--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-09-13 07:08 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
The patch in comment #3 broke the (previously passing) test for all ix86
targets. It seems strange to try and remedy that by disabling the test for
nonpic targets (as the change at r163685
--- Comment #29 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-09-13 09:09 ---
But it can still be updated and committed before the end of stage 1. :-)
I hope so!-) I also think this pr is related to pr43829.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 09:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=21783)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21783action=view)
gcc46-pr45567.patch
Untested fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45567
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 09:35 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:18 ---
I believe just gfc_conv_intrinsic_arith needs to be adjusted so that it also
handles se-ss case, at least for optimize !optimize_size. Currently it
just handles the case where those intrinsics return a scalar.
--
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:47 ---
Subject: Bug 45611
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 13 10:47:28 2010
New Revision: 164244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164244
Log:
2010-09-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:48
---
Should be fixed now.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:55
---
Presumably re-fixed by Richard now. :-) Reopen if not.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45611 ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 10:55
---
*** Bug 45421 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45611
--- Comment #5 from ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 11:04 ---
Reporter needs to try again with different configure options. (We may still
want a more user-friendly way of catching the original problem though.)
--
ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #6 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 11:38
---
we get better code in the head. Both the cases [test1 and test2] produce the
same piece of code:
i.e for the following test case:
void foo(char *p);
void test1(char * p)
{
foo(p++);
foo(p++);
--- Comment #12 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 12:09
---
I have verified the attached test case and test case with other comments and
found the code generated is correct i.e. the variable is not promoted to
integer in gcc-4.3.3, gcc-4.4.3, gcc-4.5.0 and also the
Sorry if this is a dup.
Is there any reason why with -fwhole-file we don't warn about:
subroutine foo(ptr, ptr2, f)
integer, pointer :: ptr(:), ptr2(:)
logical :: f
if (f) then
allocate (ptr(6))
else
nullify(ptr)
end if
end subroutine
subroutine bar()
real, pointer :: ptr(:),
The GCC Wiki does not have the text colorizing macro installed (or else it
doesn't seem to work as it's supposed to). See
http://moinmo.in/MacroMarket/Color2 for more details on it.
--
Summary: GCC WIki Needs Text Colorizing Capability
Product: gcc
Version:
With revision r163997 this test passed.
From revision r163998 and on, including at least r164242 this test has failed
as follows:
Running /tmp/reg_a4_998/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dg.exp ...
... (non-regressions elided)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g execution test
With the message
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=21784)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21784action=view)
shortened gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90
-O3 -g
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
--- Comment #2 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:21 ---
Uh, I just disabled tree-sinking in some cases. This can't be directly
the reason for the problem, rather it must have uncovered a latent problem.
Will try to investigate.
--
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
-O3 -g
I forgot to mention, also: -fno-delayed-branch (reorg is always the usual
suspect when latent bugs are exposed, but not so this time.)
I guess it's fair to include Alexandre what with
--- Comment #15 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:41 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Well, scans definitely pass on x86_64 AND i686 linux without -fpic.
Why it fails for the -fpic targets should be clear from the assembly dumps.
The fix you are referring to added
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:57 ---
This isn't a bug. We produce a cast here because no field is generated for an
empty base class. From class.c:
/* We do not create a FIELD_DECL for empty base classes because it might
overlap some other field. We
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 15:22
---
What's going on with this? Is there something I can do to help resolving it for
good?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42033
This code is invalid, but is accepted by GCC:
// snip
struct Viral {
struct Dose { };
protected:
~Viral() throw (Dose) { }
};
struct Base : virtual Viral {
virtual ~Base() throw() { }
};
struct Derived : Base { };
// snap
~Derived calls ~Viral, which adds Dose to its exception spec. This
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 15:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=21785)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21785action=view)
gcc46-pr45596.patch
Updated patch. This one should handle the case where pointer assigment just
points into some
Even with PR bootstrap/45611 fixed, I get a comparison failure on
sparc-sun-solaris2.10:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/ada/ali.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1
Comparing the stage 2 and 3 assembler output, I find:
--- prev-gcc/ali.s 2010-09-13
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45363
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45566
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 15:53 ---
Looks kindof obvious.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45569
Not quite sure if this CP2K derived testcase is really a bug, but for the
testcase below, I get the following warning and later an error (this might be
different issues?) :
gfortran -flto test_c.c test.f90
test_c.c:3:8: warning: type of build_eri does not match original declaration
[enabled by
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45593
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45606
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45650
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 16:01
---
Seems a rather annoying regression, let's ask H.J. a binary search...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:12 ---
It works for me. I suppose you have older gold with known bugs? I have
GNU gold (GNU Binutils; SUSE:openSUSE 11.1 2.20.51.20091013-0.1) 1.9
Copyright 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free
--- Comment #2 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:43 ---
Same on *-*-solaris2* (probably on all non-Linux targets).
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:53
---
Confirmed. Not related to PR43949 since selective scheduling does not use
cselib. The miscompilation seems to come from RTL aliasing: sel-sched lifts a
load that references stack via a general-purpose register
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:55 ---
Not a regression, and G++ 4.6 correctly rejects it:
pr.cc:12:8: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual Derived::~Derived()
throw (Viral::Dose)'
pr.cc:9:11: error: overriding 'virtual Base::~Base() throw ()'
EDG
--- Comment #2 from schaub-johannes at web dot de 2010-09-13 17:02 ---
Great(In reply to comment #1)
Not a regression, and G++ 4.6 correctly rejects it:
pr.cc:12:8: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual Derived::~Derived()
throw (Viral::Dose)'
pr.cc:9:11: error: overriding
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:04 ---
the test already includes cassert so presumably the fix is simply to replace
line 77 with
T const* operator-() const { assert(this-is_initialized()) ; return
this-get_ptr_impl() ; }
--
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:06 ---
Jason, do you know if this was fixed as part of your noexcept work, or is it
still latent in trunk?
