On Jul 12, 2007, Michael Eager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be chaotic. Acme Co's version of gcc-3.4 might be GPLv2
while MegaCorp's gcc-3.4 might be GPLv3.
This is already true today. Even if MegaCorp doesn't make any changes
to the code, the code is available under GPLv2+, which
On Jul 12, 2007, Benjamin Smedberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously the FSF can relicense any code they want to GPL3... that doesn't
mean that this community couldn't decide to only accept patches to the
GCC4.2 branch that are licensed under the GPL2+.
This wouldn't change the fact that any
On Jul 12, 2007, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last GPLv2 release. The FSF will permit
backports from mainline to GCC 4.2.1, if necessary, to be downlicensed
to GPLv2, as part of that release.
3. After GCC 4.2.1 is released, we will renumber the branch to
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Anyone who had their heads in the sand for the past 18 months when
GPLv3 was being publicly discussed and developed, or wasn't at the GCC
Summit last year when I mentioned that the FSF would most certainly
want to upgrade the license of every project whose copyright it
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the options.
Anyone who had their heads in the
Hi,
Thanks very much for your help. I have fixed the problem of the abs
insn with HI and QI mode as you advised.
Best regards
Maggie
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means getting lawyers involved, and for sure you don't want
them wasting time tracking an 18 month period in which the license
keeps changing.
Yet somehow a number of large stakeholders not only tracked the
license development over
On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the options.
Anyone who had
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2 should
become 4.3.0.
I certainly agree that the license is a feature, and a pretty
important one for many users.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Michael Eager wrote:
3. After GCC 4.2.1 is released, we will renumber the branch to GCC 4.3.
What would have been GCC 4.2.2 will instead be GCC 4.3.3, to try to
emphasize the GPLv3 switch. The GCC mainline will then be GCC 4.4.
This seems to confabulate the meaning of
Hi David,
2. Turn off public access to the code while changing license text in the
source.
This is not necessary. (I am assuming here that by public access to
the code you mean access to the svn repository, not access to the
various release tarballs). The repository sources are not an
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you typically would wait till the license change was definite.
It seems to me that it would be saner to not only keep up with the
developments of the license, but also get one's major customers aware
Robert Dewar wrote:
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
should become 4.3.0.
I certainly agree that the license is a feature, and a pretty
important one for
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the
I've started work on a project to turn GCC into an incremental
compiler. This project is still in an investigative stage but I
thought I would post some of my plans and ideas before making a
branch.
The primary goal of this project is improving the developer user
experience by decreasing
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, I'm not diminishing the importance of licensing issues, I'm just
saying it's legally irresponsible to sit back and *not* even watch
what's going on in the development of the license
Everybody's been watching.
GCC 4.2.1 RC2 is now available from:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2.1-RC-20070712
Unless severe problems are found with this release candidates, this will
become the official GCC 4.2.1 release in the middle of next week.
(I'm sorry it took me longer than I hoped to build RC2; I had a
On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
I've started work on a project to turn GCC into an incremental
compiler.
Sounds neat. :-)
The basic idea of the project is to run GCC as a server (similar in a
way to the old compile server branch) and try to minimize the amount
of
As a (non-developer) user, may I humbly submit a slightly different view:
The change of license is an Event, which needs to be marked in concrete by
a version number change. All future mainline development will be under the
GPLv3. However, there are many people who (due to legal or commercial
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070713 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070713/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Michael Eager wrote:
Is it guaranteed to hold all target integer sizes? How
does this work for 32-bit hosts and 64-bit targets?
RTL and tree constants were defined from the beginning as two
HOST_WIDE_INTs. This was necessary to bootstrap long long support on
32-bit systems before most
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:17AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote:
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
should become 4.3.0.
I certainly
Jim Wilson wrote:
This does mean that you can't build a 128-bit target compiler on a
32-bit host, but that hasn't been a problem yet.
