org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37280
: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32917
--- Comment #1 from ak at muc dot de 2007-07-27 21:50 ---
Addendum: it seems to only happen with --disable-checking; with
--enable-checking=release it works
(for completeness full configure options were --disable-checking --disable-nls
--enable-languages=c,c++)
--
ak at muc dot de
at muc dot de
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32628
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30747
--
ak at muc dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|gcc should optimize x / |gcc should optimize x
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC target triplet: ia64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30687
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC target triplet: ia64-linux
http
--- Comment #1 from ak at muc dot de 2007-02-03 11:22 ---
Here's a simple test case:
void f(int k, int (*fptr)(int i))
{
int i;
/* Do something useless */
for (i = 0; i 5; i++)
k *= 10;
fptr(k);
}
compiled with 4.3.0 20070203
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30662
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27448
--- Comment #1 from ak at muc dot de 2006-05-05 17:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=11383)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11383action=view)
preprocessed test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27448
--- Comment #5 from ak at muc dot de 2006-05-05 18:13 ---
I got a new gcc today before reporting
/pkg/gcc-4.2/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/pkg/gcc-4.2-060409
--disable-checking --enable-languages=c,c
--- Comment #6 from ak at muc dot de 2006-05-05 18:14 ---
Oops as you can see I indeed used an old gcc by mistake - a symlink
was set wrong. With the current gcc it works.
--
ak at muc dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25957
--- Comment #2 from ak at muc dot de 2006-01-25 14:15 ---
You're wrong. On i386 and x86-64 call and conditional jumps have the same
range.
That you're using the normal align-jumps for such uncommon code is a bug in my
opinion and that is why I opened this request. It is a waste
--- Comment #4 from ak at muc dot de 2006-01-25 14:30 ---
Yes that's the whole point of the bug. To save code space and precious
icache.
--
ak at muc dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ak at muc dot de 2006-01-25 14:38 ---
-Os is only when there should be a trade off between size and performance.
But there isn't any performance consideration here because this code
is only executed on program abort.
(is there a button to reassign the bug to a non
--- Comment #9 from ak at muc dot de 2006-01-25 14:55 ---
Again the alignment wastes precious icache which is enough reason to get
rid of it. If there are a lot of such functions it will also lead to
worse paging behaviour on big programs.
Can you explain again why it was shot down
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25966
building linux
kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
GCC host
--- Comment #1 from ak at muc dot de 2005-10-30 15:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=10081)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10081action=view)
Long test case directly from Linux kernel, shows the error in more
circumstances
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #17 from ak at muc dot de 2005-10-04 20:20 ---
The code now looks fine to me thanks
I would prefer if it didn't generate SSE2/MMX code because that would be a
problem for kernels. Also in many x86 implementations moving things between
normal integer registers and SIMD
--- Comment #20 from ak at muc dot de 2005-10-04 20:39 ---
Newer linux does that of course, although not always in older releases.
But even in user space it's not a good idea to use SSE2 unless you really need
it because it increases the cost of the context switch and costs
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22399
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2005-07-11 04:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=9240)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9240action=view)
Test case extracted from R blas.f
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22399
.
--
Summary: ICE while compiling lapack from R
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2005-07-11 04:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=9241)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9241action=view)
test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22400
-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-linux (actually x86_64 -m32)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19348
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2005-01-09 17:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=7913)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7913action=view)
Preprocessed acct.c file from linux 2.6 kernel
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19348
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2005-01-10 02:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=7915)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7915action=view)
Patch to add -Wno-pointer-sign
This patch adds a new flag to disable this warning. With that the kernel
compilation
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-12-22 23:53 ---
FWIW i compiled a full 3.3-hammer compiled 2.6.10rc3 x86-64 kernel
for suspicious use of %xmm or %mm and there wasn't any.
There also is a warning in all 2.6 x86-64 kernels for kernel FPU use at runtime.
So at least
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19080
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-12-19 15:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=7778)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7778action=view)
preprocessed file showing the ice
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19080
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-12-19 15:29 ---
Options were
-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -O2
-fomit-frame-pointer -mno-red-zone -mcmodel=kernel -pipe -fno-reorder-blocks
-Wno-sign-compare -fno-asynchronous-unwind
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-12-19 15:55 ---
Problem still happens with 4.0.0 20041219
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-12-19 16:25 ---
I tried it with an i386 build and with the same compiler with -m32 and the
problem
didn't happen.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19080
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-28 00:17 ---
Tried -fno-tree-ch. Didn't help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18241
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-28 01:05 ---
-O1 -fno-tree-dominator-opts seems to avoid the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18241
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-28 01:21 ---
When I comment out the first pass_dominator in tree-optimize.c and compile
with -O1 it works too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18241
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-28 01:33 ---
Hmm, the oops was in the test before the second loop, but idx is in the second
loop. But maybe I misread it.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-25 00:22 ---
Problem still happens as of HEAD 041125
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18241
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-01 03:07 ---
I must correct myself slightly - the kernel oops I see is not the second
loop, but in the check before:
ret = *pathp[0].slot; --- references either NULL or a bogus pointer
if (ret == NULL
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-11-01 03:08 ---
To clarify the previous comment means that the problem is likely in the
first loop in the function, not in the second
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18241
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18229
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ak at muc dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From ak at muc dot de 2004-10-31 01:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=7440)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7440action=view)
miscompiled function
Compiled with -O2 -fno-reorder-blocks -mno-redzone -mcmodel=kernel
It crashes eventually
49 matches
Mail list logo
