On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Michael Walle schrieb:
Hi list,
consider the following test code:
static void inline f1(int arg)
{
register int a1 asm(r8) = 10;
register int a2 asm(r1) = arg;
asm(scall : : r(a1), r(a2));
}
void f2(int arg)
{
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/01/2011 01:30 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
1) function inlining
2) deferred argument evaluation
3) because our target has no barrel shifter, (arg 10) is emitted as a
function call to libgcc's __ashrsi3 (_in place_!)
4) BAM! dead code
Michael Walle wrote:
Hi,
That was quick :)
Your asm has no output operands and no side effects, with more
aggressive optimization the whole ask would disappear.
Sorry, that was just a small test file, the original code has output operands.
The new test code:
static int inline f1(int
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/01/2011 01:30 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
1) function inlining
2) deferred argument evaluation
3) because our target has no barrel shifter, (arg 10) is emitted as a
function call to libgcc's
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Jiangning Liu jiangning@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
For the following simple test case, PRE optimization hoists computation
(s!=1) into the default branch of the switch statement, and finally causes
very poor code generation. This problem occurs in both X86 and ARM,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Oleg Smolsky
oleg.smol...@riverbed.com wrote:
On 2011/7/29 14:07, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Profiling tools are your best friend here. If you don't have access to
any, the least you can do is to build the program with -pg option and
use gprof tool to find out
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/01/2011 01:30 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
1) function inlining
2) deferred argument evaluation
3) because our target has
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/01/2011 01:30 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
1) function inlining
2) deferred argument evaluation
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/01/2011 01:30 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
Hi,
To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
lm32-gcc -O1 -fno-tree-ter -S -c test.c generates the following working
assembly code:
f2:
addi sp, sp, -4
sw (sp+4), ra
addi r2, r0, 10
calli__ashrsi3
addi r8, r0, 10
scall
lw
Michael Walle writes:
Hi,
To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
lm32-gcc -O1 -fno-tree-ter -S -c test.c generates the following working
assembly code:
f2:
addi sp, sp, -4
sw (sp+4), ra
addi r2, r0, 10
calli__ashrsi3
addi
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Michael Walle writes:
Hi,
To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
lm32-gcc -O1 -fno-tree-ter -S -c test.c generates the following working
assembly code:
f2:
addi sp, sp, -4
sw
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Michael Walle writes:
Hi,
To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
lm32-gcc -O1 -fno-tree-ter -S -c test.c generates the following working
assembly code:
f2:
addi sp,
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Michael Walle writes:
Hi,
To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
lm32-gcc -O1 -fno-tree-ter -S -c test.c generates the following working
assembly code:
Revisions 176335 removed the traditional #include unistd.h from
gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
I'm not sure that the gain is worth the pain in this case.
--
Markus
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@bitrange.com wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se wrote:
Michael Walle writes:
Hi,
To confirm that try -fno-tree-ter.
lm32-gcc -O1
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 03:08:03PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
Revisions 176335 removed the traditional #include unistd.h from
gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
This isn't the first time the libstdc++ headers were
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
I'd be ok with that, FWIW; I see the problem with keeping the
scheduling of operations in a working order (yuck) and I don't
see how else to keep it working ...except perhaps make gcc flag
functions with register asms as non-inlinable, maybe even
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Or go one step further and deprecate local register variables alltogether
(they IMHO don't make much sense, and rather the targets should provide
a way to properly constrain asm inputs and outputs).
No, local register variables are
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Or go one step further and deprecate local register variables alltogether
(they IMHO don't make much sense, and rather the targets should provide
a way to properly
On 2 August 2011 14:08, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
Revisions 176335 removed the traditional #include unistd.h from
gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
I'm not sure that the gain is worth the pain in this case.
The pain
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
Or go one step further and deprecate local register variables alltogether
(they IMHO don't make much sense, and
On 08/02/2011 05:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
-fno-tree-ter also unbreaks the ARM test case in PR48863 comment #4.
It's of course only a workaround, not a real fix as nothing prevents
other optimizers from performing the re-scheduling TER does.
