--- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 06:38 ---
adjust summary according to the last timings
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2010-08-29 06:39 ---
Still happens with the new combine work (not that I really expected it to
change).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44474
Hello.
$ cat 1.h
void f();
$ cat 2.h
# include 1.h
$ cat 1.c
#include 2.h
int main()
{
a = b;
}
$ gcc 1.c
1.c: In function 'int main()':
1.c:5: error: 'a' was not declared in this scope
1.c:5: error: 'b' was not declared in this scope
But:
$ g++ 1.h
$ ls
1.c 1.h 1.h.gch 2.h
$ gcc 1.c
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 09:25
---
tree iv optimization : 32.57 (20%) usr 0.10 ( 5%) sys 32.73 (20%) wall
322095 kB (18%) ggc
20% is still completely unreasonable for IV optimization.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 09:56 ---
Subject: Bug 45439
Author: janus
Date: Sun Aug 29 09:56:45 2010
New Revision: 163626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163626
Log:
2010-08-29 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 09:57 ---
Fixed with r163626. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following code
-
#include limits
#include iostream
int main () {
double a = std::numeric_limitsdouble::infinity();
double b = -1;
std::cout a std::endl;
std::cin b;
std::cout b std::cin.fail() std::endl;
return 0;
}
-
outputs
-
inf
0 1
-
when the user
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-29 10:23
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27904 ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-29 10:23
---
*** Bug 45442 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 11:28 ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n1944 proposed the
changes to sequencing wording, revised in
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2239.html
The new wording makes it clear
In in gcc-4.4.4 (and likely in many other versions), the man gcc paragraph
about -O3 is:
Optimize yet more. -O3 turns on all optimizations specified by -O2 and also
turns on the -finline-functions, -funswitch-loops, -fpredictive-commoning,
-fgcse-after-reload and -ftree-vectorize options.
The
--- Comment #18 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-08-29 15:07 ---
FYI, these are the 4.5 branch timings:
Execution times (seconds)
garbage collection: 0.47 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.47 ( 1%) wall
0 kB ( 0%) ggc
callgraph construction: 0.05 ( 0%) usr 0.01 ( 1%)
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.6-20100828 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi fails in
stage 2 with:
/home/mikpe/gcc-4.6-20100828/gcc/config/arm/arm.c: In function
'arm_get_pcs_model':
/home/mikpe/gcc-4.6-20100828/gcc/config/arm/arm.c:3725:7: error: passing
argument 1 of 'stdarg_p' discards 'const'
--- Comment #1 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-29 16:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21586)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21586action=view)
preliminary fixes for arm.c stage2 errors
This gets me past the arm.c stage2 errors.
--
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-29 16:40 ---
A bit simpler testcase:
int test(int i)
{
return (i 0xFF) == ((i 0xFF00) 8);
}
fails two combine attempts:
Trying 8 - 9:
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (zero_extract:SI
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 17:22 ---
cf. PR 44529
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-29 17:32
---
Jason, any hint about the best way to attack this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 17:39
---
The commit fixes it for me. Sorry about this!
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 17:41
---
I did LEADZ and TRAILZ, I guess I should do these. Assigning to me.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2010-08-29 18:00 ---
I agree that Nelson's proposal (in particular 5.17p1 -assignment and compound
assignment operators) defines the ordering as:
- evaluation of operands
- assignment
- evaluation of assignment expression i.e. evaluating
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 18:05 ---
Cf. also PR 45440
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44529
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.6-20100828 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi, after
applying the preliminary fixes for PR45444, fails with comparison failures
after stage 3:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/mikpe/objdir46'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison
--- Comment #11 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2010-08-29 18:24 ---
Note to Nelson, for the record here:
There is a disagreement about C++ sequence semantics happening in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45437
The gist is the following code:
bool b = false;
bool f()
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-29 18:34 ---
Combine seems to prefer LSHIFTRT over ZERO_EXTRACT.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45434
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-29 18:59 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Combine seems to prefer LSHIFTRT over ZERO_EXTRACT.
