Hello all,
For the 16-bit target that i porting now to gcc 4.1.2 doesn't have any
branch instructions. It only has jump instructions. For comparison
operation it has this instruction:
if cond Rx Ry
execute this insn
So compare and branch is implemented as
if cond Rx Ry
jmp Label
If the
[ gcc - gcc-patches ]
After some off-list conversations with Alex and updates on his mirror,
we now have a new full mirror of gcc.gnu.org ;-) and I am committing
the patch below.
Gerald
Index: mirrors.html
===
RCS file:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:52:22 +0530
Mohamed Shafi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the condition in the 'if' instruction is satisfied the processor
will execute the next instruction or it will replace with a nop. So
this means that i can instructions similar to:
if eq Rx, Ry
add Rx, Ry
add
Hello,
I try to locate a problem in GCSE pass and found some suspicious RTL
code as follows. Is it legitimate to have a fallthru succ edge but
next basic block is a different one? Thanks.
...
;; Succ edge 10 [91.5%] (fallthru)
;; Succ edge 9 [8.5%]
;; Start of basic block ( 8) - 9
...
Hi all,
I am porting GCC to a weird architecture and I have stumbled over
this small problem. The architecture has write-only registers (er0 -
er7) for I/O operations, reading values from these registers is
forbidden. For the following code:
register int ER0 asm(er0);
int main() {
int a, b;
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Bingfeng Mei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I try to locate a problem in GCSE pass and found some suspicious RTL
code as follows. Is it legitimate to have a fallthru succ edge but
next basic block is a different one? Thanks.
...
;; Succ edge 10 [91.5%]
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080627 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080627/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
gcc-4.3.1/libgomp/configure and gcc-4.3.1/libstdc++-v3/configure
can not find out version of ld 2.18 (from GNU Binutils 2.18)
I have GNU ld 2.18 but when compiling gcc I get messages:
checking for ld version... 1800
...
and
configure: WARNING: === Linker version 1800 is too old for
...
I found
--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-06-27 07:16 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I just tried the 4.3_branch release of gcc with the CFFLAGS='-02 -fPIC'
option.
It seem to fail now in libiberty/md5.c
Here is the error:
--snip--
In file included from
This code
{{{
struct vector {
vector() : x(0), y(0), z(0) { }
float x,y,z;
};
struct Foo {
int dummy; // commenting this out makes it run perfectly
vector array_of_vectors[4];
};
Foo foo;
int main() { }
}}}
compiled with
g++ -O3 test.cpp -o test
segaults on x86-64 linux (tested on
--- Comment #1 from beckmann dot maik at googlemail dot com 2008-06-27
07:21 ---
The segfault doesn't happen on x86-32.
--
beckmann dot maik at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from beckmann dot maik at googlemail dot com 2008-06-27
08:34 ---
same for gcc-4_3-branch:
$ LANG=en_US svn info .
Path: .
URL: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_3-branch
Repository Root: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
Repository UUID:
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2008-06-27 08:42 ---
Test results are here:
Results for 4.2.1 testsuite on i386-pc-solaris2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-06/msg02160.html
Everything passed (and failed) as expected for this version of gcc when
configured
--- Comment #3 from beckmann dot maik at googlemail dot com 2008-06-27
08:46 ---
eeh.. same means it segfaults on x86-64 :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36648
--- Comment #3 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 08:47 ---
I don't understand the last comment. Do you still have a bug to report?
If no, then please close this, if yes, then please state what is different
from the successful build you used to obtain the test results.
--- Comment #15 from imam dot toufique at intel dot com 2008-06-27 08:57
---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
I just tried the 4.3_branch release of gcc with the CFFLAGS='-02 -fPIC'
option.
It seem to fail now in libiberty/md5.c
Here is the error:
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-06-27 09:01
---
Paolo, can you help with this one?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 09:23 ---
This is just out-of-SSA not coalescing properly because of
val_16 = val_3 + 8;
D.2623_17 = val_3-ptr_off;
which has overlapping life-ranges for val_3 and val_16. Earlier
compilers either didn't eliminate o in
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 09:31 ---
The vectorizer creates an unaligned access. -O -ftree-vectorize reproduces it.
