--- Additional Comments From charlet at adacore dot com 2005-07-06 06:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
Ada is very confused it looks like as raise.c is both a host and target
file which seems to me wrong.
--- Additional Comments From us15 at os dot inf dot tu-dresden dot de
2005-07-06 07:28 ---
Problem disappears by using less conservative ulimit settings. Bug can be
closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20462
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
07:42 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
And another question, all the variables which have initial values are treat
as static. Is this reasonable?
Yes, this is reasonable. Confirm myself. In section 5.1 (Fortran95,
--- Additional Comments From tneumann at pi3 dot informatik dot
uni-mannheim dot de 2005-07-06 07:42 ---
How about using a union-cast to hash floating point numbers? Something like this
unsigned hash(double v) {
union { double a; unsigned long long b; } tmp;
tmp.a=v; return
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
08:13 ---
Subject: Bug 21963
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-06 08:13:17
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
--
Bug 22212 depends on bug 21963, which changed state.
Bug 21963 Summary: [4.1 Regression] ICE (seg fault) with -m64 (in IV-OPTS)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
08:16 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-07-06 09:13 ---
Fixed by patch for PR 21963, thanks Zdenek!
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21963 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-07-06 09:13 ---
*** Bug 22212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|22212 |
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22236
The following piece of code triggers a bug in the dominator optimizations.
With -fno-tree-dominator-opts the correct result is given back.
volatile int x;
int main ()
{
volatile int *vip;
vip = x;
const volatile int *cvip;
cvip = vip;
if (vip != cvip) return -1;
return 0;
}
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work||3.4.4
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-06 09:53
---
It would be really helpful if you said what you expected, and what you got,
and whether you can reproduce this with another target.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22321
The system:
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 --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --disable-
checking --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --host=i386-redhat-linux
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-06 10:13
---
Hi. Probably, you are not aware of the fact that the 3.2.x series is not
maintained anymore (same for the 3.3.x series, actually). Also, in general, we
are supposed to be enabled to reproduce the problem: this
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-06 10:40
---
should i update the mainline patch?
Well, thanks for the offer, but the real blocker is 20218, which cannot be
fixed yet, because, basically, *all* the back ends need tweaking:
--- Additional Comments From paul dot woegerer at nsc dot com 2005-07-06
10:55 ---
Sorry i thought this trivial test case is self-explanatory.
I would expect that main returns 0.
Two pointers pointing to the same volatile int should compare
to equal (as they do when I disable
--- Additional Comments From surojitmukerji at hsbc dot co dot in
2005-07-06 11:11 ---
Subject: Memo: Re: __default__alloc_template bug
Thanks indeed. Sorry for the incomplete work.
I am working on creating a self-contained testcase. Once done, I will shoot
it accross. Meanwhile
--- Additional Comments From tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
11:32 ---
In this case, we forget the common block name.
From the .t02.original:
MAIN__ ()
{
static union
{
int4 o[30];
} equiv.0;
equiv.0.o[8] = 1;
mysub ();
}
mysub ()
{
static union
{
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22319
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-06 12:11
---
(In reply to comment #2)
With -O1 (which implies -ftree-dominator-opts) main returns -1.
With -O1 -fno-tree-dominator-opts main returns 0.
Do you really think that this bug is target specific ?
I cannot
--- Additional Comments From laurent at guerby dot net 2005-07-06 12:20
---
It has also been reported on ia64-linux by Geert.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00209.html
bt on my x86_64-linux machine
#0 internal_error (gmsgid=0xb4e6c0 tree check: %s, have %s in %s, at %s:%d)
at
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:10 ---
Also I will note that this target is not in FSF's tree so there is no way to
reproduce it either.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22321
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:14 ---
I can confirm it on the mainline and on the 4.0 branch. The mainline you need
-fno-tree-ccp to
reproduce it.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:23 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:27 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #8)
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
I will try this patch later tonight after
--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-06 13:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This patch fixed the problem I was having, thanks.
:) Thanks for
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:31 ---
This also fails too:
volatile int x;
int main ()
{
volatile int *vip;
vip = x;
volatile int *cvip;
cvip = vip;
if (vip != cvip) return -1;
return 0;
}
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:37 ---
I can confirm this is fixed by the patch for PR 22140, posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00216.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22319
--- Additional Comments From paul dot woegerer at nsc dot com 2005-07-06
13:38 ---
I used snapshot 4_1_20050508. After updating the crx-port
to the latest snapshot (4_1_20050702) the bug disappeared.
--
Sorry for inconvenience.
(Its a pity that bugzilla doesn't let me enter
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:40 ---
Confirmed:
-O0 passes
-O1 fails
-O2 passes (because of VRP)
-O3 passes (because of VRP).
