--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 08:39 ---
Confirmed but not yet sure why combine can't merge these 2 insns. I believe it
does this in ARM state.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 09:12 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2010-04-07 09:29 ---
This bug is still open, though it appears to be fixed. Is there any reason?
--
vincent at vinc17 dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 09:32 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
With:
#define __STDC_WANT_DEC_FP__
#include stdio.h
int main (void)
{
double d = 0.1;
_Decimal64 e = 0.1dd;
printf (%.20f\n, d);
printf (%Da\n, e);
printf (%De\n, e);
printf (%Df\n, e);
printf (%Dg\n, e);
return 0;
}
$ gcc-snapshot -Wall tst.c
tst.c: In function 'main':
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 09:38 ---
I somehow miss the setting of
expr-value.function.esym and thus expr-value.function.esym-attr
for PPC in resolve.c (e.g. in resolve_expr_ppc). Contrary to resolve_compcall,
where on has:
e-value.function.esym =
The gcc c++0x planning (http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html) has a patch for
'Delegating constructors'.
This feature has no associated gcc release.
--
Summary: Delegating constructors are not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status:
--- Comment #3 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 09:59 ---
Subject: Bug 43628
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Apr 7 09:59:04 2010
New Revision: 158044
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158044
Log:
Fix PR debug/43628
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR debug/43628
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-07 10:10
---
I don't think this is a proper use of Bugzilla: where is the bug?!? Anyway,
let's CC Jason, in order to ask him to have a look at that patch, if he is not
on it already...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:13 ---
Subject: Bug 42617
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 7 10:13:25 2010
New Revision: 158045
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158045
Log:
2010-04-07 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:14
---
Subject: Bug 42617
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 7 10:14:17 2010
New Revision: 158046
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158046
Log:
2010-04-07 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:14 ---
Subject: Bug 42556
Author: jiez
Date: Wed Apr 7 10:14:45 2010
New Revision: 158047
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158047
Log:
cp/
PR c++/42556
* typeck2.c
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:15
---
Subject: Bug 42617
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 7 10:15:05 2010
New Revision: 158048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158048
Log:
2010-04-07 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:16
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:19 ---
The patch I committed for this PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00174.html
--
jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:20 ---
Looked at the wrong check. The following (lightly tested) should work:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/expr.c (revision 158042)
+++
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:33 ---
Only the very last compilation command is of any interest, but you didn't even
say what version of GCC you are using so noone can help
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43672
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:33 ---
The patch is mostly splitting an if statement in two parts. If anyone can test
it for 4.5.1/4.6 that would be nice.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43610
--- Comment #4 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:38 ---
Fixed in 4.6 (trunk)
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:40 ---
Subject: Bug 41594
Author: iains
Date: Wed Apr 7 10:40:06 2010
New Revision: 158052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158052
Log:
2010-04-07 Iain Sandoe ia...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #3 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:40 ---
2010-04-07 Iain Sandoe ia...@gcc.gnu.org
PR driver/41594
* gcc.c: Add -static-libstdc++ to list of recognized options.
MChangeLog
Mgcc.c
--
--- Comment #4 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 10:44 ---
sorry about the double message.. I know now ;)
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2010-04-07 10:58 ---
This bug should probably be resolved as fixed as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39037
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 11:06 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 11:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=20327)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20327action=view)
(delta) Reduced testcase
The S/390 movstr expander requires the target operand to be a
register_operand.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #25 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:11 ---
Although we may seem paranoid and picky, these can break things in a very weird
and very hard to debug way. I just tripped across another place where
gcc/config is passed as an include directory to the build of a
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:15
---
*** Bug 22031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:15 ---
Fixed as part of PR42617.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 42617 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:23 ---
Didn't I say fixed?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:21
---
A case predicated VN should handle.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:28 ---
The patch is not complete; it's linked there in case someone wants to use it as
a starting point. Specifically, it fails to distinguish between the different
constructor variants.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:31
---
Subject: Bug 43270
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 7 12:31:32 2010
New Revision: 158058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158058
Log:
2010-04-07 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:34
---
Fixed for 4.6.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 12:56
---
Fixed for 4.5.0 AFAICS.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 13:38
---
(In reply to comment #26)
Fixed for 4.5.0 AFAICS.
