Re: Why auto variables NOT overlap on stack?

2010-02-09 Thread Alexey Salmin
There's another funny thing about gcc3 behavior which I've just discovered: $ gcc -v 21 | grep version gcc version 3.4.2 $ gcc -o mem mem.c ; ./mem -1024 $ gcc -o mem1 mem1.c ; ./mem1 0 $ cat mem.c #include stdio.h int main() { char *p1, *p2; { char a[1024];

Re: AC_CHECK_DECLS(basename) (Was: Re: Ping: patches required for --enable-build-with-cxx)

2010-02-09 Thread Paolo Bonzini
I'm adding autoc...@gnu.org to the destinations, since this is a pretty fundamental problem with AC_CHECK_DECL and C++ On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 02:17, Joern Rennecke joern.renne...@embecosm.com wrote: On 02/08/2010 09:58 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote: That would only work if every program that uses

Re: AC_CHECK_DECLS(basename) (Was: Re: Ping: patches required for --enable-build-with-cxx)

2010-02-09 Thread Joern Rennecke
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org: I'm adding autoc...@gnu.org to the destinations, since this is a pretty fundamental problem with AC_CHECK_DECL and C++ I've whipped up a patch with a modified version of AC_CHECK_DECLS - I've called it AC_CHECK_PROTOS - that can optionally have argument

RE: Failure to combine SHIFT with ZERO_EXTEND

2010-02-09 Thread Rahul Kharche
Hi Jeff, Many thanks for the pointers. I will make the changes and attach the patch to the bugzilla soon. Cheers, Rahul -Original Message- From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] Sent: 09 February 2010 00:45 To: Rahul Kharche Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; sdkteam-gnu Subject: Re: Failure to

Your Fund Release!

2010-02-09 Thread African Development Bank

Re: Exception handling information in the macintosh

2010-02-09 Thread jacob navia
Jack Howarth a écrit : Jacob, Apple's gcc is based on their own branch and is not the same as FSF gcc. The first FSF gcc that is validated on on darwin10 was gcc 4.4. However I would suggest you first start testing against current FSF gcc trunk. There are a number of fixes for darwin10 that

RTX costs

2010-02-09 Thread Paulo J. Matos
Hi all, After reading the internal docs about rtx_costs I am left wondering what they exactly are estimating. - Are they estimating in the beginning of expand how many insns will be generated from a particular insn until the assembler is generated? - or Are they estimating how many assembler

Re: RTX costs

2010-02-09 Thread Joern Rennecke
Quoting Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com: Hi all, After reading the internal docs about rtx_costs I am left wondering what they exactly are estimating. - Are they estimating in the beginning of expand how many insns will be generated from a particular insn until the assembler is generated? -

Re: RTX costs

2010-02-09 Thread Richard Kenner
After reading the internal docs about rtx_costs I am left wondering what they exactly are estimating. - Are they estimating in the beginning of expand how many insns will be generated from a particular insn until the assembler is generated? - or Are they estimating how many assembler

Re: Modulo Scheduling

2010-02-09 Thread Alexander Monakov
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Cameron Lowell Palmer wrote: Does Modulo Scheduling work on x86 platforms? I have tried adding in various versions of the -fmodulo-sched option and get the exact same output with or without. The application is a very simplistic matrix multiply without dependencies. No,

Re: RTX costs

2010-02-09 Thread Paulo J. Matos
Joern Rennecke wrote: Quoting Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com: Hi all, After reading the internal docs about rtx_costs I am left wondering what they exactly are estimating. - Are they estimating in the beginning of expand how many insns will be generated from a particular insn until the

Generating store after fdivd: how to avoid delay slot

2010-02-09 Thread k e
I try to patch gcc so that after a fdivd the destination register is stored to the stack. fdivd %f0,%f2,%f4; std %f4, [%sp] I generate the rtl for divdf3 using a emit_insn,DONE sequence in a define_expand pattern (see below). In the assembler output phase I use a define_insn and write out

Re: [GRAPHITE] Re: Loop Transformations Question

2010-02-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Cristianno Martins cristiannomart...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, First of all, I already find [and fix] the problem that I had described in the last email. Now, I need a help with a pretty intriguing issue, described below. Well, such as I told in the last

