--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-09-24 06:06 ---
Not a dup, since this is about shortening the mode, rather than about
eliminating zero extensions.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 06:29 ---
Confirmed with trunk
Because Tail calling is now done at the tree level. I remember me or someone
fixing this by detecting block moves in tree-tail-call.c and then set up the
flags accordingly. IIRC the same problem
--- Comment #2 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 07:08 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01685.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41435
note on version:
the source suggests this bug even exists in trunk as of rev 151996
while compiling:
asm volatile (\
mov.w %1,r0\n\t\
mulu.w %2,r0\n\t\
snip
adc.w #0,r2\n\t \
:=R13 (yyl), =R02 (yyh) \
:o(xxa),o(xxb) \
:a0
);
i get:
unrecognized R constraint: R13
--- Comment #26 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk
2009-09-24 07:46 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
I am confused why libgcc_ext needs to be built as 10.4/10.5 versions. Aren't
the _ext is versioned - precisely because the symbols included in the OS
version changes
On powerpc-apple-darwin9 with the changes I will post on pr41405, bootstrap
fails with:
...
/opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.5w/powerpc-apple-darwin9/bin/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.5w/powerpc-apple-darwin9/bin/
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-09-24 08:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=18643)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18643action=view)
c-format.i
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41457
--- Comment #61 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-09-24 09:05 ---
I have followed a path different from the one in comment #58, trying to use
-gstrict-dwarf during bootstrap. For that I have made the following changes:
diff -uN ../_gcc_clean/config/mh-intel-darwin
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-09-24 09:10 ---
Patches should be posted to gcc-patches.
This is not a patch, it is the best way I have found to describe the PR. Would
have it be better to report
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/guality/example.c fails on Darwin with
In
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 09:16 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
GCC from at least 4.1.1, up to and including 4.4.1 generates two redundant bit
shift operations when writing a 32 bit value to a 16 bit variable. Example:
volatile unsigned short v1;
void test1(unsigned x) { v1 = x; }
This code generates the following when compiled with arm-elf-gcc -O2 -S
--- Comment #62 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-09-24 09:40 ---
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00500.html .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41405
--- Comment #4 from hailijuan at gmail dot com 2009-09-24 09:50 ---
There is another problem with gcc -m64 -pg since 4.4.0, seen from below:
# file
/import/dr3/i386/gcc-4.4.0/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.11/4.4.0/amd64/gmon.o
--- Comment #5 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 10:38 ---
Fixed in 4_4 and 4_5.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
When compiling the following test code:
100
end
I get:
[/tmp]# gfortran-dev test.f90
test.f90:1.4:
100
1
Warning: Ignoring statement label in empty statement at (1)
But with -Werror and -fmax-errors=1:
[/tmp]# gfortran-dev test.f90 -fmax-errors=1 -Werror
Fatal Error: Error count
--- Comment #30 from christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2009-09-24
11:10 ---
Not sure about the status here... but, on this system:
Windows XP Pro/SP3 cygwin Intel Core2 Duo t9...@2.80ghz system with packages:
binutils 2.19.51-1 2.19.51.20090704
bison
value-numbering could turn certain invalid constructs like
int b;
void f(void)
{
float a;
a = 1;
b = *(int*)a;
}
into VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRs of the loaded bit-pattern.
--
Summary: value-numbering does not handle type-punning in a user-
friendly way
Problem with va_list argument returned by a fonction with 3.4.6 version of gcc.
Works fine with 3.4.3 version.
gcc version :
---
gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/3.4.6/specs
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--- Comment #2 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 12:50 ---
dom forgets update_stmt at strategic places. Mine.
--
matz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 12:54 ---
You can't return va_list by value portably.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-09-24
13:06 ---
I don't see why your current patch should present a problem for darwin10. My
understanding is that all of the symbols in libgcc-10.5 were moved into
libSystem
and they are ignored if present in libgcc
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 13:08 ---
Subject: Bug 41457
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 24 13:08:11 2009
New Revision: 152119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152119
Log:
PR bootstrap/41457
* dwarf2out.c
--- Comment #8 from xxcv07 at gmail dot com 2009-09-24 13:11 ---
vlc's bug.
--
xxcv07 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #28 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-09-24
13:15 ---
Iain,
You patch is showing some bit rot against current gcc trunk. Can you upload
an updated version that applies cleanly against the current sources?
--
--- Comment #63 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-09-24
13:47 ---
(In reply to comment #62)
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-09/msg00500.html .
Dominique,
Have you tried current gcc trunk with...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01686.html
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 13:47
---
Subject: Bug 36143
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 24 13:47:26 2009
New Revision: 152122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152122
Log:
2009-09-24 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 13:47 ---
Subject: Bug 38747
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 24 13:47:26 2009
New Revision: 152122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152122
Log:
2009-09-24 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 13:48
---
Fixed on trunk. Trunk doesn't necessarily handle testcases like this correctly
anyway, so I am not considering in backporting the change ATM.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 13:49
---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 14:19 ---
This is probably related to a difference between gfc_warning and
gfc_warning_now. If you look in parse.c, you'll see free-form and
fixed-form code behave differently. For fixed-form, no warning is
issued. This
--- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-09-24 14:38 ---
Patch posted for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01655.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40987
--- Comment #3 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk 2009-09-24
15:17 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Subject: Bug 41457
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 24 13:08:11 2009
New Revision: 152119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152119
Thanks Jakub!
