http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
How old is your gcc build? (please fill in the version field when reporting
bugs)
This was fixed by Jakub recently, so if you could check with current trunk...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
How old is your gcc build? (please fill in the version field when reporting
bugs)
Oups, sorry, you mention it (4.7 and 4.8) in the text.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
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=57300
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30130
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30130action=edit
gcc49-pr57300.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19599
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The alternative could be, if dead_or_set_p is going to be so rare even in the
near future, to just introduce split_dead_or_set_p wrapper around it, which
would do something like:
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
void baz (void);
int func ();
static void
bar (int a, int foo (void))
{
baz ();
foo ();
}
void
baz (void)
{
bar (0, func);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
Not sure if it is safe to run df_analyze when the cfg is gone (split5
pass)
Well, it doesn't crash but it's not correct. Without basic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Apparently split* passes aren't the only passes that split insns though, so the
patch I've attached is incomplete anyway.
From quick skimming, it seems split*, dbr, final, combine and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to
make the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10634
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15672
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52960
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igodard at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30131
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30131action=edit
/tmp/gcc49-pr57300.patch
The split_dead_or_set_p variant patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
So supposedly
bool
split_dead_or_set_p (rtx insn, const_rtx x)
{
if (BLOCK_FOR_INSN (insn) == NULL)
return false; /* If cfg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Re: Eric's question, not easily, because if we implement that define_split as
define_peephole2, then it won't trigger at all, because the next define_split
;; Extend to memory case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Re: s390, the condition includes ACCESS_REG_P test, which is for a0/a1 hard
reg, so I think just adding reload_completed test to the splitters wouldn't be
a problem, and if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57293
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57286
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed by r198964 (sorry, I changed my mind about where to break the
cycle). Could you check that it works now?
Thanks for the report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #21 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #20)
Since the update, the Bugzilla favicon is shown,
before the GCC one was shown:
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30132
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30132action=edit
gcc49-pr57300.patch
We can actually use epilogue_completed, while that is set already a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57290
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm trying to reproduce it. Can you on your side verify whether dropping
-ftree-loop-linear changes anything with respect to the regression?
Also what does
(6) -Ofast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #9)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
So supposedly
bool
split_dead_or_set_p (rtx insn, const_rtx x)
{
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
Ralf Baechle r...@linux-mips.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@linux-mips.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Ralf Baechle from comment #8)
FWIW, I'm also hitting the same compiler bug with vanilla GCC 4.7.2 and
4.8.0 compiling a heavily patched 3.4 kernel with LTO for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57283
--- Comment #5 from Lin Yi-Li record.nctu.cis91 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
N.B. you can also do it with a nested std::bind expression and
std::logical_not
std::bind(std::logical_notint(),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, that would be an improvement to the diagnostic. But it seems to me that
there's a deeper issue here: I think both testcases should be ill-formed
because C::C can't form a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Baechle r...@linux-mips.org ---
As I'm hitting this with LTO on a large test case it's non-trivial to extract a
test case but I will try.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57300
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that possibly bogus IL is a smoking gun that waits for this kind
of bugs to appear. If we do not want to pay the price of removing
notes can we at least have a flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I see, thanks Jason. Indeed, the behavior of various compilers I have here is
inconsistent about the various variants of the testcase.
Thus for now I'm going to test the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
--- Comment #3 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks a lot for the quick responses! Unfortunately, the frontend patch alone
doesn't fix the problem, as Richard pointed out, but it may be needed for other
reasons. The tree-sra patch fixes the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57301
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This regressed presumably with r131862 . Anyway, I don't think the rotate
detection improvements should be backported to the release branches, therefore
this will need to be FIXED in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57302
Bug ID: 57302
Summary: Should merge zeroing multiple consecutive memory
locations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57293
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57293
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130516 (experimental) [trunk revision 198967] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c
$ ./a.out
0
$ gcc-4.6 -O1 small.c
$ ./a.out
0
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #21)
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #20)
Since the update, the Bugzilla favicon is shown,
before the GCC one was shown:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22)
Doesn't work here:
Scratch that - the one was seemingly in the cache - despite force-reload. It
*is* fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57304
Bug ID: 57304
Summary: Revision 198896 segfaults building cpu2000 benchmark
176.gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
4.9.0 20130516 (experimental) [trunk revision 198977] (GCC)
--cut here--
extern inline int __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__,
__artificial__))
_mm_popcnt_u64 (unsigned long long __X)
{
return __builtin_popcountll (__X);
}
int main (void)
{
int res = _mm_popcnt_u64 (0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17459
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53991
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So far I have not attempted to reproduce this myself and so do not
quite follow all the previous comments but...
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
build_ref_for_offset
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17459
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
Manuel can you help me reassessing this? I think we are doing much better.
I get this:
test.cc:3:19: error: invalid use of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
It is caused by revision 170984:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-03/msg00405.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49146
--- Comment #6 from Ben Woodard woodard at redhat dot com ---
Created attachment 30134
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30134action=edit
reproducer program
still working on getting access to the machine where I have ICC. My
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18126
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49146
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
Bug ID: 57305
Summary: ICE with warnings and unlimited polymorphic (incorrect
code)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
statement_sink_location in
/* A killing definition is not a use. */
if (gimple_assign_single_p (use_stmt)
gimple_vdef (use_stmt)
--with-gmp=/home/abenson/Galacticus/Tools
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130516 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c bug.F90 -o bug.o
bug.F90:7:0: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_structure, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:6027
class(c), public, pointer :: cc = cd
^
0x5be449 gfc_conv_structure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Fuka vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30136
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30136action=edit
ice7.f90 (second source)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Fuka vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com ---
Connected error:
gfortran -Wall -c ice7.f90
ice7.f90: In function âadd_element_polyâ:
ice7.f90:25:0: internal compiler error: in lhd_incomplete_type_error, at
langhooks.c:203
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57305
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Fuka vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com ---
The first one is incorrect code, the other one compiles with ifort 13.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
I've probably missed the bigger picture here, but FWIW, I don't
see any problem with extending
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57307
Bug ID: 57307
Summary: ICE with sourced allocation with array constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, this seems to be issue 7:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#7
So we should reject the variant with a public constructor as well. It would be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #17)
It would be good to get the same diagnostic as in comment #4.
And also give a warning about the private virtual base.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57279
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=56547
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57266
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57304
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49146
--- Comment #7 from Ben Woodard woodard at redhat dot com ---
Created attachment 30137
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30137action=edit
t_repro.c compiled -g -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57297
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30138
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30138action=edit
frontend patch, second try
This variant reduces the amount of VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I see, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57308
Bug ID: 57308
Summary: DF_REF_REAL_LOC segfault in web.c:union_match_dups
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57308
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57308
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is a dup of bug 57304.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57304
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57308
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57309
Bug ID: 57309
Summary: Spill code degrades vectorized loop for 437.leslie3d
on PPC64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
jandyu rata amandalionard at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amandalionard
85 matches
Mail list logo