Re: [GRAPHITE] Re: Loop Transformations Question

2010-02-09 Thread Cristianno Martins
Hi, Thanks for the fast reply. Only one more thing: is there some way that I could force it to be signed?? On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Cristianno Martins cristiannomart...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone,

Re: [GRAPHITE] Re: Loop Transformations Question

2010-02-09 Thread Sebastian Pop
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:34, Cristianno Martins cristiannomart...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Thanks for the fast reply. Only one more thing: is there some way that I could force it to be signed?? I guess that you should wait the fixes from Tobias and Ramakrishna to CLooG and Graphite to have the

Zero extractions and zero extends

2010-02-09 Thread Jean Christophe Beyler
Dear all, If I consider this code typedef struct sTestUnsignedChar { uint64_t a:1; }STestUnsignedChar; uint64_t getU (STestUnsignedChar a) { return a.a; } I get this in the DCE pass : (insn 6 3 7 2 bitfield2.c:8 (set (subreg:DI (reg:QI 75) 0) (zero_extract:DI (reg/v:DI 73 [ a

Re: [GRAPHITE] Re: Loop Transformations Question

2010-02-09 Thread Tobias Grosser
On 09.02.2010 19:39, Sebastian Pop wrote: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:34, Cristianno Martins cristiannomart...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Thanks for the fast reply. Only one more thing: is there some way that I could force it to be signed?? I guess that you should wait the fixes from Tobias and

Re: porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- success with LEGITIMATE / LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS, stuck with ICE !

2010-02-09 Thread Sergio Ruocco
Michael Hope wrote: Hi Sergio. Any luck so far? Micheal, thanks for your inquiry. I made some progress, in fact. I got the GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS() macro to detect correctly REG+IMM addresses, and then the LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS() macro to force them to be pre-computed in a register. However,

Re: Questions about compute_transpout in gcse.c code hoisting implementation

2010-02-09 Thread Jeff Law
On 01/26/10 16:47, Steven Bosscher wrote: Hello Jeff and other interested readers :-) There is a function compute_transpout() in gcse.c and there are a couple of things about this functions that I don't understand exactly. First, there is this comment before the function says: An expression

gcc-4.4-20100209 is now available

2010-02-09 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100209 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100209/ 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

Re: insn length attribute and code size optimization

2010-02-09 Thread Richard Sandiford
Daniel Jacobowitz d...@codesourcery.com writes: On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 06:23:19AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: fanqifei fanqi...@gmail.com writes: According to the internal manual, insn length attribute can be used to to calculate the length of emitted code chunks when verifying branch

Linkage order in Linux

2010-02-09 Thread michael kapelko
Hello. Recently I found out a surprising requirement to compile own application with Horde3D library (http://horde3d.org/), OpenGL 3D graphics engine. Horde3D library links to shared GL library. But -lHorde3D must be listed *before* -lGL for any application to work correctly. If I link the

Re: Linkage order in Linux

2010-02-09 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
michael kapelko korn...@gmail.com writes: Recently I found out a surprising requirement to compile own application with Horde3D library (http://horde3d.org/), OpenGL 3D graphics engine. Horde3D library links to shared GL library. But -lHorde3D must be listed *before* -lGL for any application

[Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore

2010-02-09 Thread rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
--- Comment #11 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2010-02-09 08:30 --- Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore Hi, As suggested by Zdenek, here is a patch that lowers the cost of the IV when it is compared against

[Bug fortran/43006] Support CHARACTER argument with MINLOC/MAXLOC/MINVAL/MAXVAL

2010-02-09 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 08:51 --- MINLOC has for character the following (analog for MAXLOC and MINVAL/MAXVAL): If ARRAY has type character, the result is the value that would be selected by application of intrinsic relational operators; that is,

[Bug middle-end/42722] move_by_pieces() incorrectly pushes structures to stack

2010-02-09 Thread mikpe at it dot uu dot se
--- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-02-09 08:58 --- (In reply to comment #9) Finally, the m32c port defines both PUSH_ARGS and HAVE_POST_INCREMENT, so it can be possible to reproduce the bug on this port. cat pr42722.c struct test { int a, b, c, d; }; void

