--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[regression 4.5] Fail to|[4.6 Regression] Fail to
|prefer using r3
--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 13:57
---
Subject: Bug 45678
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 17 13:57:04 2010
New Revision: 164369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164369
Log:
2010-09-17 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:13 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Should we just XFAIL this on darwin then?
You mean it still fails?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:18 ---
Eventually predicated value-numbering will fix this as part of the
redundant store removal eliminate() performs.
A similar thing can be added to DOM, which already can do the predication.
I'll give that a quick try
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:39 ---
Index: tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 164371)
+++ tree-ssa-dom.c (working copy)
@@ -1804,6 +1804,37
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45705
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:45 ---
Confirmed. Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:46 ---
Reopen.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 09:30 ---
With seeing .clone in fn names I suppose this is ipa-cp or ipa-sra.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 10:17 ---
DECL_ALIGN of d is set to 128 (but appearantly it isn't ensured it'll end up
that way). DECL_ALIGN is adjusted here:
Old value = 32
New value = 128
expand_one_stack_var_at (decl=0x75ae90a0, offset=-16
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 10:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=21809)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21809action=view)
patch to fix half STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets memcpy folding
Might need this patch to fix as well. i?86 / x86_64
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 10:50 ---
Missing some else indeed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45678
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 11:06
---
Subject: Bug 45623
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 16 11:06:25 2010
New Revision: 164333
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164333
Log:
2010-09-16 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #27 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 11:07
---
Fixed for trunk sofar.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 13:39
---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=21809)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21809action=view) [edit]
patch to fix half STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 14:13
---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #13)
With that patch the assignment generated from memcpy doesn't need more
that int alignment, but still cfgexpand.c sets DECL_ALIGN of the
decl to 128 so
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 14:22
---
The patch in comment #4 makes memcpy folding not lie about alignment.
cfgexpand still lies about alignment though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45678
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 14:55
---
Like
Index: gimplify.c
===
--- gimplify.c (revision 164333)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -2477,10 +2477,13 @@ gimplify_call_expr (tree *expr_p
--
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=45680
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:47 ---
We can't hoist invariant control flow. Also print *,c is surely thought
to be an escape point for c and thus may clobber it.
I'd rate this impossible to do for the middle-end (and generally not worth
the hassle
--
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=45663
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:49 ---
Another dumping artifact probably. At some point I'd like to dump all
MEM_REFs as MEM[(...)p + cst] and drop the fancy ways.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45673
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:49 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 12:16
---
Confirmed and investigating.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 12:31
---
You are accessing a pointer of type char *s1 via an lvalue of type void *
(*data). Or speaking in C++, you are accessing an object of dynamic type
void * (stored to via *data) by an lvalue of type char * (s1
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:03
---
points-to analysis does not honor GCCs type-punning through union extension
(it works on x86_64 because ptr and asBits match in size and thus SRA
cleans the code up before pointer-analysis). So PTA sees
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:24
---
Another workaround is to use -fno-tree-pta.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:50
---
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
Another workaround is to use -fno-tree-pta.
Doesn't work here.
For the original code? Then your reduced testcase is different from the
original problem
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 13:59
---
Created an attachment (id=21801)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21801action=view)
patch
I am testing this patch (for 4.5 branch).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45623
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:17
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45665
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:19 ---
They also fail on old glibc systems. Nathan, you need to add some
dg-effective-target machinery and check availability of runtime support.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:20 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 10:21 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45660
--
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=45667
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--
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
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45363
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45566
--- 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
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45569
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45593
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45606
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
--- 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
--
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=45653
--
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=45652
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||ia64-unknown-freebsd9.0
Target Milestone
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-11 10:51 ---
Please attach head.i here, pastes usually vanish after some time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45647
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.5 Regression]|[4.5/4.6 Regression]
|__builtin_popcountl ICEs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
--
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=45630
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segfault in |[4.6 Regression] Segfault
--- Comment #41 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 09:33
---
(In reply to comment #40)
A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database (snapshot
taken today, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2 is now live at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 11:29 ---
Are you really using the fortran-dev branch?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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=45634
--
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=45612
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45606
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45593
--
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=45577
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45470
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 13:26 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
I see before SLP:
bb 2:
MEM[(struct A *)this_1(D)].a = 0;
MEM[(struct A *)this_1(D)].b = 0;
MEM[(struct A *)this_1(D)].c = 0;
[LP 2] MEM
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 14:22 ---
Subject: Bug 44115
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 10 14:22:22 2010
New Revision: 164179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164179
Log:
2010-09-10 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 14:38 ---
Fixed for 4.6.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 15:35 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 09:47 ---
4.5 prints
t.C:2:13: error: 'A::A' has the same name as the class in which it is declared
3.4
t.C:2: error: `enum A::A' has the same name as the class in which it is
declared
which is nicest. 4.0 to 4.4 exhibit
--
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=45604
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 09:51
---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 09:52 ---
Was a dup (fixed).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45578 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 09:52
---
*** Bug 45589 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 13:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Richard, could you please have a look?
I don't have access to sparc-sun-solaris2*, so I can't bootstrap it (but
at most build a cross cc1).
So please attach a testcase (easiest
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44328
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 09:20 ---
You are violating the ODR.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 09:22 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 09:22 ---
Subject: Bug 45590
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 8 09:22:35 2010
New Revision: 163995
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163995
Log:
2010-09-08 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 09:22 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 09:36 ---
Confirmed. We have two different array3_real(kind=8) record types that are
not considered compatible. One data pointer member is restrict qualified
while the other one is not.
Why do we have an aggregate
--
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=45585
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 09:37 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 10:34 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The case that apply here is discussed in point 3:
#3: ... For a given entity, each definition
must be the same. ...
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 10:42 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
The case that apply here is discussed in point 3:
#3: ... For a given entity, each definition
must be the same
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 11:17 ---
Subject: Bug 45578
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 8 11:17:31 2010
New Revision: 163997
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163997
Log:
2010-09-08 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 11:21 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 13:53 ---
#4 0x00b25f5e in fold_const_aggregate_ref (t=0x77f0cc18)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c:1444
1444return build_int_cst_type (TREE_TYPE (t),
(gdb) l
1439
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
--
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=45570
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 08:37 ---
Hm, that expr shouldn't throw. I'll have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |ada
Keywords||build
Target
--
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=45567
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 08:37 ---
I'll have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45566
101 - 200 of 14880 matches
Mail list logo