_GLOBAL__I_foo:
.LFB10:
xorps %xmm0, %xmm0
movaps %xmm0, foo+4(%rip)
movl$foo+20, %eax
movaps
--- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-06-27 09:43 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
I did:
svn co http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_3-branch/ gcc-4.3
I hope I got the correct copy there, unless I did some wrong.
if you have any suggestions on how to pick
touch err.h
echo include \err.h\ err.c
echo include \stdio.h\ err.c
echo int main() {} err.c
gcc -H err.h
gcc -H err.c prints:
! x9.h.gch
x9.c
. /usr/include/stdio.h
[more headers...]
.. /usr/include/bits/sys_errlist.h
Multiple include guards may be useful for:
/usr/include/bits/stdio_lim.h
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-06-27 10:29
---
I have no idea either. Unfortunately you target isn't very common among the
contributors of GCC / testers on testresults. As you can see, x86_64 -m32 is
also fine...
--
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36644
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-06-27 10:34
---
By the way, I would consider using a 64-bit OS...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36644
] 20080627
(experimental) (GCC)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29071
GCC version: 4.3.1-20080507
System type: CYGWIN_NT-5.2-WOW64 version 1.5.25
Native GCC: version 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125)
GCC configured with: --target=x86_64-pc-linux
--prefix=/usr/local/opensuse-x86_64 --enable-languages=c --disable-shared
--disable-threads
--- Comment #2 from lauras at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 12:30 ---
Subject: Bug 34867
Author: lauras
Date: Fri Jun 27 12:29:55 2008
New Revision: 137175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137175
Log:
2008-06-27 Laurynas Biveinis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from lauras at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 12:32 ---
Fixed on trunk.
--
lauras at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
This problem can be reproduced using the attached testcase.
In GCC 3.2.3 (i386-redhat-linux), it works as expected:
~ % gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/3.2.3/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info
--- Comment #1 from jjk at acm dot org 2008-06-27 12:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=15820)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15820action=view)
Test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36651
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-06-27 12:50 ---
Subject: Re: New: 64-bit enumerator incorrectly demoted to 32
bits
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, jjk at acm dot org wrote:
When I asked about this on gcc-help, Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a bug. C99
--- Comment #11 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 13:04 ---
should we
- add a bit so that used_flags:2 and set TREE_USED() = 2 in
expand_assignment(), expand_expr_real_1, adjust setting tree
addressable(decl)=!!TREE_USED(decl), set it in gimplify_modify_expr_rhs() for
vars
When compiling the code (taken and simplified from FoX, the FORTRAN XML
library):
module charset
implicit none
private
character(len=1), parameter :: SPACE = achar(32)
character(len=1), parameter :: NEWLINE = achar(10)
character(len=1), parameter :: CARRIAGE_RETURN =
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 13:59 ---
Subject: Bug 36584
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jun 27 13:59:05 2008
New Revision: 137179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137179
Log:
2008-06-27 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR middle-end/36584
--
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
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 15:12 ---
I think this is the old bug that the enum values that fit into int get
integer type. This can be seen from the warning as well (I think the
preprocessor gets this wrong already). There is a dup about this
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 15:13 ---
If you try with -pedantic, it changes behaviour IIRC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36651
In mingw32 builds of the GCC 4.3 branch, the following code causes an ICE:
class blah {};
class __attribute__((dllimport)) vchild : virtual public blah
{
vchild() {}
};
The dllimport attribute, the virtual inheritance, and the inline constructor
are key to causing the error. A Windows
--- Comment #1 from tdragon at tdragon dot net 2008-06-27 17:09 ---
I have also discovered that this bug is *not* present in the MinGW 4.2.1 TP (or
in MinGW 3.4.5), but is present in unofficial builds of GCC 4.3.1 and 4.2.4 as
well as 4.3.0.
--
Consider:
template typename void f() {}
extern template void fint();
When compiled with:
g++ -pedantic -std=c++0x -c t.cpp
the following warning is emitted:
warning: ISO C++ forbids the use of extern on explicit instantiations
Since extern template has already been integrated
The warning below is unhelpful in generic code and silencing it by removing
the top-level cv qualifiers is unnecessarily tedious.