Is the patch you are referring to in 4.5.0-RC-20100406?
IIRC, snapshot 4.5-20100401 has had this issue, but I can't find any it anymore
in my
--- Comment #28 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 13:41
---
(In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #26)
Fixed for 4.5.0 AFAICS.
Is the patch you are referring to in 4.5.0-RC-20100406?
IIRC, snapshot 4.5-20100401 has had this issue, but I can't find any it
--- Comment #19 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 14:23 ---
Subject: Bug 43516
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 7 14:23:35 2010
New Revision: 158062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158062
Log:
PR debug/43516
* tree.c (MAX_INT_CACHED_PREC):
--- Comment #1 from segher at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 14:53 ---
cc:ing maintainer
--
segher at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
When compiling the following function for a coldfire target, such as mcf5249:
(using the following command line: m68k-elf-gcc saturate.c -mcpu=5249 -O1 -S)
int saturate(int x)
{
return (x == (short)x ? x : (x 31) ^ 0x7FFF);
}
gcc produces:
saturate:
link.w %fp,#0
move.l
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43668
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|[4.5, trunk] Extra register |Extra
When compiling the following function for a coldfire target, such as mcf5249:
(using the following command line: m68k-elf-gcc saturate.c -mcpu=5249 -O1 -S)
int saturate(int x)
{
return (x == (short)x ? x : (x 31) ^ 0x7FFF);
}
gcc produces:
saturate:
link.w %fp,#0
move.l
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:03 ---
*** Bug 43676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43675
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:03 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43675 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:03 ---
Subject: Bug 43648
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:02:55 2010
New Revision: 158065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158065
Log:
PR c++/43648
* name-lookup.c (constructor_name_p):
--- Comment #8 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40239
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:11:42 2010
New Revision: 158066
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158066
Log:
Fix PR c++/40239
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/40239
*
--- Comment #9 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:12 ---
Fixed in 4.6 (trunk).
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:16 ---
Subject: Bug 42697
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:16:12 2010
New Revision: 158068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158068
Log:
Fix PR c++/42697
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/42697
--- Comment #15 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:18 ---
Fixed in 4.6 (trunk)
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from maxim at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-07 15:24 ---
The problem is in 68k_extendhisi2 pattern, second alternative:
(define_insn *68k_extendhisi2
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 nonimmediate_operand =*d,a)
(sign_extend:SI
(match_operand:HI 1
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:41
---
Subject: Bug 43629
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:40:43 2010
New Revision: 158070
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158070
Log:
2010-04-07 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #3 from nizze86 at hotmail dot com 2010-04-07 15:42 ---
I am sorry, it appears i am mistaken, since the dest is an address reg, movea
is used which apparently *does* sign extend word size source to 32 bits while a
move to a d reg does not.
Again sorry for the noise.
--
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:44
---
And backported for 4.4.4.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:45 ---
My best guess is that this optimization should be done late.
For instance, in the machine-dependant reorg pass. I don't
see any place to hook this earlier.
