--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 07:23 ---
Output from ./cc1 -march=armv5te -mthumb -Os PR40499.c -dAP:
.file PR40499.c
.text
.align 1
.global dual_feasible
.code 16
.thumb_func
.type
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:21 ---
Subject: Bug 39800
Author: pault
Date: Sat Jun 20 09:21:06 2009
New Revision: 148741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148741
Log:
2009-06-20 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:22 ---
Fixed on trunk and 4.4.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:31 ---
Subject: Bug 40495
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jun 20 09:31:23 2009
New Revision: 148742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148742
Log:
2009-06-20 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:32 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:51 ---
Probably a duplicate of pr34554
Essentially yes, but the compile-time simplifier for spread (and others) was
introduced only recently.
A while ago, I started an attempt to replace the linear constructor list with
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 09:58 ---
This one must be fixed. When the upper limit on array simplification was
removed, it was with initialization expressions in mind. In this case, the
assignment compiles and runs at a sensible pace if there is no
--- Comment #11 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 09:59 ---
some more progress with 4.5.0, but not quite there yet:
./a.out
# of primitives 154502
# computational kernel timings5
Kernel time 4.3522720
Kernel time 4.3562722
Kernel time 4.3522720
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 10:00 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Probably a duplicate of pr34554
Essentially yes, but the compile-time simplifier for spread (and others) was
introduced only recently.
As I say above, this is not an initialization
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.0
Known to work||4.3.1 4.4.1
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 10:13 ---
We need preprocessed source as a testcase.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 10:17 ---
__attribute__((no_instrument_function)) should do the trick. Maybe you need to
cover more functions with it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40498
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 10:46
---
Usual things to try are: -fno-tree-pre, -fno-ivopts, -fschedule-insns (on top
of the usuall -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops setting, of course).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31021
--- Comment #13 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 11:37 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Usual things to try are: -fno-tree-pre, -fno-ivopts, -fschedule-insns (on top
of the usuall -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops setting, of course).
-O3 -march=native -ffast-math -ffree-form
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 12:01 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Essentially yes, but the compile-time simplifier for spread (and others)
was introduced only recently.
As I say above, this is not an initialization expression and so, in that
I just tried to compile the Suse Linux package libbeecrypt6-4.1.2-2.51
with the G++ compiler version 4.5 snapshot 20090618.
The compiler said
endianness.c: In function 'swap64':
endianness.c:72:9: error: invalid conversion in gimple call
int64_t
unnamed-unsigned:64
D.6469_22 = __builtin_bswap64
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-06-20 12:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=18028)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18028action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40501
--- Comment #2 from e28773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-20 12:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=18029)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18029action=view)
test-case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40497
--- Comment #3 from e28773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-20 12:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=18030)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18030action=view)
testcase - ii
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40497
--- Comment #4 from e28773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-20 12:32 ---
(From update of attachment 18029)
namespace X
{
class C
{
};
templateclass Tvoid next(T)
{
}
}
using namespace X;
#include string
using namespace std;
int main()
{
I just tried to compile the Suse Linux package libmodplug-0.8.7-1.5
with the G++ compiler version 4.5 snapshot 20090618.
The compiler said
In file included from /usr/include/string.h:428:0,
from load_pat.cpp:33:
In function 'char* strncpy(char*, const char*, size_t)'
--- Comment #5 from e28773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-20 12:33 ---
here we go ;)
I forgot a ';' in line 5 of the main.cpp-file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40497
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-06-20 12:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=18031)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18031action=view)
C++ source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40502
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 13:04 ---
Confirmed (testcase from comment #4 with -std=c++0x).
It looks like a failure to honor SFINAE?
$ g++-4.4 -S -std=c++0x t.C
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algobase.h:67,
from
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 13:07 ---
#0 0x08214f03 in cp_print_error_function (context=0x8f14440,
diagnostic=0xbfffd530) at /home/richard/src/trunk/gcc/cp/error.c:2607
2607 if (TREE_CODE (block) == FUNCTION_DECL)
(gdb) l
2602
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 13:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=18032)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18032action=view)
A patch to avoid warning from -Wall
You can apply this patch to binutils to avoid
warning from -Wall in gcc
It appears that decimal floating-point (DFP) constants and the operators +
and - are done to type (as if DEC_EVAL_METHOD were 0), but that the operators
* and / are done as if _Decimal128 (as if DEC_EVAL_METHOD were 2) -- this
is in gcc 4.4.0. In gcc 4.3.2, everything was done as if to type
I doubt the following configure options were optimal, as I'd simuply cut/hasted
from another machine. However, what I find odd is that the configure script
determined says
checking how to compare bootstrapped objects... cmp $$f1 $$f2 16 16
checking for correct version of gmp.h... yes
checking
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 14:10 ---
It says acceptable, so it's acceptable to continue.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 14:11 ---
After the improvement of error messages, the test case gives:
Error: Interface mismatch in dummy procedure 'a' at (1): 'func' is not a
function
Mine.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 14:41 ---
Btw, if comment #0 is correct, then the test case 'interface_21.f90' is wrong
(that is: the test case itself is legal, but the dg-error is wrong). It was
added by Jerry DeLisle in r129799, in connection with PR33162.