And now that we allow HOST_WIDE_INT to be defined as long long, this
shouldn't be a problem any more either. A 32-bit host with 2 long longs
gets us up to
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Speaking as an individual developer who nonetheless needs to follow
his company's policies on licensing, I need it to be *absolutely
clear* whether a piece of software can be used under GPLv2 or not.
If there's a situation where 'silent' license upgrades can occur,
where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32746
is really caused by a combination of two things
First is_gimple_min_invariant in try_to_simplify where it chooses
DECL_INITIAL should be valid_gimple_expression_p instead.
However, even if i fix this, the testcase still fails because
Michael Eager wrote:
Saying that license is an interoperability issue doesn't make it one.
No, saying that is not what makes it so, that's true.
However, the fact is that licensing *is* an interoperability issue,
since it has to do with what units can be mixed together in a
particular
--- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-07-13 06:08 ---
I have following patch that solves nested VEC_SELECT insn. However, I would
like to enhance it for nested VEC_SELECT (VEC_SELECT (VEC_DUPLICATE (...)))
that is generated i.e. for __builtin_ia32_vec_ext_v4si(*val, 2);
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-13 07:17 ---
is this still failing ? Yesterday, I ran a valgrinded compilation of CP2K, and
it showed no errors (didn't check memory leaks). This has been on x86_64
though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32310
--- Comment #14 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-13 07:14 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I would use your cp2k testcase but it does not compile on Cygwin - it runs out
of memory during compilation. When I have a moment, I'll break itup.
yes, it can be trivially split after
When trying to build a crosscompiler for arm-elf with
cd i386-linux8; CC=gcc CFLAGS=-O LDFLAGS=-s CLIB= LANGUAGES=c
../gcc-4.2.1-RC-20070703/configure --srcdir=../gcc-4.2.1-RC-20070703
--prefix=/usr/arch --with-local-prefix=/usr/arch --target=arm-elf --with-newlib
--disable-libssp
it will fail
--- Comment #1 from leo at marco dot de 2007-07-13 07:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=13908)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13908action=view)
Stupid patch to fix the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32753
--- Comment #14 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-07-13 07:27 ---
Comment #13 From Eric Botcazou 2007-07-12 06:00 [reply] ---
Please do not pollute this ticket with unrelated stuff.
I posted here after previously searching many messages, and again re-searching
more messages to see
Files: gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/optc-gen.awk , gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/opth-gen.awk ,
gcc-4_3-trunk/gcc/optc-gen.awk and gcc-4_3-trunk/gcc/opth-gen.awk
All contain this credit line:
print /* This file is auto-generated by opts.sh. */
Numerous documents and other files all mention opts.sh but I can find
--- Comment #1 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2007-07-13
08:26 ---
Broken by r126517:
2007-07-10 Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace no_new_pseudos in backends.
...
--
belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed:
What
--- Comment #36 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-07-13
09:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] : can't find
a register in class 'GENERAL_REGS' while reloading 'asm'
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #33 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 11:10 ---
unfortunately setting TREE_NO_WARNING on the synthesized delete[] parameters
does not help because it is lost during middle end folding
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32546
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 12:19 ---
Actually, the optimized dump ist still correct:
main ()
{
int D.2011;
bb 2:
spinlock[0] = 0;
spinlock[1] = 0;
bb 3:
D.2011 = spinlock[0];
if (D.2011 != 0)
goto bb 3;
else
goto bb 4;
bb 4:
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 13:22 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 13:26 ---
Seems to work now.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-07-13 13:25 ---
Patch for SImode and SFmode vec_select at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01263.html
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 13:22 ---
Subject: Bug 32188
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 13 13:22:10 2007
New Revision: 126619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126619
Log:
2007-07-13 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR other/32188
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 13:15
---
Confirmed on platforms using SJLJ exceptions for Ada.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 13:47 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
struct a a.0;
struct array1_int4 parm.2;
parm.2.dim[0].ubound = 3;
a.0.i = (struct array1_int4) parm.2; /* ubound == 3 */
a.0.i.dim[0].ubound =
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 13:07 ---
-fsee is broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32755
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.2 4.2.0
Summary|CCP removes volatile|[4.3
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 12:36 ---
Basically we could just make sure to preserve TREE_THIS_VOLATILE on folded
memory references *spinlock[0] (where the indirect reference has this flag
set, but the result from maybe_fold_offset_to_reference,
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at lucon dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 13:15
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 11:05 ---
this is yet another case of the middle end folding memory arithmetics back into
an array ref that is out of bounds:
operator delete [] ((void *) A + 0xfffc);
(from orig dump)
later it is:
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 14:37
---
Does this function have cfun-static_chain_decl being used, and we
have a copy of that here?