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:09 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
I also think this pr is related to pr43829.
It couldn't be more ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43829
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 17:12
---
I agree with Jon: the expansion of assert to __assert_fail, etc, isn't
portable, the testcase should simply use assert.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
--- Comment #2 from Joost dot VandeVondele at pci dot uzh dot ch
2010-09-13 17:13 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
It works for me. I suppose you have older gold with known bugs? I have
GNU gold (GNU Binutils; SUSE:openSUSE 11.1 2.20.51.20091013-0.1) 1.9
my date is more recent
--- Comment #7 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:14 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(see pr43829)
I think it is a duplicate of (or close to) pr43829.
Marked as depending on it so that I don't forget it.
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #22 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 2010-09-13
17:54 ---
Fixed everywhere but on 4.3 branch.
Maybe commit the patch there too?
--
belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options -g -fno-inline }
void
test ()
{
struct S
{
typedef void (**T) (void);
static T i (void) { return 0; }
};
S s;
if (s.i ())
*s.i () = 0;
}
ICEs with
rh632847.C:15:1: internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_finish, at
dwarf2out.c:22387
Please
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 17:58 ---
void (*build_eri)();
In C means something different from:
void (*build_eri)(void);
Please try with the void.
--- CUT --
void (*build_eri)();
In C means that the build_eri takes a variable arguments.
--
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=21786)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21786action=view)
gcc46-pr45660.patch
Untested fix.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:35 ---
I'm sure this was fixed by my work on implicitly deleted functions, which
involved rewriting the calculation of exception specifications for implicitly
declared functions.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp cat tst.f90
subroutine foo(a,c,d,n)
real, dimension(n),intent(in) :: a
real, dimension(n),intent(out) :: c,d
c = sin(a)
d = cos(a)
end subroutine foo
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp gfortran -O3 -S tst.f90
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp grep sin tst.s
callsinf
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:50 ---
So, are you goint to take care of this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36841
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-13 18:53 ---
It is caused by revision 115086:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2006-06/msg00805.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45651
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:53 ---
Sounds like something for front end optimization.
Should we maybe generate the BLAS calls directly, instead of jumping
through the library functions?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #2 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:59 ---
This doesn't seem to happen any more.
Can we close this?
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 19:04 ---
Perhaps a testcase should be added (either with -Warray-temporaries or scanning
dumps) to make sure we don't regress here?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42831
--- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-09-13
19:13 ---
I can confirm that the change...
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr44972.C
===
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr44972.C (revision
On Linux/x86, revision 164250:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00544.html
caused
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/funcspec-1.c scan-assembler addps[ \t]
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/funcspec-1.c scan-assembler fsubs[ \t]
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect vectorized 1
loops
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45662
On Linux/x86, revision 164252:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00546.html
caused:
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 line 42 a.j == 14
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 -flto line 42 a.j == 14
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 -fwhopr line 42 a.j == 14
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c
--
Summary: All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy:
--- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 20:18 ---
All the new ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2 (at least Solaris 10/x86):
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-1.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-2.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/attr-ifunc-3.C execution test
FAIL:
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:00 ---
Subject: Bug 45617
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 13 21:00:03 2010
New Revision: 164257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164257
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/45617
* combine.c
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-13 21:01
---
Please properly post the patch to the mailing list and let's resolve this
rather straightforward issue. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:08
---
Subject: Bug 43937
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Sep 13 21:08:13 2010
New Revision: 164258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164258
Log:
PR debug/43937
* varasm.c
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:10
---
At long last.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:10 ---
Committed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 21:35 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
So, are you goint to take care of this?
Sure.
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 22:25 ---
Subject: Bug 44749
Author: jsm28
Date: Mon Sep 13 22:25:09 2010
New Revision: 164260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164260
Log:
PR target/44749
* config/mep/t-mep (GTM_H): Add
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 22:27 ---
Note that while my commit fixes two causes of build failure for this target,
a third cause of failure is still present. As I noted in my patch submission
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00664.html
*
--- Comment #7 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-09-13
22:33 ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01144.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45645
Compiler output:
$ gcc testcase.C
testcase.C:2:11: error: type/value mismatch at argument 1 in template parameter
list for 'templateclass struct S'
testcase.C:2:11: error: expected a type, got '0'
testcase.C:2:21: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class 'type',
have 'exceptional'
../../gcc/xgcc -B../../gcc/ -isystem /mingw/include -c -I.
-I../../../gcc-trunk/include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O1 -Wwrite-strings
-Wc++-compat ../../../gcc-trunk/libiberty/make-temp-file.c -o make-temp-file.o
In file included from /mingw/include/windef.h:137:0,
from
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 04:37
---
Subject: Bug 45532
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Sep 14 04:37:02 2010
New Revision: 164266
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164266
Log:
2010-09-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 04:39
---
Subject: Bug 45532
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Sep 14 04:39:13 2010
New Revision: 164267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164267
Log:
2010-09-14 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 04:40
---
Fixed on trunk, will backport to 4.4 and 4.5 in a few days.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 05:46 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45362 ***
--
ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-14 05:46 ---
*** Bug 45666 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
80 matches
Mail list logo