[Bug driver/42955] undecorated cross-compiler gcc fails to find cc1

2010-02-09 Thread ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #2 from ossman at cendio dot se 2010-02-09 09:35 --- Like so: /usr/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/bin/gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.10 Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --target=sparc-sun-solaris2.10

[Bug driver/42955] undecorated cross-compiler gcc fails to find cc1

2010-02-09 Thread ossman at cendio dot se
--- Comment #3 from ossman at cendio dot se 2010-02-09 09:36 --- Btw, my workaround for now is to remove the binaries in /usr/sparc-sun-solaris2.10/bin and replace them with symlinks as gcc will resolve any symlinks before trying to determine its runtime prefix. --

[Bug libstdc++/43005] Segmentation fault(not always) while running binary which has gcc and g++ compiled shared object files

2010-02-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-09 09:45 --- Before anything else, you should try a current compiler, because 4.0.x isn't maintained anymore, thus either 4.3.x or, better, 4.4.x. Then, if you are still seeing something strange, we need a complete

[Bug c++/42336] [4.5 Regression] ICE with pointer-to-member-function argument in template function with -fipa-sra

2010-02-09 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #27 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 09:46 --- (In reply to comment #22) (In reply to comment #18) Well, just pretending that a particular parameter never existed isn't acceptable from a debugging standpoint; I think we need to have a separate

[Bug tree-optimization/43002] invalid warning: array subscript is below array bounds with -fwrapv

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:10 --- Without -fwrapv I get ./cc1 -quiet -O2 -Wall t3.i t3.i: In function 'foo': t3.i:8:5: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming that (X + c) X is always false and with -fwrapv and the fix for

[Bug tree-optimization/43000] [4.5 Regression] VRP miscompiles python with -fwrapv

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:10 --- *** Bug 43002 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/42705] [4.4 Regression] verify_flow_info failed with -O

2010-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:36 --- Subject: Bug 42705 Author: jakub Date: Tue Feb 9 10:36:22 2010 New Revision: 156619 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156619 Log: Backport from mainline: 2010-01-13 Richard

[Bug fortran/39171] Misleading warning for negative character length

2010-02-09 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:44 --- Subject: Bug 39171 Author: domob Date: Tue Feb 9 10:44:33 2010 New Revision: 156620 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156620 Log: 2010-02-09 Daniel Kraft d...@domob.eu PR fortran/39171

[Bug fortran/39171] Misleading warning for negative character length

2010-02-09 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:45 --- Fixed on trunk. -- domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/42705] [4.4 Regression] verify_flow_info failed with -O

2010-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:46 --- Fixed. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED

[Bug libstdc++/33485] parallel v3: do not use __builtin_alloca, use VLA

2010-02-09 Thread singler at kit dot edu
--- Comment #17 from singler at kit dot edu 2010-02-09 10:49 --- The actual problem has vanished, but maybe it would still be nice to use VLA in the appropriate places. We can close the bug as fixed/invalid, or reprioritize it as enhancement and leave it open. Both is fine with me.

[Bug libstdc++/43005] Segmentation fault(not always) while running binary which has gcc and g++ compiled shared object files

2010-02-09 Thread jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-09 10:49 --- In addition to what Paolo said: You're using -lpthread, did you also use the relevant preprocessor options? For powerpc -pthread does everything you need. That code doesn't qualify the names from namespace std,

[Bug libstdc++/33485] parallel v3: use VLAs in some places

2010-02-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-09 11:14 --- Ok, I changed Summary and Severity. Somebody should also double check whether VLAs are still triggering warnings or not. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/43000] [4.5 Regression] VRP miscompiles python with -fwrapv

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 11:34 --- Subject: Bug 43000 Author: rguenth Date: Tue Feb 9 11:34:28 2010 New Revision: 156621 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156621 Log: 2010-02-09 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de PR

[Bug tree-optimization/43000] [4.5 Regression] VRP miscompiles python with -fwrapv

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 11:35 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

Your Fund Release!