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 15:17 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Btw, if comment #0 is correct, then the test case 'interface_21.f90' is wrong
Same goes for proc_decl_8.f90.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39850
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 16:15 ---
timings with '-O1 -fbounds-check'
4.3.1: 3m40.229s
4.4.1: 4m34.003s
4.5.0: 5m30.149s
all slow... and not improving (vs 20s at -O0 -fbounds-check)
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 16:43 ---
My guess is that this is the number-of-iteration code which tries to use
predicate information (that is obviously available a lot with -fbounds-check).
At -O1 we do not do value-range propagation, so practically all
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 17:01 ---
With MAX_DOMINATORS_TO_WALK zero and find_loop_niter_by_eval completely
disabled
(checking enabled compiler, built with -O0):
tree iv optimization : 11.12 ( 6%) usr 0.07 ( 5%) sys 12.02 ( 6%) wall
59123 kB
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 17:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
With MAX_DOMINATORS_TO_WALK zero and find_loop_niter_by_eval completely
disabled
(checking enabled compiler, built with -O0):
tree iv optimization : 11.12 ( 6%) usr 0.07 ( 5%) sys
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-20 17:12 ---
Subject: Re: long time needed in tree canonical iv
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 17:08
---
(In reply to comment
--- Comment #18 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 17:37 ---
*** Bug 38814 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40005
--- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 17:37 ---
looks like the issue in comment #1 is really just a duplicate of PR40005
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40005 ***
--
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed
When compiling netgen we see the following error on hppa:
linalg/basematrix.cpp: In member function 'void
ngla::S_BaseMatrixstd::complexdouble
+::_ZTv0_n72_NK4ngla12S_BaseMatrixISt7complexIdEE12MultTransAddES2_RKNS_10BaseVectorERS4_(ngbla::Complex,
+const ngla::BaseVector, ngla::BaseVector)
--- Comment #1 from kurt at roeckx dot be 2009-06-20 17:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=18033)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18033action=view)
Preproccessed file using g++ 4.3.3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40505
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 17:44 ---
Regarding comment 0: I believe the program is valid
Regarding proc_decl_8.f90 and interface_21.f90: The programs are obviously
invalid - and the error message is OK.
* * *
In case of
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-20 17:47
---
OK, i take your point - I should have taken more notice of the actual error
message.
It would be sensible to give some advice to the user, like what would not be a
less buggy version.
If possible, it would
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 17:47 ---
that would be nice indeed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39624
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 17:56 ---
Since the corresponding binutils bug is fixed, should this PR be closed ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40332
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 17:59 ---
There is an installation manual for a reason ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 18:07 ---
Subject: Bug 40452
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jun 20 18:07:10 2009
New Revision: 148750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148750
Log:
2009-06-20 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 18:16 ---
Also fails with head: gcc version 4.5.0 20090619 (experimental) [trunk revision
148688] (GCC).
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
i686-linux-gnu, with trunk 20090620:
Matthias
/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20090620/build/gcc/xgcc
-B/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20090620/build/gcc/ -O2 -std=gnu99
-fwhole-program --combine -c -o mksh.o edit.i eval.i exec.i expr.i funcs.i
histrap.i jobs.i lalloc.i lex.i
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2009-06-20
18:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=18034)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18034action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40506
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20 19:13 ---
-combine is broken, if it doesn't work don't use it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40506
$ /scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20090620/build/gcc/xgcc
-B/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20090620/build/gcc/ -c
NSStringTest.mi
NSStringTest.m: In function '+[NSStringTest modulusOn:by:]':
NSStringTest.m:64:12: error: expected ':' before ']' token
NSStringTest.m:64:12: internal
--- Comment #1 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2009-06-20
19:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=18035)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18035action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40507
--- Comment #2 from naesten at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 20:03 ---
Oh, hmm ... looks like you're right: I was looking at the wrong function in
objdump -- possibly because the functions somehow came out in a different order
in the object file from the source file.
Perhaps the
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-20 22:29
---
Fixed for 4.4.1.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from e28773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-20 23:21 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Fixed for 4.4.1.
After all, this is still a bug of ADL/SFINAE? Even if the declaration of
next/prev does not match with the one proposed in the current draft, the right
function (that is in
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-21 01:03
---
Yes, either that or wontfix until we have concepts as a library issue.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-21 01:05
---
See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2009-06/msg00057.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40497
alain-heberts-macbook-pro:~ alainhebert$ gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-apple-darwin8.10.1
Configured with: /tmp/gfortran-20090604/ibin/../gcc/configure
--prefix=/usr/local/gfortran --enable-languages=c,fortran
--with-gmp=/tmp/gfortran-20090604/gfortran_libs --enable-bootstrap
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-21 04:14 ---
Fortran bugs are never marked with a Severity of Critical unless
the bug is breaking bootstrap. Reset Severity to Normal.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
61 matches
Mail list logo
