[Bug tree-optimization/38207] Union in structs are not well optimized

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38207

[Bug tree-optimization/38207] Union in structs are not well optimized

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-20 23:31 --- Note this was found in clang: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081117/009546.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38207

[Bug tree-optimization/15484] [tree-ssa] bool and short function arguments promoted to int

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-20 23:35 --- (In reply to comment #6) Still happens in 4.4. But as mentioned this is not really a bug. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/38207] Union in structs are not well optimized

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-20 23:47 --- This works correctly on the RTL level which means the aliasing oracle does not say c-a and c-c cannot alias. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/38151] structures with _Complex arguments are not passed correctly

2008-11-20 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #20 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-21 00:05 --- The test case in comment 16 passes on i686-apple-darwin9 when compiled with -m32 but fails when compiled with -m64. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38151

[Bug testsuite/28870] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] configuring, over-riding timeout values in testsuite

2008-11-20 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #23 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 00:58 --- I posted a patch for compiler tests at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01066.html but after playing around more realized that it shouldn't be necessary to allow setting a default in .dejagnurc, since

[Bug c++/38206] g++ crashes when compiling trivial code (~10 line test case)

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 01:26 --- This errors out in 4.3.2 and above: t.cc: In function 'bar makeBar()': t.cc:12: error: no matching function for call to 'bar::bar(bar)' t.cc:8: note: candidates are: bar::bar(bar) t.cc:7: note:

[Bug debug/26908] -g3 (-ggdb3) emits broken calls to asm-defined functions

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 01:27 --- *** Bug 38186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/38186] when using gcc compile the code with option -g3, I find the inline assemble code are palced in section .debug_macinfo

2008-11-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 01:27 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26908 *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug testsuite/28870] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] configuring, over-riding timeout values in testsuite

2008-11-20 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #24 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 01:28 --- For the libstdc++ tests, which are the original focus of this PR, is it enough to provide dg-timeout and dg-timeout-factor and either leave the 600 default, or else take the larger of that and [target_info

[Bug debug/26908] -g3 (-ggdb3) emits broken calls to asm-defined functions

2008-11-20 Thread zuogang at huawei dot com
--- Comment #5 from zuogang at huawei dot com 2008-11-21 02:15 --- (In reply to comment #4) *** Bug 38186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I post the bug 38186; I want to know why the asm-defined func is placed in .debug_macinfo section, is it correct? info from the

[Bug fortran/38199] [4.4 regression] I/O performance

2008-11-20 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 04:14 --- Regarding comment #2. This is exactly the area I have been investigating, but I don't have anything solid yet. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199

[Bug fortran/37472] bad output on default-format write of double in common block with -m64 flag i

2008-11-20 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 04:31 --- Subject: Bug 37472 Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Nov 21 04:29:54 2008 New Revision: 142079 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142079 Log: 2008-11-20 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug fortran/37472] bad output on default-format write of double in common block with -m64 flag i

2008-11-20 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 04:36 --- Subject: Bug 37472 Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Nov 21 04:35:17 2008 New Revision: 142080 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142080 Log: 2008-11-20 Jerry DeLisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR

[Bug fortran/37472] bad output on default-format write of double in common block with -m64 flag i

2008-11-20 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 04:38 --- The above patch only fixes a portion of this bug. The remaining is I have not been able to see the problem yet. I have access to a solaris machine now, but have not been able to build gfortran yet. --

[Bug target/38208] New: [4.4 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20080806-1.c

2008-11-20 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
On Linux/x86, revision 142072 gave: Executing on host: /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/xgcc -B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/ -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -w -c -m32 -o 20080806-1.o

[Bug target/38208] [4.4 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20080806-1.c

2008-11-20 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 05:22 --- Revision 142061 is bad. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libfortran/37754] [4.4 Regression] READ I/O Performance regression from 4.3 to 4.4

2008-11-20 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 05:23 --- From some experiments I have done, we can make substantial improvement by streamlining next_char. What I have in mind is reading a whole or partial block of a file and returning a pointer. Then advancing

[Bug target/38208] [4.4 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20080806-1.c

2008-11-20 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 05:39 --- Revision 142061: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01051.html is the cause. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/37915] bootstrap broken for cygwin

2008-11-20 Thread dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
--- Comment #5 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2008-11-21 05:51 --- (In reply to comment #4) Creating library file: .libs/libssp.dll.a .libs/ssp.o: In function `fail': /home/vmk/gccdev/gcctr11/gcc/libssp/ssp.c:109: undefined reference to `___chkstk'

[Bug c/38209] New: [avr] branch optimisation generates worse code

2008-11-20 Thread k dot kosciuszkiewicz+gcc at gmail dot com
Test code: register unsigned char val asm(r4); void negate(void) { if (val) val = ~val; else val = ~val; } Code generated with -Os .global negate .type negate, @function negate: /* prologue: function */ /* frame size = 0 */ tst r4 breq .L2

[Bug c/38209] [avr] branch optimisation generates worse code

2008-11-20 Thread k dot kosciuszkiewicz+gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from k dot kosciuszkiewicz+gcc at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 06:05 --- Created an attachment (id=16730) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16730action=view) Test case. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38209

[Bug middle-end/38204] PRE for post dominating expressions

2008-11-20 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 06:41 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 23286 *** -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/23286] missed fully redundant expression

2008-11-20 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 06:41 --- *** Bug 38204 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/37908] atomic NAND op generate wrong code; __sync_nand_and_fetch, __sync_fetch_and_nand

2008-11-20 Thread uros at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 07:29 --- Subject: Bug 37908 Author: uros Date: Fri Nov 21 07:28:27 2008 New Revision: 142082 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142082 Log: PR middle-end/37908 * config/ia64/ia64.c

[Bug libfortran/37754] [4.4 Regression] READ I/O Performance regression from 4.3 to 4.4

2008-11-20 Thread jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-21 07:43 --- (In reply to comment #7) From some experiments I have done, we can make substantial improvement by streamlining next_char. What I have in mind is reading a whole or partial block of a file and returning a pointer.

<    1   2