2010-02-09 Thread African Development Bank

[Bug c++/37093] [4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE with pointer to member template parameters

2010-02-09 Thread laikechen at gmail dot com
--- Comment #28 from laikechen at gmail dot com 2010-02-09 12:07 --- (In reply to comment #2) Even shorter testcase: == struct A {}; template int A::* p int foo(A* q) { return q-*p; } template typename T int bar(int T::* p) { return

[Bug c/43007] New: [4.5 Regression] No longer folds (unsigned int) ((long long unsigned int) spi_bias / 1008)

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
The kernel on i?86 again contains references to __udivdi3 because we no longer simplify unsigned int apply_frontend_param (unsigned int spi_bias) { static const int ppm = 8000; spi_bias /= 1000ULL + ppm/1000; return spi_bias; } to return spi_bias / 1008. In 4.4 we entered

[Bug c/43007] [4.5 Regression] No longer folds (unsigned int) ((long long unsigned int) spi_bias / 1008)

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43007

[Bug c/43007] [4.5 Regression] No longer folds (unsigned int) ((long long unsigned int) spi_bias / 1008)

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 12:32 --- I am testing Index: gcc/convert.c === --- gcc/convert.c (revision 156620) +++ gcc/convert.c (working copy) @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@

[Bug fortran/36313] [F2003] {MIN,MAX}{LOC,VAL} should accept character arguments

2010-02-09 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 13:10 --- *** Bug 43006 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/43006] Support CHARACTER argument with MINLOC/MAXLOC/MINVAL/MAXVAL

2010-02-09 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 13:10 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 36313 *** -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug debug/42977] [4.5 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with -O2 -finline-functions -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -fsched2-use-superblocks -fPIC

2010-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 13:41 --- This is because the [sp] = ax insn has different INSN_PRIORITY between -g and -g0. That difference is because different kind of dependency is added when analyzing the following call: (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI

[Bug libstdc++/43005] Segmentation fault(not always) while running binary which has gcc and g++ compiled shared object files

2010-02-09 Thread sarveshwarac at india dot tejasnetworks dot com
--- Comment #3 from sarveshwarac at india dot tejasnetworks dot com 2010-02-09 13:46 --- I have used the following preprocessor options: -DTHREADED, -D_REENTRANT. I tried with -pthread instead of -lpthread, but still the problem is seen. using namespace std(;) line is present in my

[Bug libstdc++/43005] Segmentation fault(not always) while running binary which has gcc and g++ compiled shared object files

2010-02-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-09 13:51 --- Nonetheless, please try with a maintained compiler and, in case, please provide a complete self-contained reproducer, otherwise no action will be possible, this bug will be closed for lack of feedback. --

[Bug tree-optimization/43008] [4.5 Regression] Attribute malloc not handled correctly

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 14:10 --- Mine. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/43008] New: [4.5 Regression] Attribute malloc not handled correctly

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
We miscompile some perl testcases because int i; struct X { int *p; }; struct X * __attribute__((malloc)) my_alloc (void) { struct X *p = __builtin_malloc (sizeof (struct X)); p-p = i; return p; } extern void abort (void); int main() { struct X *p, *q; p = my_alloc (); q = my_alloc

[Bug debug/42977] [4.5 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with -O2 -finline-functions -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -fsched2-use-superblocks -fPIC

2010-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 14:34 --- Argh, this isn't going to be fun to fix. The problem is: 2018 if (n_useless_values MAX_USELESS_VALUES 2019 /* remove_useless_values is linear in the hash table size. Avoid 2020 quadratic behavior for

[Bug lto/42985] Internal compiler error: in ipcp_iterate_stage with different opt level

2010-02-09 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 14:49 --- I'm about to test a fix. -- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/43009] New: segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com
gcc version 4.4.1 (Ubuntu 4.4.1-4ubuntu9) Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Resulting binary crushes with segmentation fault if gcc compile options include -O3. Source code: #include stdio.h #include stdlib.h #include stdint.h #include unistd.h void process_buf(uint32_t *buf) { int i; uint32_t t = 0;

[Bug c/43009] segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com 2010-02-09 15:48 --- Created an attachment (id=19828) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19828action=view) the preprocessed file (*.i*) that triggers the bug -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43009

[Bug c/43009] segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com 2010-02-09 15:52 --- Created an attachment (id=19829) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19829action=view) output for: gcc -v -save-temps -Wall -Werror -O3 2.c -o 2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43009

[Bug libstdc++/41975] [C++0x] [DR579] unordered_set::erase performs worse when nearly empty

