[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-03-10 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 22:47 --- Subject: Bug 26004 Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 10 22:47:08 2006 New Revision: 111947 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=111947 Log: PR c/26004 * gimplify.c

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-03-09 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-03-07 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 12:28 --- *** Bug 26591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-03-07 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 21:02 --- The reduced testcase in this bug is fixed but the full testcase in the gdb testsuite. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-03-07 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 21:06 --- New reduced testcase: struct s_3 { short s[3]; } z_3, s_3; struct s_3 add_struct_3 (struct s_3 s){} wack_struct_3 (void) { int i; register struct s_3 u = z_3; u = add_struct_3 (u); } --

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-03-07 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #17 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 01:34 --- A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the testcase from comment #16 identified this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=101269 r101269 | jason | 2005-06-23 14:44:21 + (Thu, 23 Jun 2005) --

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-02-23 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 00:26 --- This issue will not be resolved in GCC 4.1.0; retargeted at GCC 4.1.1. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-02-15 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:41 --- Created an attachment (id=10857) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10857action=view) infrastructure patch - defective (In reply to comment #7) This should be a relatively straightforward fix. I

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-02-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:47 --- That patch looks wrong. There has to be a better way, maybe just rejecting return slot optimization instead. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-02-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:48 --- I will look into fixing this bug later today when I get home. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-01-31 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 03:14 --- This is a design bug. The middle-end should not be calling mark_addressable hooks in the front ends. The fix may be to factor the front end mark_addressable functions into a part that just does the appropriate

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-01-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:01 --- This is caused by the following code in gimplifier: 3297if (use_target) 3298 { 3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (*from_p) = 1; 3300

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-01-30 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:29 --- (In reply to comment #3) This is caused by the following code in gimplifier: 3297if (use_target) 3298 { 3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (*from_p) = 1; 3300

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-01-30 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:31 --- It appears we actually don't have any way to query from the frontend-indenpendent code if we can mark something as safely. ^ addressable -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004

[Bug c/26004] [4.1/4.2 Regression] gcc errors on valid code [SVO]

2006-01-30 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:38 --- (In reply to comment #2) Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit with a more sensible variable name of u) for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not for a cross to sh-elf. Yet