--- Comment #4 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-09-24 15:51 ---
It's not a double free: free is called once but not with the pointer returned
by malloc, it is passed for some reason the pointer returned by malloc + 0x10.
valgrind detects it when it reports: Address 0x5b3b040 is 16
--- Comment #5 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-09-24 16:48 ---
Same issue on x86_64-linux with gcc version 4.5.0 20090924 (experimental)
[trunk revision 152124] (GCC)
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 16:49 ---
I have a patch.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #64 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 17:02 ---
Subject: Bug 41405
Author: rth
Date: Thu Sep 24 17:02:29 2009
New Revision: 152127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152127
Log:
PR bootstrap/41405
* common.opt: Initialize
When I compile this function:
double f(long double i) {return (i);}
with gcc flags -S -O3, I get the assembly below.
There are two redundant FPU instructions there. double value is already in FPU
after fldt. No need to store it and load it back since difference between
double and long double is
--- Comment #1 from yuri at tsoft dot com 2009-09-24 17:25 ---
Forgot to mention: 32-bit mode on i586 CPU.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41462
--- Comment #6 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-09-24 17:44 ---
Eric, do you have an idea on what could be wrong here? -gnatDG output looks
fine, the bug is present at all optimization level so may be it's gigi?
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 18:35 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01739.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41459
--- Comment #7 from 4ernov at gmail dot com 2009-09-24 18:39 ---
Is there anything in C++ Standard concerning this case?
Maybe it's more preferrable to throw exception or something like this.. Now it
seems to make memory leak in the operated vector.
The output is like this:
*** glibc
--- Comment #1 from dj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 20:40 ---
Subject: Bug 41456
Author: dj
Date: Thu Sep 24 20:40:36 2009
New Revision: 152144
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152144
Log:
PR target/41456
* config/m32c/m32c.h (REG_CLASS_CONTENTS): Add R13.
--
dj at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dj at redhat dot com
|dot org |
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 20:45 ---
Subject: Bug 41435
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Sep 24 20:44:55 2009
New Revision: 152145
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=152145
Log:
PR middle-end/41435
* fold-const.c (const_binop):
--- Comment #29 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk
2009-09-24 20:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=18644)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18644action=view)
updated patch for 4-5 trunk
(i) the added .ver files are (as yet) unchanged - so some newer (last
model: posix
gcc version 4.5.0 20090924 (experimental) (GCC)
--
Summary: Another get_ref_base_and_extent problem
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
--- Comment #31 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 22:53
---
(In reply to comment #29)
Thanks. With the patch fixing the problem described in #24, we get
further when compiling with release checking but run into syntax
errors when compiling stage3 libstc++.
This problem
gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 20090725 (Red Hat 4.4.1-2)
The testcase (built with -Wall -O3):
#include math.h
void MulPi(float * __attribute__((aligned(16))) i, float *
__attribute__((aligned(16))) f, int n)
{
for (int j = 0; j n; j++)
f[j] = (float) M_PI * i[j];
}
produces the
--- Comment #32 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-09-24
23:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=18645)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18645action=view)
build failure on x86_64-apple-darwin10
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39888
--- Comment #1 from htl10 at users dot sourceforge dot net 2009-09-24
23:51 ---
int64_t and uint64_t are both already defined in /usr/include/inttypes.h -
it appears that intmax_t and uintmax_t may also be defined elsewhere as well,
although I couldn't locate it.
--
--- Comment #2 from htl10 at users dot sourceforge dot net 2009-09-24
23:56 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
int64_t and uint64_t are both already defined in /usr/include/inttypes.h -
it appears that intmax_t and uintmax_t may also be defined elsewhere as well,
although I couldn't
--- Comment #46 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-25 00:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=18646)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18646action=view)
A patch for gcc 4.4.1
I decided to make a patch on my own. Seamonkey works with it. It
--- Comment #34 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-09-25
01:20 ---
Iain,
The build on i686-apple-darwin10 is going better but has a glitch. A no
time during the different stages of the bootstrap are libgcc_s.10.4.dylib and
libgcc_s.10.5.dylib created. For example, in
--- Comment #35 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-09-25
02:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=18647)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18647action=view)
i686-apple-darwin10 build log with patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39888
--- Comment #47 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-25 02:31
---
(In reply to comment #46)
Created an attachment (id=18646)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18646action=view) [edit]
A patch for gcc 4.4.1
I decided to make a patch on my own. Seamonkey
--- Comment #4 from htl10 at users dot sourceforge dot net 2009-09-25
04:33 ---
situation gone worse:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/htl10/tmp-build/ob-dir'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning:
--- Comment #5 from htl10 at users dot sourceforge dot net 2009-09-25
04:40 ---
latest run was with svn-r152154 . also filed new bug 41465 , I just noticed I
wrote 'bootstrap-lean' in comment 2 instead of 'bootstrap4-lean' - it is
probably not important in light of the new bug and more
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-25 04:44 ---
I think this is a duplicate of bug 40843.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
58 matches
Mail list logo