2010-02-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-09 16:09 --- Looks like there is a strong consensus in the LWG for the proposed resolution, that is returning void, and LWG 579 now is [Tentatively Ready]. We could even implement it in time for 4.5.0, but, if I'm not

[Bug tree-optimization/43008] [4.5 Regression] Attribute malloc not handled correctly

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 16:11 --- Subject: Bug 43008 Author: rguenth Date: Tue Feb 9 16:11:34 2010 New Revision: 156628 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156628 Log: 2010-02-09 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de PR

[Bug tree-optimization/43008] [4.5 Regression] Attribute malloc not handled correctly

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 16:12 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c/43009] segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 16:15 --- Your pointer isn't properly aligned to be accessed via uint32_t*. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/43009] segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from ajk dot xyz at gmail dot com 2010-02-09 16:47 --- (In reply to comment #3) Your pointer isn't properly aligned to be accessed via uint32_t*. And should it? If 'yes', then why GCC generates working code for that source without optimization or with -O2 ? Or even

[Bug libfortran/42996] Incorrect length returned from get_command_argument intrinsic

2010-02-09 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 17:05 --- Subject: Bug 42996 Author: burnus Date: Tue Feb 9 17:04:57 2010 New Revision: 156630 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156630 Log: 2010-02-09 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de PR

[Bug c/43009] segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 17:07 --- The alignment requirements of uint32_t are not being satisfied. That causes undefined behavior which means it could work in one case but not the other. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What

[Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore

2010-02-09 Thread spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 17:17 --- Hi, I just checked the back-end cost tables and there is no cost entry for compare against zero. I guess that we should just add a TODO comment around the code that we're adding, and then add the cost field in GCC

[Bug fortran/41869] ICE segfault when reading module file

2010-02-09 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 17:33 --- Subject: Bug 41869 Author: burnus Date: Tue Feb 9 17:32:53 2010 New Revision: 156631 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156631 Log: 2010-02-09 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug debug/43010] New: [4.4/4.5 Regression] ICE with -femit-struct-debug-baseonly

2010-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
// { dg-do compile } // { dg-options -g -femit-struct-debug-baseonly } # 1 foo.C # 1 bar.h 1 typedef struct { int i; } S __attribute__((aligned)); typedef struct { struct { int i; } j; } T __attribute__((aligned)); # 1 foo.C 2 compiles fine with 4.3.x, but ICEs in gen_type_die_with_usage with

[Bug debug/43010] [4.4/4.5 Regression] ICE with -femit-struct-debug-baseonly

2010-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Known

[Bug target/35866] Vector load/store from a packed struct does not work (without -mstrict-align)

2010-02-09 Thread froydnj at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 17:51 --- Declaring this one fixed, somewhat late. -- froydnj at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/43009] segmentation fault with -O3 when accessing byte-aligned array as dwords

2010-02-09 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 18:20 --- Your pointer isn't properly aligned to be accessed via uint32_t*. That's hardly satisfactory an answer. GCC has always generated working code on non-strict alignment platforms in this case and one can expect

[Bug libstdc++/42819] [C++0x] std::async fails to compile with simple tests, including N3000 example

2010-02-09 Thread jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #25 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-09 18:28 --- This is now LWG 1315 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42819

[Bug middle-end/41290] [4.5 regression] ICE: edge points to wrong declaration

2010-02-09 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 19:44 --- Do your problems go away with -fno-indirect-inlining ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41290

[Bug web/43011] New: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla is currently running Bugzilla 2.20, which reached end-of-life on November 29, 2008, see http://www.bugzilla.org/news/#release32. This means that this installation is vulnerable to all security bugs found in the last 15 months. This installation should be upgraded to Bugzilla

[Bug web/38475] Bugzilla request: hide my e-mail from non-logged-in users

2010-02-09 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment #4 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 19:51 --- (In reply to comment #3) This is not fixable. This is fixable, and is actually fixed in Bugzilla 3.4! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38475

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 19:54 --- I cannot find the emails saying why this has not been done yet but I remember the issue comes down to custom fields which need to be moved correctly over to the new version of bugzilla. --

[Bug c++/42370] [C++0x][lambda] in a void function: Warning: control reaches end of non-void function

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug middle-end/42973] [4.4/4.5 regression] IRA apparently systematically making reload too busy on 2 address instructions with 3 operands

2010-02-09 Thread vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2010-02-09 19:56 --- The patch which I'll send in a few minutes solves the problem. The patch avoids the creation of shuffle copies if an involved operand should be bound to some other operand in the current insn. The test code

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment #2 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 19:58 --- (In reply to comment #1) I cannot find the emails saying why this has not been done yet but I remember the issue comes down to custom fields which need to be moved correctly over to the new version of bugzilla.