$ cat t.cpp g++ t.cpp -W
template class T
T foo () { return T (); }
int main ()
{
fooconst int();
}
t.cpp: In function 'int main()':
t.cpp:2: warning: type
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 17:46 ---
*** Bug 36656 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 17:46 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 36052 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 17:47
---
*** Bug 36052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30601
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 17:47 ---
Really I don't see any differences between this and PR 30601.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30601 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-06-27 17:57
---
I think you are right.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org|
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot
--- Comment #7 from dtom77 at gmail dot com 2008-06-27 18:12 ---
Subject: Re: make check fails:FAIL: tr1/8_c_compatibility/cmath/functions.cc
(test for excess errors)
On Friday 27 June 2008 06:33, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
By the way, I would consider using a 64-bit
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 18:54 ---
Subject: Bug 36400
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 27 18:53:43 2008
New Revision: 137197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137197
Log:
2008-06-27 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 18:54 ---
Subject: Bug 36373
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 27 18:53:43 2008
New Revision: 137197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137197
Log:
2008-06-27 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 18:54 ---
Subject: Bug 36344
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 27 18:53:43 2008
New Revision: 137197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137197
Log:
2008-06-27 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 19:43 ---
Subject: Bug 36617
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jun 27 19:42:32 2008
New Revision: 137198
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137198
Log:
PR debug/36617
* tree-cfg.c (struct move_stmt_d):
Hi,
the following program shows a runtime bug with gfortran 4.3.x:
% cat gfcbug79.f90
program gfcbug79
implicit none
integer, parameter :: nnml = 10
character(len=8) :: model =
namelist /NML/ model
open (nnml, file='gfcbug79.nml')
write(nnml,*) nml
write(nnml,*)
I'm getting the following error/bug when I try to cross compile gcj for ARM
Linux from trunk (gcc 4.4.0).
This works fine using gcc 4.3.0 and 4.3.1
In file included from ../../../libjava/java/lang/String.h:10,
from ../../../libjava/java/lang/Class.h:19,
from
--- Comment #4 from ddenisen at altera dot com 2008-06-27 20:34 ---
Here's the answer to my question (in case somebody else has the same problem):
You have to use -fPIC for compiling the executable itself (but not the shared
objects) to fix the symbol resolution problem described here.
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 20:46 ---
Subject: Bug 36655
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jun 27 20:45:25 2008
New Revision: 137200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137200
Log:
/cp
2008-06-27 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-06-27 20:50
---
Fixed for 4.4.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from dseketel at redhat dot com 2008-06-27 21:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=15821)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15821action=view)
better column number in error patch [2/2]
After applying this patch, all calls to error() gcc/cp/parser.c use an
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 21:55 ---
Subject: Bug 36373
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 27 21:54:42 2008
New Revision: 137204
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137204
Log:
2008-06-27 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 21:55 ---
Subject: Bug 36344
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 27 21:54:42 2008
New Revision: 137204
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137204
Log:
2008-06-27 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 21:55 ---
Subject: Bug 36400
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jun 27 21:54:42 2008
New Revision: 137204
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137204
Log:
2008-06-27 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 22:27 ---
Subject: Bug 36364
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jun 27 22:26:48 2008
New Revision: 137205
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137205
Log:
PR c++/36364
* repo.c (repo_emit_p): Put const
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 22:36 ---
Subject: Bug 36364
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jun 27 22:35:14 2008
New Revision: 137206
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=137206
Log:
PR c++/36364
* repo.c (repo_emit_p): Put const
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 22:36 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 22:43 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from jg at jguk dot org 2008-06-28 01:00 ---
Dodji Seketeli, Just a quick note to say how great it is that you're working in
this enhancement. Cheers, Jon
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-28 01:34
---
I will investigate this. i have another namelist patch I am working as well.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from dtom77 at gmail dot com 2008-06-28 02:55 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_date/wchar_t/4.cc execution test
The bug still exists in gcc 4.3.1 on my amd 64 computer with 32 bit
Linux(Debian Etch). During make check get error message. Should i be
--- Comment #19 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-06-28
03:47 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_date/wchar_t/4.cc execution test
The bug still exists in gcc 4.3.1 on my amd 64 computer with 32 bit
Linux(Debian Etch). During make check get error message.
--- Comment #20 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-28 03:55
---
See debian bug 352600.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31413
70 matches
Mail list logo