It seems so. Slightly changed testcase:
char test(int a, int b, int i, int j)
{
return (i 0xFF) == ((j 0xFF00) 8);
}
and changed
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 19:12
---
Combine seems to prefer LSHIFTRT over ZERO_EXTRACT.
The former is the canonical form of the latter for internal computations, but
the latter should be reinstantiated when matching instructions.
--
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-29 19:20 ---
Some other examples:
char test(int a, int b, int i, int j)
{
return (i 0xFF) + ((j 0xFF00) 8);
}
movzbl %ch, %eax
addl%edx, %eax
ret
char test(int a, int b, int i, int j)
{
return (i
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 19:24 ---
Subject: Bug 44991
Author: jason
Date: Sun Aug 29 19:24:37 2010
New Revision: 163629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163629
Log:
PR c++/44991
* parser.c
--- Comment #12 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 20:50 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
However you beg the question because you assume that evaluation of operands
means evaluation of rvalues derived from the operands.
I assume nothing of the sort.
It does not; it means
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 21:10 ---
Mine (working on a patch).
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 21:29 ---
Subject: Bug 42769
Author: janus
Date: Sun Aug 29 21:29:38 2010
New Revision: 163631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163631
Log:
2010-08-29 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #30 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 21:36 ---
r163631 fixes comment #27, but the other stuff still fails:
1) the original test case (comment #1, ICE)
2) the reduced version (comment #8, ICE)
3) the variant in comment #24 (wrong-code)
--
--- Comment #13 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-29 22:39 ---
Here's a reduced testcase, struct s is not relevant:
bool f(bool b) {
b = true;
return false;
}
int main() {
bool b = false;
b |= f(b);
return b;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45437
On powerpc-apple-darwin9 (and apparently powerpc-gnu-linux), the following lto
testcase fails on execution...
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081109 cp_lto_20081109_0.o-cp_lto_20081109_1.o execute -O2
-fwhopr
The failure occurs as...
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'int'
--
--- Comment #1 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-30
00:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=21587)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21587action=view)
g++.dg/lto/20081109_0 testcase with intermediate files on powerpc-apple-darwin9
--
version 4.6.0 20100829 (experimental) (GCC)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45446
the following test-case:
#ifndef __GNUC_VA_LIST
#define __GNUC_VA_LIST
typedef __builtin_va_list __gnuc_va_list;
#endif
triggers the following ICE:
% /arm-none-linux-eabi/libexec/gcc/arm-none-linux-eabi/4.5.2/cc1 -v
./test-case.c -g -femit-struct-debug-baseonly -o ./test-case.o
ignoring
--- Comment #20 from davidxl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 03:10
---
(In reply to comment #16)
adjust summary according to the last timings
I am surprised to see such big differences between trunk and previous releases.
Compiling this test case with the those options on my
20100829 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20090116 c_lto_20090116_0.o-
c_lto_20090116_0.o link, -O1 -fwhopr -fPIC (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #21 from davidxl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 03:19
---
(In reply to comment #17)
tree iv optimization : 32.57 (20%) usr 0.10 ( 5%) sys 32.73 (20%) wall
322095 kB (18%) ggc
20% is still completely unreasonable for IV optimization.
There was a patch in
--- Comment #1 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-30
03:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=21588)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21588action=view)
gdb log stepping from tree-outof-ssa.c:243 breakpoint to crash
--
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-30
03:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=21589)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21589action=view)
archive with ltrans files generated for failing linkage
--
--- Comment #3 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-30
03:24 ---
Intermediate files generated with...
/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/gcc/
c_lto_20090116_0.o -O1 -fwhopr -fPIC -r -nostdlib -O0 -m64 --save-temps -v -o
--- Comment #23 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-30
03:26 ---
Fixed in current gcc trunk.
--
howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
44 matches
Mail list logo
