PROTECTED]
* combine.c (distribute_notes) REG_DEAD: Do not consider SETs past
the insn to which the note was originally attached.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20070121.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/combine.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
PROTECTED]
* combine.c (distribute_notes) REG_DEAD: Do not consider SETs past
the insn to which the note was originally attached.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20070121.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_2
PROTECTED]
* combine.c (distribute_notes) REG_DEAD: Do not consider SETs past
the insn to which the note was originally attached.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20070121.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_1
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 22:40
---
At long last.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 22:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=12929)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12929action=view)
patch
This is what I currently have for this - it fails to bootstrap because it
miscompares. A variant without
^Z (ASCII 26) is interpreted as EOF, which is strange.
g77 accepts this.
$ cat ab.f
print *,
end
$ od -t d1 -t a ab.f
000 32 32 32 32 32 32 112 114 105 110 116 32 42 44
34 26
sp sp sp sp sp sp p r i n t sp * ,sub
020
Yet another missing intrinsic kind...
Also watch out for PR 30512 when fixing this.
$ cat minval-1.f90
program main
integer(kind=1), allocatable :: a(:,:)
integer(kind=2), allocatable :: b(:,:)
allocate (a(0:-1,1:1))
allocate (b(0:-1,1:1))
print *,maxval(a,dim=1) ,minval(a,dim=1)
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 23:13 ---
Thanks for the report. I'm sorry this got lost for so long -- Andrew
Overholt pointed out the problem again the other day...
I am testing a fix.
If you've got a short test case, that would be helpful; otherwise I
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-01-21 23:26 ---
The updated patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01750.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30530
--- Comment #3 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-21 23:30 ---
Subject: Bug number PR preprocessor/30468
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01751.html
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 23:33 ---
Subject: Bug 30479
Author: pinskia
Date: Sun Jan 21 23:33:46 2007
New Revision: 121040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121040
Log:
2007-01-20 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 23:35 ---
Gabriel, what do you think about this? Does it need testcases? Should I submit
it?
Index: gcc/toplev.c
===
--- gcc/toplev.c(revision 121027)
+++
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline:
templatebool struct A;
templateint void foo()
{
A__builtin_constant_p(.) a;
}
bug.cc: In function 'void foo()':
bug.cc:5: internal compiler error: tree
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30534
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline and 4.2 branch:
struct A {};
templateA, typename T int operator-(A, T);
int i = A() - 0;
bug.cc:3: error: 'struct A' is not a valid type for a template
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30535
--- Comment #2 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2007-01-21 23:53 ---
That patch did the trick for me. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30519
The following invalid code snippet triggers an ICE since GCC 4.1.0:
struct A { __thread register int i; };
bug.cc:1: error: multiple storage classes in declaration of 'i'
bug.cc:1: internal compiler error: tree
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30536
The following valid code snippet triggers an ICE on mainline
when compiled with gcc -fno-unit-at-a-time -O:
static inline void foo() {}
void bar()
{
foo();
}
bug.c:6: error: inlined_to pointer is set but no
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30537
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:16
---
Testing on the 4.1 branch now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:29 ---
CSE is pushing i+=1; down into the conditional which causes ifcvt not to catch
the if(i) i+=1;.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC gets gcc_unreachable() when trying to lower firstprivate, lastprivate or
reduction clauses in #pragma omp for clause. This is because, GCC doesn't check
if it is in parallel context.
--
Summary: gcc reach gcc_unreachable()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:40 ---
Mine
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:44 ---
Subject: Bug 30519
Author: pinskia
Date: Mon Jan 22 00:43:56 2007
New Revision: 121047
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121047
Log:
2007-01-21 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:44 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:46 ---
Do you have a testcase? If gcc_unreachable is called, that is an ICE (internal
compiler error).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Arg split between stack/regs|[4.1/4.2 Regression] Arg
|can cause stack
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 00:59 ---
I think this was already fixed a while back.
Can you try again?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 01:07 ---
Reducing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30509
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30458
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-01-22 01:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 only] bug with TRANSFER() and -O2
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 11:19 +, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Were you going to apply this to 4.2, together with revision 119211, or
will you
close them
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 01:10 ---
I think this has already been fixed already, can you retry? This was caused by
a GC issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segmentation fault for legal|[4.3 Regression]
|code with -O2
--- Comment #2 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-22 01:41 ---
int foo()
{
int a = 0, i;
#pragma omp for firstprivate(a)
for(i = 0; i 10; i++)
a += i;
return a;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30538
--- Comment #3 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-22 01:41 ---
Try my patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01755.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30538
The following invalid code (note the duplicate X1::X1::) is accepted
and apparently has always been:
template int dim struct X {
void f();
};
template void X1::X1::f();
--
Summary: Accepts invalid explicit specialization declaration
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:01 ---
Reduced testcase:
struct all{ };
struct g {
g(const all __a){ }
};
templatetypename _Tp
struct vector: protected g
{
vector(const all __a = all()) : g(__a) { }
};
void f() throw();
struct Logger
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:03
---
Fixed in 4.1.2.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:03
---
Subject: Bug 30479
Author: pinskia
Date: Mon Jan 22 02:03:02 2007
New Revision: 121048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121048
Log:
2007-01-21 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:07 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:17 ---
Still ICEs as of today.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #41 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2007-01-22 02:18 ---
So I tested some C++ vector code using at, in a desperate attempt to find ANY
case where this so called optimization actually produces faster code.
http://ptrace.fefe.de/vector2.C
$ gcc -O3 -o vector2 vector2.C
$
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:21 ---
This is caused by exceptions and inlining:
#1 0x084ebd68 in calc_dfs_tree (di=0xbfe06ef4, reverse=CDI_DOMINATORS)
at /src/gcc/local/gcc/gcc/dominance.c:374
#2 0x084ec6ef in calculate_dominance_info
--- Comment #42 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:27
---
(In reply to comment #41)
So I tested some C++ vector code using at, in a desperate attempt to find ANY
case where this so called optimization actually produces faster code.
Try looking at real code instead of
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:42 ---
Reducing ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30490
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-22 02:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR driver/30246
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01757.html
--
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:47 ---
I have a patch for this which just removes the sentence.
I'll submit shortly
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 02:54 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 03:29 ---
I tested this and it works. I'm submitting it.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-22 03:30 ---
Subject: Bug number PR driver/12448
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01759.html
--
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 04:16 ---
The fix is simple -- change a single error() to a fatal().
I'll submit this after running the test suite.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from davmac at davmac dot org 2007-01-22 04:17 ---
You've got to be kidding - these things are genuinely useful. What sort of
abuse are you worried about?
In any case, I'd like to know if that is the general consensus among
maintainers. I'm not going to write
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 04:34 ---
Fixed, I reduced a testcase for 4.3.0 20070106 and it was working today. Plus
the original testcase is working.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ice for legal code at -O3
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 04:41 ---
Yes that patch fixed that bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 04:52
---
See scanner.c line 1067. This is deliberate at the moment. The question now
is, do we want to leave this alone or not? Does the fortran standard define
this in some particuloar way? I am looking.
--
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 05:07
---
My read is that within quotes, the ctrl-z character is acceptable and we should
not gobble what is left after seeing one as is done now.
From F95 standard: Additional characters may be representable in the
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 05:17 ---
Dang it! In spite of New Year's resolutions, I had better take it.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 07:48 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27416 ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 07:48 ---
*** Bug 30538 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 07:56
---
I don't think it's a bug, since the negative number with the largest magnitude
possible within the representation is not -huge()-1, but -huge().
If I understand the standard correctly, -huge()-1, although being
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mueller at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