I suggest to amend the documentation for
Richard Guenther schrieb:
I suggest to amend the documentation for local call-clobbered register
variables to say that the only valid sequence using them is from a
non-inlinable function that contains only direct initializations of the
register variables from constants or parameters.
Richard.
What am I doing wrong:
configure:3247: checking for suffix of object files
configure:3269: /home/toon/compilers/obj-t/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/toon/compilers/obj-t/./gcc/
-B/tmp/lto/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/tmp/lto/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Toon Moene t...@moene.org wrote:
What am I doing wrong:
configure:3247: checking for suffix of object files
configure:3269: /home/toon/compilers/obj-t/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/toon/compilers/obj-t/./gcc/ -B/tmp/lto/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/02/2011 05:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
-fno-tree-ter also unbreaks the ARM test case in PR48863 comment #4.
It's of course only a workaround, not a real fix as nothing prevents
other optimizers from performing
gcc-python-plugin is a plugin for GCC 4.6 onwards which embeds the
CPython interpreter within GCC, allowing you to write new compiler
warnings in Python, generate code visualizations, etc.
Tarball releases are available at:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/g/c/gcc-python-plugin/
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110802 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110802/
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/branches
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
But then can't people use a pure assembler stub instead? Without
inlining there isn't much benefit left from writing
void f1(int arg)
{
register int a1 asm(r8) = 10;
register int a2 asm(r1) = arg;
asm(scall : : r(a1), r(a2));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-02 06:16:21
UTC ---
Still happens with unpatched compiler, gcc 4.7.0 20110801 [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-08/msg00190.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49926
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Riviere vincent.riviere at freesbee dot fr
2011-08-02 07:30:06 UTC ---
I have applied your patch to GCC 4.6.1 and it worked fine on all the software
I'm used to compile. You should apply it to the 4.6 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
Summary: segmentation fault in redirect_jump_2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
Summary: Wrong code generated for -O2 with target s390 on Linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49934
--- Comment #2 from andy andy_code at mailup dot net 2011-08-02 08:13:11 UTC
---
sorry, the target is coldfire m5208 and it doesnt really matter what
optimisation setting you choose.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #1 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 08:22:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 24888
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24888
The compiler output
Line 3664 (.LVL333:) contains jnhe. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49775
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #2 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 08:26:37 UTC ---
Linux bigserv 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Feb 17 15:03:58 UTC 2011
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
gcc -fexec-charset=IBM-1047
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-02 08:37:28 UTC ---
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen irar at il
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #3 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 08:37:44 UTC ---
Adding a dummy assignment to a global value that the optimiser cannot figure to
be useless fixes the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-02 08:40:24 UTC ---
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-02 08:42:00 UTC ---
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47766
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02 09:01:41 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Aug 2 09:01:37 2011
New Revision: 177096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177096
Log:
PR target/47766
* doc/md.texi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-08-02 09:21:26 UTC
---
Basic block SLP only prints basic block vectorized using SLP. But I thought
we are talking about loop vectorization here, since the early unrolling is
applied only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-02 09:24:19 UTC ---
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen irar at il
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
09:28:32 UTC ---
Why do you think so?
slr; jnhe is what you get for e.g.