The problem is that reload should be able to spill pseudos
While building gcc-4_5-branch @158068:
/home/andreas/src/gcc/branch/gcc-4.5/x86-64/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/andreas/src/gcc/branch/gcc-4.5/x86-64/./gcc/ -B/usr/x86_64-linux/bin/
-B/usr/x86_64-linux/lib/ -isystem /usr/x86_64-linux/include -isystem
/usr/x86_64-linux/sys-include-O2 -g -m32 -O2 -O2 -g
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:54 ---
Subject: Bug 41970
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:54:17 2010
New Revision: 158071
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158071
Log:
PR c++/41970
* decl.c (grokvardecl): Tweak
--- Comment #21 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug 38392
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:54:42 2010
New Revision: 158073
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158073
Log:
PR c++/38392
* pt.c (tsubst_friend_function):
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:56 ---
Subject: Bug 11094
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 7 15:55:20 2010
New Revision: 158075
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158075
Log:
PR c++/11094, DR 408
* cp-tree.h
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 15:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=20328)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20328action=view)
Reduced testcase
The check for valid sibcalls in the S/390 back-end relies on the decl to be
available in the
--- Comment #4 from maxim at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-07 16:04 ---
Hm, move.w preserving upper bits seems to apply only if destination is a data
register then.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43675
--- Comment #5 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 16:06
---
Closing the PR.
--
mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2010-04-07 16:15 ---
MOVEA always sign extends.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43675
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 16:17 ---
Jason, thanks a lot for the quick turnaround, and my apologies for not
testing this stuff on a more frequent basis so I find earlier than the day
before branch day :-)
W.
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #13 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 16:20 ---
Subject: Bug 23716
Author: iains
Date: Wed Apr 7 16:20:08 2010
New Revision: 158076
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158076
Log:
fix PR23716
2010-04-07 Iain Sandoe ia...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 16:49 ---
Ugh, apparently nothing clears TREE_ADDRESSABLE on x when not -g, only with -g
(x really isn't addressable in the end). So, here -g generates better code
than -g0.
--
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 17:00 ---
I've messed this up. Of course it is the other way around, and it is
discover_nonconstant_array_refs that marks x TREE_ADDRESSABLE because of an
occurrence in DEBUG_STMT. Sorry for the previous premature comment.
--- Comment #5 from wilhelm at segatz dot org 2010-04-07 17:31 ---
sourced compiled with gcc version 4.5.0 20100311 (experimental) (GCC)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43641
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 17:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=20329)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20329action=view)
gcc45-pr43670.patch
Untested fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43670
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fcompare-debug failure|[4.5/4.6 Regression] -
|(length) with -O
--- Comment #11 from bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 17:54
---
(In reply to comment #10)
I think this is for mainline only. In a couple of few weeks a I will give it a
second thought for 4_4-branch but certainly isn't a regression.
Any status update here ? Many
--- Comment #11 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 18:01 ---
Subject: Bug 40539
Author: jb
Date: Wed Apr 7 18:01:24 2010
New Revision: 158080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158080
Log:
PR fortran/40539 Document LOGICAL representation
Modified:
--- Comment #12 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 18:08 ---
Subject: Bug 40539
Author: jb
Date: Wed Apr 7 18:07:48 2010
New Revision: 158081
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158081
Log:
PR fortran/40539 Document LOGICAL representation
Modified:
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-04-07 18:11
---
In my opinion it's too late now, I'm not even sure a 4.4.4 will be released any
time soon, and 4.5.0 is around the corner. But if Jon would also like to see it
in 4.4.4 and wants to backport the patch I do
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 18:36 ---
It is caused by revision 138953:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg00512.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 19:06 ---
I agree it's probably not worth backporting to a release branch, it wasn't a
regression.
Haven't affected users written valgrind suppression files by now? :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40518
$ make gdb-check
/opt/gcc45/bin/gcc45 -O1 -g2 -fPIC -Wall
-I/opt/gcc45/lib64/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/plugin/include
-fvisibility=hidden my-plugin.c -shared -o my-plugin.so
gdb -x ./.gdbinit --args /opt/gcc45/bin/gcc45 -fplugin=./my-plugin.so -c
example.hpp -o /dev/null
GNU gdb (GDB)
--- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-04-07 19:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=20330)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20330action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43678
--- Comment #7 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 19:58 ---
Subject: Bug 35996
Author: iains
Date: Wed Apr 7 19:57:46 2010
New Revision: 158083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158083
Log:
gcc/objc/Changelog:
2010-04-07 Iain Sandoe ia...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 20:05 ---
AFAICT, this should be fixed now.
