https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65515
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-24 8:35 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 35124
>-->https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35124&action=edit
> gcc5-pr65515.patch
Testing patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65590
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-26, at 5:43 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> This should have been fixed by r221618, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00124.html.
Fail was with r221591.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-04-22, at 3:15 AM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> could you please test the patch on hppa?
Started. Thanks for the patch.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-04-22 12:40 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> this patch is more conservative
Restarted test with updated patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-04-22, at 12:40 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> this patch is more conservative:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.c b/gcc/gimplify.c
> index 7786e16..e23f510 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-05-25, at 3:21 AM, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Here the REG_EQUAL does not match the value that is set: the 32 most
> significant bits are zero. Which is why combine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59595
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I have been trying to narrow down the change that caused the
regression. r205921 is
OK and r205955 is bad. Most recent build that I have noted as bad is
r206196.
Last test results from box
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Feb-14, at 1:36 AM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> It really feels like this is papering over the real problem, namely
> that
> get_pressure_class_and_nregs simply doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Something like this?
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3-Mar-14, at 8:01 PM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Bah, doesn't fix bug:
Attached new patch which seems to fix bug. Testing.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59779
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 12-Mar-14, at 9:55 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can't reproduce this with a cross-compiler to hppa-unknown-linux on
> current
> trunk:
Could this be a HOST_WIDE_INT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-09-10 1:01 PM, ismail at i10z dot com wrote:
> The patch declares the functions but those functions do not exist on
> mingw-w64,
> seems to be this will just fail with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-10-15, at 10:32 AM, josephpattara at gmail dot com wrote:
> Is there a similar fix also for the ia64 platform?
I believe a similar fix could be developed along the lines of the cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-11-04, at 1:57 AM, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36645&action=edit
> Here's a patch I'm testing to fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-11-08, at 12:44 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> It looks target specific. Any progress?
It's not possible to implement on hpux. We have a kernel helper on linux.
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-11-15, at 10:46 AM, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> The HAVE_SYNC_FUNCTIONS test is in libbacktrace/internal.h, and it #define's
> the functions. You can see that that i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
--- Comment #1 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2014-12-23, at 12:31 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> On Linux/x86-64, r219037 caused
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c scan-rtl-dump dse1 "global deletions = (2|3)&q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Hi H.J.,
On 2014-12-30, at 3:13 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> Can you add such a hook?
I'm sorry but realistically I don't have the spare time to work on this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-03, at 10:01 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
> A patch is posted at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01990
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64483
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Thanks Jonathon.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-06, at 9:06 PM, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> But instead causing these tests to fail for all targets that don't have
> -latomic.
> I.e. -latomic should only be added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-06, at 10:10 PM, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Easier said than done, unfortunately. Doing a simpler fix.
Thanks
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-07 10:03 AM, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> David, could you please check if the attached patch still works for
> hppa*-*-hpux*?
I've added your patch to my hpux tree for testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64370
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-09, at 7:35 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> The exp2 call was substituted wiht scalbln as part of PR64503 fix.
>
>
>
> Is this still an issue?
I will che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64370
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-09 2:31 PM, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64370
>
>
>
> --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
>
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64370
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-12, at 6:09 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Do you have ldexp on HPUX? Asking because that is used in jcf-dump already...
Yes, it's available on hpux10.20 and hpux1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64840
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-28 10:34 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Similar to (dup of) pr64635?
Search wasn't working for me this morning, so reassign if dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64840
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-28 10:35 AM, howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu wrote:
> Do you have any files with the basename of libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm in
> /test/g
> nu/gcc/objdir/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64840
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-28 11:22 AM, howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu wrote:
> ps I assume it will be sufficient to match libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.sl.1 as
> it is unclear why hpux automatically appe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64840
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-28 11:22 AM, howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu wrote:
> Try the proposed patch athttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34609
> which is enhanced to handle hpux.
The patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #24 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-06 6:33 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
>
> --- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> OK, this is fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-06, at 6:33 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Correction: we have only one IV on the PA, but it's 'i' and not 'p'.
>
> Dave, is the gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #27 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 5:24 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
>
> --- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> The gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #30 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> With cross-compiler I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 10:49 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 4) if there has been any change on the compiler side, can you bisect when did
> that happen?