[Bug c++/42370] [C++0x][lambda] in a void function: Warning: control reaches end of non-void function

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 20:06 --- Subject: Bug 42370 Author: jason Date: Tue Feb 9 20:05:51 2010 New Revision: 156634 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156634 Log: PR c++/42370 * decl2.c (change_return_type): New

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-09 20:18 --- Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5 I think the call for volunteers at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00276.html still applies. --

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment #4 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 20:22 --- Hey Daniel, still need some help? :) -- LpSolit at netscape dot net changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/42370] [C++0x][lambda] in a void function: Warning: control reaches end of non-void function

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 20:22 --- Fixed. -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-09 20:33 --- Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5 There may be a few local code changes (Daniel mentioned email handling) to carry over (it's quite possible newer versions don't need code changes for

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment #6 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 20:45 --- Hard to see all the changes made to 2.20 via CVS. Is there a patch somewhere done against vanilla Bugzilla showing all the customizations which have been done? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug c++/42399] [c++0x] assigning lambda causes segfault from null dereference at libibery/splay-tree.c:148

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:01 --- Created an attachment (id=19830) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19830action=view) Local Bugzilla changes Here's a diff generated with cvs -z9 diff -uN -rBUGZILLA_2_20 -rHEAD. There are some

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:09 --- Created an attachment (id=19831) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19831action=view) Diff from tarball Here is a larger, probably more accurate diff generated using a release tarball. --

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-09 21:15 --- Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5 I think we agreed some time ago to remove the gccbug script - if we do that then we shouldn't need to bring over anything related to processing

[Bug libstdc++/42819] [DR 1315][C++0x] std::async fails to compile with simple tests, including N3000 example

2010-02-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #26 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-09 21:20 --- Fine, let's suspend this, then. -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/43012] New: wrong code for -floop-strip-mine in 453.povray

2010-02-09 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
SPEC CPU2006 test 453.povray is miscompiled by GCC mainline on powerpc64-linux for -O2 -floop-strip-line with either -m32 or -m64. Here's the function that is miscompiled; I'll attach a complete executable testcase: void pre_init_tokenizer ()

[Bug tree-optimization/43012] wrong code for -floop-strip-mine in 453.povray

2010-02-09 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:29 --- Created an attachment (id=19832) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19832action=view) minimized executable testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43012

[Bug c++/42737] [c++0x] error returning a lambda function

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:39 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42370 *** -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/42370] [C++0x][lambda] in a void function: Warning: control reaches end of non-void function

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:39 --- *** Bug 42737 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/42877] [C++0x] ICE when checking the type of a lambda

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:39 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42370 *** -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/42370] [C++0x][lambda] in a void function: Warning: control reaches end of non-void function

2010-02-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:39 --- *** Bug 42877 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/42819] [DR 1315][C++0x] std::async fails to compile with simple tests, including N3000 example

2010-02-09 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #27 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-09 21:43 --- Jon, about the proposed resolution, do you think that simple is enough? I mean, it doesn't say anything about the problem I had to address with SFINAE in my tentative patch... --

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
--- Comment #10 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 21:44 --- Could someone having access to the Bugzilla server install the PatchReader Perl module? It's way easier to read patches this way. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011

[Bug web/43011] Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5

2010-02-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:45 --- (In reply to comment #10) Could someone having access to the Bugzilla server install the PatchReader Perl module? It's way easier to read patches this way. I think it is already installed, just the

[Bug libstdc++/42819] [DR 1315][C++0x] std::async fails to compile with simple tests, including N3000 example

2010-02-09 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #28 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:51 --- Good point, I'll ask Howard to update it -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42819

  1   2   >