[Bug middle-end/45422] [4.6 Regression] compile time increases 3x.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45422 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2010-08-29 09:25:52

[Bug middle-end/47298] New: -O3 destroys beautifully vectorized code obtained at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298 Summary: -O3 destroys beautifully vectorized code obtained at -O2 Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/47298] -O3 destroys beautifully vectorized code obtained at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298 --- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2011-01-14 20:52:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) It's faster for me with -O3 (Athlon64, using -march=native). well not on model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU

[Bug middle-end/47298] -O3 destroys beautifully vectorized code obtained at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298 --- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2011-01-14 21:02:04 UTC --- Actually, also on AMD I have at -O2 9.4s -O3 11.8s model : 9 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6176 SE stepping

[Bug fortran/47267] New: array constructor causing long compile times

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267 Summary: array constructor causing long compile times Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo:

[Bug fortran/47267] array constructor causing long compile times

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords

[Bug driver/42445] LTO performance: -march=native isn't saved in COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42445 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-march=native isn't saved

[Bug fortran/47051] [4.6 Regression] Wrong reallocate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords

[Bug fortran/47051] New: [4.6 Regression] wrong reallocate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051 Summary: [4.6 Regression] wrong reallocate Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo:

[Bug fortran/47051] [4.6 Regression] wrong reallocate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051 --- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-12-23 13:46:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) ... so I would not expect this. Why? that would imply that F95 code and F2003 code are not compatible

[Bug fortran/47051] [4.6 Regression] wrong reallocate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051 --- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-12-23 13:56:29 UTC --- OK, more checking. F2003 specifies that the lhs should only be deallocated if it differs in shape. a and b have the same shape here.

[Bug fortran/47051] [4.6 Regression] wrong reallocate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47051 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-12-23 15:32:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Hi Dominique, I have read exactly this: 3 If the variable is an unallocated allocatable array, expr shall have

[Bug driver/46750] Parallel build doesn't work --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto in a gcc+binutils combined tree

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46750 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/46842] [4.6 Regression] wrong results with MATHMUL(..., TRANSPOSE (func ())) -- 465.tonto test run miscompares

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842 --- Comment #19 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-12-10 13:37:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) Fortran isn't release critical (something we might want to change). yes ... please :-)

[Bug fortran/28105] Check for memory allocations bigger than size_t

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105 --- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-12-02 07:35:03 UTC --- BTW, there is some similar thread for C++, maybe ideas can be copied: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00053.html

[Bug fortran/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #14 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-26 10:08:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) Ugh. That might be terrible. Can you point to some language in the standard supporting that (I haven't looked

[Bug fortran/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends

[Bug fortran/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #19 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-26 13:39:00 UTC --- Tobias, thanks for the clean explanation. I overlooked that the target of a pointer has that target attribute (seems logical!). Richard, I

[Bug fortran/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #11 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-25 17:00:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) Thus, isn't what the program does equivalent to REAL(dp), DIMENSION(:, :, :), ALLOCATABLE :: z REAL(dp

[Bug driver/46516] gfortran-trunk: error: libgfortran.spec: No such file or directory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-17 08:02:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) I suppose it's the --disable-multilib, but I don't know why. Yes, it is certainly this. The driver seems to search

[Bug driver/46516] Non-multilib search problem in gcc.c / gfortran error: libgfortran.spec: No such file or directory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516 --- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-17 08:46:11 UTC --- mine look like: static const char *const multilib_raw[] = { . !m64 !m32;, .:../lib64 m64 !m32;, .:../lib !m64 m32;, NULL }; however, I just

[Bug driver/46516] Non-multilib search problem in gcc.c / gfortran error: libgfortran.spec: No such file or directory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516 --- Comment #9 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-17 08:50:06 UTC --- FYI, with strace I see following things being searched for the specs: access(/data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/build/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown

[Bug fortran/46532] New: [OMP] missing error for loop bounds missing an attribute

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46532 Summary: [OMP] missing error for loop bounds missing an attribute Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug driver/46516] New: gfortran-trunk: error: libgfortran.spec: No such file or directory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516 Summary: gfortran-trunk: error: libgfortran.spec: No such file or directory Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug driver/46516] gfortran-trunk: error: libgfortran.spec: No such file or directory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516 --- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-11-17 07:03:53 UTC --- just for reference, this is the configure line /data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/gcc/configure --prefix=/data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk

[Bug fortran/41359] Wrong line numbers for debugging/profiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41359 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2010-07-28 20:01:09

[Bug fortran/45909] f951.exe: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45909 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords

[Bug fortran/45827] mio_component_ref(): Component not found when mixing f90 and f03 in large projects

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/45827] [4.6 Regression] ice in create_int_parameter_array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug fortran/45827] [4.6 Regression] ice in create_int_parameter_array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-09-29 10:18:15 UTC --- Oh... I'm using an old version ;) gcc version 4.6.0 20100925 (experimental) [trunk revision 164618] (GCC). I'll update and check again.

[Bug fortran/45827] [4.6 Regression] ice in create_int_parameter_array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45827 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/45828] [4.6 Regression] No default initialization of derived type members?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45828 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/40569] F2008: Support COMPILER_OPTIONS() / COMPILER_VERSION()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40569 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug lto/45810] 40% slowdown when using LTO for a single-file program

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-09-28 13:58:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Sure. As with all performance related bugs this needs analysis and is unlikely an LTO problem - LTO does

[Bug lto/45810] 40% slowdown when using LTO for a single-file program

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810 --- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-09-28 14:19:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) No, -fdump-tree-all works great... I forgot to look in /tmp, and -save-temps also works fine.

[Bug lto/45810] 40% slowdown when using LTO for a single-file program

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45810 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug 45766] (web) New Bugzilla UI changes horizontal items to vertical

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45766 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug lto/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-09-24 10:33:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) The issue here is of course that LTO re-computes TYPE_CANONICAL and the FE sets it in a way that the above

[Bug fortran/45777] New: Missing temporary ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777 Summary: Missing temporary ? Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug fortran/45777] Missing temporary ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail

[Bug lto/45586] [4.6 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-09-24 10:46:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) Actually, looks like there might be some vaguely related issue here in the FE, which I'll open in another PR. See

[Bug fortran/45777] Missing temporary ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45777 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch 2010-09-24 17:59:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) With Crayftn, there is no abort. that also holds for NAG and g95, BTW. Thinking a bit about the program, I

<    1   2