http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
Bug #: 50596
Summary: Problems in vectorization of condition expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-10-03
08:35:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
So which libc was this originally compiled against? Some things in
traceroute.i make me think it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
--- Comment #1 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-10-03 08:40:53 UTC ---
manage to vectorize this
int j[1024];
void foo5() {
for (int i=0; i!=N; ++i)
j[i] = (a[i]b[i] ? -1 : 0) (c[i]d[i] ? -1 : 0);
}
which is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-10-03 08:44:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 25402 [details]
gcc47-pr50587.patch
Does this patch fix it?
Yes it fixes both the LTO kernel and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50593
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
09:06:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 3 09:06:38 2011
New Revision: 179447
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179447
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-10-03 09:19:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
So assuming this approach (modify implicit-zee pass) is right, we'll have to
enable this pass at least on x86 (32 bit). Is it ok ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50597
Bug #: 50597
Summary: printf_fp.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against
`hack_digit.6607' can not be used when making a shared
object; recompile with -fPIC
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50595
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-03
10:04:17 UTC ---
Without having looked at the code, ICC behaves exactly like GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
10:07:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Manuel, can I have your opinion about this one?
Since you ask, my opinion is that first there should be only 1 error and not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570
--- Comment #2 from msteghofer at cistib dot upf.edu 2011-10-03 10:15:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 25403
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25403
Code to reproduce the behaviour
Subroutine POINTER_INTENT_IN_BUG_FAILING contains
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570
msteghofer at cistib dot upf.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msteghofer at cistib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44854
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-03
11:08:39 UTC ---
Ok, thanks. Frankly I hadn't noticed the *second* error. The first one seemed
good enough to me, and quite similar to what I saw elsewhere modulo type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-03
11:13:52 UTC ---
Like, sorry about my naivete, by adding a cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement or
something right after the error message?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-10-03
11:46:28 UTC ---
The failure seems to have disappeared on trunk starting with r179284:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-09/msg00903.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-10-03
12:56:10 UTC ---
Backporting r179284 to 4.6.1 (trivial except for the third ifcvt.c hunk which
required manual application due to a context diff) fixed the test case there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36819
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43682
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com 2011-10-03
13:06:38 UTC ---
Who can update the in-tree boehm-gc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42304
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-03
13:22:23 UTC ---
I have no idea how this can be made to work with -fwhole-program, but other
people know better.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
13:41:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Thank you for the replies. Is this behaviour standard-conforming?
The documentation for -fwhole-program says that all functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
13:43:21 UTC ---
[basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] p1
a program is ill-formed if an allocation function is declared in a namespace
scope other than global scope or declared
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-03
13:45:03 UTC ---
Oh, thanks Jon for testing that. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is
resolved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-10-03 13:49:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree that given the make static contract of -fwhole-program (which I was
not aware about) the compiler behaves
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
Bug #: 50598
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Undefined symbols: ___emutls_v.*,
... on *-apple-darwin*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50599
Bug #: 50599
Summary: -ftree-vectorize generating incorrect code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
15:02:37 UTC ---
we could add __attribute__((externally_visible)) on the declarations in new
I don't know what other side effects that would have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-03
15:12:53 UTC ---
Yes, yesterday, a bit sleepy, I also wondered that, but I'm not knowledgeable
enough of these mechanisms to say whether it would be otherwise safe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33814
mercergeoinfo at yahoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mercergeoinfo at yahoo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50600
Bug #: 50600
Summary: Illegal instruction when using pragma Profile
(Restricted)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39164
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #13 from Kerrek SB z0sh at sogetthis dot com 2011-10-03 16:12:28
UTC ---
Very interesting. I understand that making the function static makes the
program ill-formed, but it's still somewhat surprising that a compiler flag
should turn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
Bug #: 50601
Summary: [4.7 Regression] New LTO failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Bug #: 50602
Summary: ICE in tree_nrv, at tree-nrv.c:155 during large LTO
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.7.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603
Bug #: 50603
Summary: [x32] Unnecessary lea
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49967
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03 17:57:44
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 3 17:57:40 2011
New Revision: 179472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179472
Log:
2011-10-03 Steve Ellcey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
++,lto --enable-plugin --with-tune=generic
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111003 (experimental) [trunk revision 179472] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50604
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-10-03
19:27:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 25404
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25404
reduced preprocessed test case
With this reduced test case I'm seeing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
19:43:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25405
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25405
.final dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50357
--- Comment #1 from dcb dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2011-10-03 20:23:46 UTC ---
Seems fixed in gcc snapshot 20111001
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50357
dcb dcb314 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50605
Bug #: 50605
Summary: ice in ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50606
Bug #: 50606
Summary: gcc fails to detect obvious use of NULL pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-03
23:09:44 UTC ---
For cris-elf too (unsurprisingly as the error seems universal), plus I'm seeing
a:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
Bug #: 50607
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #2 from Artem Shinkarov artyom.shinkaroff at gmail dot com
2011-10-03 23:17:22 UTC ---
That seems to be the changes caused by the patch I have committed. However, may
be this is a test-case that needs adjustment.
I'll have to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #3 from Artem Shinkarov artyom.shinkaroff at gmail dot com
2011-10-03 23:32:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
For cris-elf too (unsurprisingly as the error seems universal), plus I'm
seeing
a:
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
Bug #: 50608
Summary: cannot apply 'offsetof' to a non constant address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
Dan Berger dberger at oubliette dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
(GCC) version 4.7.0 20111003 (experimental) [trunk revision 179480]
(cris-elf)
compiled by GNU C version 4.4.3 20100127 (Red Hat 4.4.3-4), GMP version
4.3.0, MPFR version 2.4.1, MPC version 0.8
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
GNU GIMPLE (GCC) version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04
00:04:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
On x86 linux the testcase does not cause segfaults, so may be you could
investigate via gdb which function cause segfault on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-04
00:22:11 UTC ---
Last known working revision:first known failing 179447:179464, and 179462 is
the only related change in that range, so it's confirmed that's the revision
/testsuite/gcc/ -dumpbase
pr23135.x6 -auxbase-strip /tmp/ccJhtPAy.lto.o -O2 -w -version
-flto-partition=none -fresolution=pr23135.res pr23135.o -o pr23135.s
GNU GIMPLE (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111003 (experimental) [trunk revision 179480]
(cris-elf)
compiled by GNU C version 4.4.3 20100127 (Red Hat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||cris-axis-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610
Bug #: 50610
Summary: G++ 4.4.3: Incorrect code at -O2 (-fwrapv, SafeInt,
c++ templates, template class files)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2011-10-04
04:07:17 UTC ---
My bad:
jeffrey@studio:~/Desktop/safeint-opt-test$ gcc --version
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com 2011-10-04
05:24:20 UTC ---
For this problem, the work around was:
try
{
const T* base = ptr;
base += SafeIntsize_t(cnt);
}
catch(const SafeIntException)
{
67 matches
Mail list logo