No, it's a toplevel function.
It is theoretically safe to call set_ssa_to_val with to == vn_top, but
it's probably
Hi,
this might be invalid, needs verification. starting with gcc 4.3, the following
testcase is rejected:
=== Cut ===
class QString;
struct QByteArray
{
QByteArray ();
bool operator!= (const QString s2) const;
};
bool operator!= (const QByteArray a1, const QByteArray a2);
struct
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 09:58 ---
Paul, please have a look at PR31320 as well.
The issue described there is at least very close to your observation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32665
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 09:50 ---
This is a two-in-oner; as well as the deallocation, this is broken:
$ cat pr32665.f90
TYPE :: x
INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: a(:)
END TYPE
TYPE(x) :: a, b
call foo
b = x((/ (a%a), 4 /))
print *, foo gives
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 09:41 ---
We would have to re-build cgraph edges incrementally during inlining.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2007-07-13 09:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=13909)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13909action=view)
Reduced testcase
GCC crashes with gcc -O2 -fsee case-see.c -c
Fails at all recent 4.3 trunk.
--
4.3 trunk fails to build any 2006 with -fsee on x86_64:
gcc -c -o av.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DPERL_CORE -O2 -fsee
-DSPEC_CPU_LP64 -DSPEC_CPU_LINUX_X64 av.c
av.c: In function 'Perl_av_reify':
av.c:50: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
--
Summary: Seg fault when
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 14:50 ---
revision 126030 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32749
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 14:50 ---
revision 126200 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32748
--- Comment #2 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2007-07-13 09:27 ---
Root cause looks like at see.c line 1643:
emit_insn_after (merged_ref, ref);
delete_insn (ref);
where merged_ref and ref have the same INSN_UID. delete_insn will clear the df
information of that UID,
--- Comment #35 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-07-13 09:28 ---
Subject: Bug 32004
Author: bonzini
Date: Fri Jul 13 09:28:16 2007
New Revision: 126616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126616
Log:
2007-07-13 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Revert these
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 13:48 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Paul, please have a look at PR31320 as well.
The issue described there is at least very close to your observation.
(In reply to comment #3)
Paul, please have a look at PR31320 as well.
--- Comment #9 from alex_zuma1 at yahoo dot com 2007-07-13 12:35 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I downloaded the latest binaries and I had no problems compiling the code. The
bug must have been fixed recently (I downloaded gfortran at the beginning of
July 07).
What should I do with the
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:12
---
visit_phi is called on a PHI node with 1 argument (shrinked by DOM):
I presume this degenerated PHI is not eliminated because it is abnormal:
(gdb) p debug_tree(phi)
phi_node 0x5577f700 asm_written
(gdb) p
--- Comment #5 from James dot W dot Mckelvey at jpl dot nasa dot gov
2007-07-13 15:28 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Can you attach the preprocessed source?
I did on June 10, I see the status is still Waiting.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32089
When compiling the following code with -O2 or -Os, the if clause at the end of
STRING_hash_code is optimized away, yielding in a negative result
if(R0){
R=~R;
}
With -O1 everything works as expected (positive result)
#include stdint.h
#include stdio.h
#include string.h
typedef struct
--- Comment #10 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:28
---
(In reply to comment #9)
What should I do with the bug on Bugzilla?