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-install/gcc-r158079-install
--program-prefix=r158079- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20100407 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: ice in gen_lsm_tmp_name, at tree-ssa-loop-im.c:1812
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status
--- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 20:34 ---
Subject: Bug 18624
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 7 20:33:36 2010
New Revision: 158086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158086
Log:
PR c/18624
* tree.h (DECL_READ_P): Define.
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 21:19 ---
Long-standing bug.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 21:49 ---
Subject: Bug 43668
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 7 21:48:51 2010
New Revision: 158092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158092
Log:
Align stack to 16byte for FP register save area.
gcc/
2010-04-06
With -O2, this testcase aborts on x86_64:
extern C void abort ();
enum E { A, B, C, D };
void
CheckE(const E value)
{
long v = value;
if (v = D)
abort ();
}
int main() {
CheckE(static_castE(5));
}
Presumably something in the middle- or back-end is believing what the C++ front
end
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
-include-c -g -O0 -W
-Wall -gnatpg -mthumb a-nlcefu.ads -o a-nlcefu.o
This gives an ICE at -O2, -O1 and -O0 as shown above.
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.6.0 20100407 (experimental) [trunk revision 158082] (arm-unknown-rtems4.10)
GCC error
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to fail||4.3.5 4.4.3
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 21:58 ---
Subject: Bug 43668
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 7 21:58:27 2010
New Revision: 158093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158093
Log:
Align stack to 16byte for FP register save area.
gcc/
2010-04-07
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 22:04 ---
It is caused by revision 148718:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00701.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 22:16 ---
Subject: Bug 43016
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 7 22:16:15 2010
New Revision: 158095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158095
Log:
PR c++/43016
* decl.c (start_preparsed_function):
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-04-07 23:16 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I think the C++ standard can definitely be read to allow this optimization
I would most definitely think so. 7.2/6 specifically says that the values
an enum variable can take on are, in your
158099.
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/GCC/gcc-live-trunk/gcc/expr.c: In function
âblock_move_libcall_safe_for_call_parmâ:
/GCC/gcc-live-trunk/gcc/expr.c:1254:8: error: variable âfnâ set but not
used
make[3]: *** [expr.o] Error 1
BUT:
==
static bool
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 23:50 ---
FWIW, I see similar useless register moves for cris-elf (also an
autoincrement port with cc0) on trunk r158090 and 4.5-branch r158099, that
aren't there on the 4.4 branch r158082 (with no changes that matter in
r158096).
--- Comment #4 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-04-08 00:52 ---
-ftree-ter also causes (check was interrupted after a while):
FAIL: gfortran.dg/append_1.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/backspace_1.f -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/backspace_7.f90 -O0 execution test
in /boehm-gc/mark.c, line 428-434:
context-Esp = context-Ebp;
context-Ebp = *((DWORD *)context-Esp);
context-Esp = context-Esp - 8;
context-Eip = (DWORD )(xer-alt_path);
So much x86-oriented register (E** but no R** for _WIN64),
does it mean libgcj (because of its default gc's fault or
--- Comment #15 from luca dot barbieri at gmail dot com 2010-04-08 02:33
---
Why can't wcout simply convert to the selected encoding, and append the results
to the cout buffer, as if the converted string had been directly output to
cout?
I'm not sure about the implementation details,
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 02:58 ---
Except that the conversion is defined to produce an unspecified value, not
undefined behavior. A strict reading of that suggests to me that the compiler
is supposed to truncate on conversion so the resulting value is
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2010-04-08 03:18
---
Subject: Re: G++ is too aggressive in optimizing away bounds checking with
enums
Except that the conversion is defined to produce an unspecified
value, not undefined behavior. A strict reading of that
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 05:19 ---
Yes, that's my interpretation as well. But it's not what we do now, and
requiring a mask on conversion seems like it would hurt performance more than
just doing the comparison.
--
100 matches
Mail list logo