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:41 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I used snapshot 4_1_20050508. After updating the crx-port
to the latest snapshot (4_1_20050702) the bug disappeared.
But it is still a latent bug as I showed in comment #5, it is
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
13:45 ---
Closing as works for me then.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
make bootstrap fails with the following:
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: unrecognized option '-Wl,-rpath'
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: use the --help option for usage
information
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [jv-convert] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22322
--- Additional Comments From paul dot woegerer at nsc dot com 2005-07-06
13:47 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Also I will note that this target is not in FSF's tree so there is no way to
reproduce it either.
I've already submitted the crx-port some time ago.
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
14:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Dominance error
after aggressive dead code elimination (cd_dce)
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:29 -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
DCE in aggressive mode sometimes is able to
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
14:24 ---
Is LD set in your environment?
Also could show what the command this error message is comming from?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
14:36 ---
Note You are validing C aliasing rules:
float *p = (float*)v;
Use an union or -fno-strict-aliasing.
But that does not change the problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21687
--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-06 14:50
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
Olivier Hainque wrote:
I'll test on our internal suite and followup.
Went fine on x86-linux, committing
Tools versions:
# uname -a
Linux Beast 2.6.11-gentoo-r11 #2 Wed Jun 15 09:13:40 CEST 2005 x86_64 x86_64
x86_64 GNU/Linux
# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.4/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.4/configure --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-shared
The following two functions should be the same:
int foo(int a) {
int i;
for (i=0; i200; i++) {
a = a + 5;
}
return a;
}
int foo(int a) {
int i;
for (i=0; i200; i++) ;
return a+5*200;
}
The RTL optimizers catch this on ppc but not on x86.
--
Summary: missed optimization in loop
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
15:23 ---
And then we can remove the empty loop which is PR 17640.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From lehmann at ans-netz dot de 2005-07-06 15:39
---
Building it outside the sourcetree made it work...
--
What|Removed |Added
Take the following code:
#include math.h
float foo(float f, float x, float y) {
return (fabs(f)*x+y);
}
on PPC, we should be able to produce:
fabs f1,f1
fmadds f1,f1,f2,f3
blr
But right now we produce:
fabs f1,f1
fmadd f1,f1,f2,f3
frsp f1,f1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:14 ---
Sadly, I didn't see the last comment in this PR until after 4.0.1 RC3.
If there is a need for RC4, I will include this patch; otherwise, it will get
moved back to 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:15 ---
Sadly, I didn't see the last comment in this PR until after 4.0.1 RC3.
If there is a 4.0.1 RC4, this patch will be included; otherwise, it will be in
4.0.2.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:16 ---
Jan has withdrawn the patch mentioned here.
Changing target milestone to 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:28 ---
Reset target milestone to 4.0.2.
(Gaby and I have a standing agreement that the more current release branch gets
the target milestone.)
Patch OK for 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:29 ---
This is a bug in my static_cast rewrite. I will fix it for 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:38 ---
This is rejects-valid, not wrong-code, because the failure mode is that the
program doesn't link. (Unless you violate the ODR.)
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:40 ---
Yes, this is almost certainly a duplicate. The basic problem is that
static_cast does not quite do as much as it should, so we fall back to
reinterpret_cast.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:41 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:44 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-07-06 16:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may
generate stores to read-only memory
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 16:41 +, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:48 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:50 ---
Subject: Bug 22310
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-06 16:50:00
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-structalias.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:50 ---
Subject: Bug 22140
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-06 16:50:00
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-structalias.c
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:50 ---
Subject: Bug 22319
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-06 16:50:00
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-structalias.c
This is what I get from the attached test case, and it is clearly wrong (data
gets copied from uninitialized memory).
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-07/msg00059.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] TEMP]$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with:
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:52 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2005-07-06
16:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=9214)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9214action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22327
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:53 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:54 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00796.html was the start of the
discussion
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21407
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
16:57 ---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at
--- Additional Comments From albertm at uphs dot upenn dot edu 2005-07-06
16:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
First, thank you for taking an interest in this issue.
Secondly, if I may speculate, it seems to me that there is a problem
in how gfc_equiv structures are marked as used
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:02 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.4.5
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:03 ---
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1
--- Additional Comments From albertm at uphs dot upenn dot edu 2005-07-06
17:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
One more bit of speculation. I still think there is an issue with
marking -used in gfc_equiv structures. The following change will
make the test case work, but since I
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:31 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06
17:31 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--
Bug 22319 depends on bug 22140, which changed state.
Bug 22140 Summary: [4.1 Regression] ACATS ICE c37213j c37213l
do_structure_copy, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2372
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22140
What|Old Value |New Value
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