void bar (void);
int foo (int x, int y)
{
int d = x - y;
if (d == 0)
bar ();
return d;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49799
Carrot carrot at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49941
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49940
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49775
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
09:44:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
AVR isn't a primary nor secondary target, which implies P4/P5. P3 is for not
yet categorized bugs, P1/P2 is for primary/secondary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49938
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49937
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #5 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 09:59:44 UTC ---
Because the unoptimised code has a je at that place. And putting anything
after the assignment generates correct code. And debug code after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #6 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 10:16:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24889
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24889
Stripped-down test case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #7 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 10:18:28 UTC ---
The stripped-down test case gives this (expected) output on linux:
9 vs 4 is 1
4 vs 9 is -1
And this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49944
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 regression] Bootstrapping on
x86_64-pc-kfreebsd-gnu fails with
s-taprop.adb:856:10: pthread_attr_setaffinity_np is
undefined (more references follow)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49944
--- Comment #1 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com
2011-08-02 10:51:19 UTC ---
This is because GNU/kFreeBSD uses s-taprop-linux.adb, which uses
subprograms
Well, then that's the bug: kFreeBSD should cheat and try to
This is because GNU/kFreeBSD uses s-taprop-linux.adb, which uses
subprograms
Well, then that's the bug: kFreeBSD should cheat and try to reuse linux
Sorry, I meant of course shouldN'T cheat
files, that's bound to cause this kind of error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49944
--- Comment #2 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com
2011-08-02 10:53:47 UTC ---
This is because GNU/kFreeBSD uses s-taprop-linux.adb, which uses
subprograms
Well, then that's the bug: kFreeBSD should cheat and try to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #4 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-08-02 11:03:23 UTC ---
Apart from that, why are you wasting your time with GCC 4.4 which I don't test
any longer? GCC 4.5 and 4.6 should be fine and have seen lots of bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #10 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-08-02 11:08:25 UTC ---
Please try a 4.6.1 tarball and *don't* use relative paths to configure/build
in
a subdir of the source tree. I bootstrap gcc (4.5 to 4.7) on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-02 11:09:56 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-08-02 11:03:23 UTC ---
Apart from that, why are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-02 11:11:00 UTC ---
Not a subdir - a parallel directory.
source is at /home/htl10/tmp-build/gcc-4.5.1
obj dir is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49943
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #2 from Søren Holm sgh at sgh dot dk 2011-08-02 12:19:15 UTC ---
Martin, do you have an idea as to was is wrong ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49914
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-08-02 12:32:24 UTC ---
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
well, I don't think we want the assert in abs_hwi as it stands now.
Either we can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49932
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49641
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
13:11:07 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01044.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg02174.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49900
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
13:11:40 UTC ---
It's easy - misaligned accesses on strict-align targets are a PITA. IPA-SRA
needs similar adjustments as scalar SRA to keep memory references in
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #9 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 13:18:47 UTC ---
That is good to know. However, this problem is with -fexec-charset=IBM-1047.
You cannot run the output of that on the ASCII z/Linux.
Can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49923
--- Comment #4 from Søren Holm sgh at sgh dot dk 2011-08-02 13:26:25 UTC ---
Adding -fno-ipa-sra makes gcc behave correct. Can it be fixed for 4.6.2 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
13:36:53 UTC ---
I think the testcase from your exec charset for Linux would map to:
struct oper { char *digits; char sign; };
struct oper oper0 =
The function __gnat_lwp_self exists in adaint.c only #if defined(linux),
so it may not apply to kfreebsd-*. The problem exists because
kfreebsd-* uses s-osinte-kfreebsd-gnu.ads, which does not import the
function, but also uses s-taprop-linux.adb, which does use the function.
(Note
that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49940
--- Comment #1 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com
2011-08-02 13:46:01 UTC ---
The function __gnat_lwp_self exists in adaint.c only #if defined(linux),
so it may not apply to kfreebsd-*. The problem exists because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48455
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48473
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48596
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48641
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48689
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48853
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48674
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
14:03:40 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Aug 2 14:03:36 2011
New Revision: 177158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177158
Log:
Allow movabs for x32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48799
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48954
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48938
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #11 from jphartmann at gmail dot com jphartmann at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 14:04:29 UTC ---
With the slr, bc 5,x is the correct mask, or course. So it must be something
else.
As I understand it s390 and s390x are exactly the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
14:12:01 UTC ---
Does it work now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48965
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48984
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-02 14:08:31
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-33 gcc]$ cat /export/gnu/import/delta-fortran/testcase-min.f
subroutine midbloc6(c,a2,a2i,q)
parameter (ndim2=6)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49942
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-02
14:12:45 UTC ---
Just ../configure --target s390x-linux, I don't even have s390x binutils here,
so I can just compile into assembly (all that I need for compiler bugfixing).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48246
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
1 - 100 of 357 matches
Mail list logo
