comment #1 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 05:46 --- *** Bug 45666 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t7 at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45362