I'll close it for you.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2007-07-13 15:34 ---
I don't see how R can become negative:
R=0;
while (...)
{
...
R=R*5+[unsigned value here];
...
}
What am I missing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32757
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:35 ---
Overflow of signed integers is undefined. Use an unsigned quantity for R.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:46 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 9079 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:46
---
*** Bug 32751 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:47
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Bugs where the compiler proper crashes when run under the driver, but not when
run directly, can often be reproduced by varying the amount of space taken up
by environment variables,
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:48
---
And of course the naive patch:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/svn/gcc/gcc Index: tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- tree-ssa-sccvn.c(revision 126547)
+++
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:50 ---
Not if you test against (signed)R ;).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32757
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:53 ---
*** Bug 32755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:53 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 32300 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:55 ---
Joseph - does your candidate patch still exist? We run into exactly the same
problem with the proposed gimple type verifier posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01265.html
Thanks.
--
rguenth
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:56
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01265.html
has some fixes for some of this PRs and a verifier. So while we're working
on this, this is my bug.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:41 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2007-07-13 15:40 ---
Well, if you declare R as unsigned, GCC will still optimize away if (R0).
;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32757
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 15:41 ---
Subject: Bug 32721
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 13 15:41:02 2007
New Revision: 126624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=126624
Log:
2007-07-13 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
I am Sarah Alcott,the Initiator of FOUNDATION OF HOPE UK.
The Foundation for Hope is non-profit and Our Mission is to facilitate
inspiring, meaningful outdoor experiences for youth who suffer life-challenging
medical conditions.
We value,promote and continue to preserve the heritage of the
--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 16:47
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
On 13 Jul 2007 15:49:03 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc
--- Comment #2 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-07-13 17:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR 32340
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01273.html
--
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 17:16
---
Nah, that's not quite right, since this is a legal value.
Instead, where we init everything to VN_TOP, init everything with
SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI to itself instead of VN_TOP.
Note that we already
--- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 17:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in set_ssa_val_to, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1022
On 13 Jul 2007 17:16:27 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc
I built gcj and when I try to compile anything ecj1 uses about 5:33 minutes of
CPU time, then ecj1 and gcj just sit doing nothing.
PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
9951 ecj1 0.0% 5:33.55 23270 41.5M 94.1M 60.9M 350M
9950 gcj
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 18:52 ---
revision 126045 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32749
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 18:53 ---
revision 126240 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32748
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 19:09
---
What about doing the same for them?
That doesn't work as easily as I expected. :-)
Now I get the same assertion failure for non-degenerate PHI nodes whose result
is not SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI but
I'd accept may be used uninitialized, but I'm positively told
is used uninitialized, which ain't true.
This is similar to bugs 32395 and 22197: apologies if it turns out to be
a mere duplicate. My code example is much simpler than the examples
given for those bugs: there are no aggregate types,
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 20:03 ---
revision 126260 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32748
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 20:02 ---
revision 126056 is bad.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32749
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 20:43
---
Instead, where we init everything to VN_TOP, init everything with
SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI to itself instead of VN_TOP.
@@ -1912,13 +1912,16 @@ init_scc_vn (void)
VN_TOP = create_tmp_var_raw
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 20:50 ---
revision 126271 is bad.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32748
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 20:56 ---
revision 126050 works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32749
--- Comment #5 from frederic dot merizen at gmail dot com 2007-07-13 21:44
---
OK. I assumed signed overflow was at least defined to yield an integer (i.e. a
quantity that is consistently negative or non-negative) but that is actually
not specified. I don't quite know what I'll do with
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 21:53 ---
revision 126054 is bad.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32749
--- Comment #7 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-07-13 21:57 ---
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01977.html
is the cause. Richard, can you look into it? Thanks.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-13 22:07 ---
Sure, though I doubt this patch changed anything. I won't get to it until
after
the summit though.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