>From test logs:
r214122 was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-17, at 5:16 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> HPPA isn't a primary architecture, adjusting priority
Why? P1 was set by Richard, a release maintainer, and the regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-20, at 1:49 PM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> sqrtl is not available on hpux. It seems at some point before r214253
> the test started running, probably using sqrt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-21 1:56 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The current code now uses the libcall, _U_Qfsqrt, in libm.
The change from sqrtl to _U_Qfsqrt occurred in r214211:
2014-08-20 Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 2:36 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 3:21 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
> r220868 was ok and r220883 bad.
My guess is that the problem was introduced in r220875.
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 3:56 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Certainly possible. We ough
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-09 2:08 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> See https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
There are more functions with this problem. The attached patch
enables libgfortran to build on hpux11.11.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/8/2014 11:07 PM, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> That being said, googling this issue I stumbled upon
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00545.html where you fixed a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/10/2014 3:42 AM, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> So, are you planning on enabling _REENTRANT in the HP-UX 11 driver like you
> did
> for 10, or do you want to solve this in some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/15/2014 12:19 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
>
> --- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> John, I know those PA bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #26 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 17-Oct-14, at 7:10 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Should be fixed now.
Thanks, Jakub.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63598
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I had a successful build by setting 'flag_ipa_icf_functions = 0' in
pa_option_override.
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63691
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 30-Oct-14, at 5:19 PM, aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi wrote:
> Bisected on gcc git gcc-4_9-branch to:
Would you please attach .i and .s files generated from dl-addr.c?
Dave
--
John Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 31-Oct-14, at 6:28 AM, y.gribov at samsung dot com wrote:
> Yeah and probably also s/HAVE_LONG_LONG/HAVE_DECL_STRTOULL/ (or maybe
> HAVE_STRTOULL?).
Yes.
--
John David Anglinda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63691
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/31/2014 2:39 PM, aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi wrote:
> This patch is already included in GLIBC 2.20...
I can add support for __builtin_trap() but we need preprocessed source
and f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/31/2014 2:05 PM, y.gribov at samsung dot com wrote:
> John, would you mind sending a (tested) patch to gcc-patches? I only have
> access to Linux systems which are irrelevant.
I b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63691
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/31/2014 5:30 PM, aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi wrote:
> I was able to isolate the problem to GLIBC elf/dl-conflict.c and specifically
> hppa specific elf_machine_rela function calle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
This bug is easily fixed by adding declaration checks for the new
libiberty functions
to configure.ac (both libiberty and gcc), and rebuilding configure and
config.in.
Sorry, I haven'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/7/2014 5:13 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Agreed, seems that RTL DSE is eliminating the stores. Presumably its not
> considering the call as potentially reading the argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 7-Nov-14, at 5:24 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Is the setup for the memory store different? ie, in the sibcall
> case are we
> making it hard for DSE to see that we have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
find_call_stack_args() is not called for sibcalls. It seemed at first
that it needed
to be called from mark_insn to mark the arguments of sibcalls but it
can't handle
arguments stored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
After some more digging, I think the problem is in dse, not dce. It
deletes this instruction
which stores part of the sibcall arguments:
(insn 31 27 50 2 (set (mem:SI (reg/f:SI 115) [0 S4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 18-Nov-14, at 10:15 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> As libiberty has now strtoll/strtoull functions, guess you could use
> that.
> You'll need to guard it with #ifdef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63694
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/20/2014 7:45 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this fixed now?
No.
I have a patch which adds the necessary declaration checks to configure.ac
but have been very busy recen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63598
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/21/2014 7:52 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you please check if the issue still persists?
I will check. All my recent builds are with flag_ipa_icf_functions = 0.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #20 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 22-Nov-14, at 2:31 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is that with r217946 or later?
No. My latest build is r217898.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 22-Nov-14, at 2:31 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is that with r217946 or later?
This is now fixed on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64161
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2-Dec-14, at 8:17 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> #include in the .cc file should fix it.
Thanks Jonathon, I'll give it a try.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64161
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2-Dec-14, at 8:17 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> #include in the .cc file should fix it.
Actually, .cc already includes it...
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64161
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2-Dec-14, at 8:26 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Actually, .cc already includes it...
Sorry, looked at wrong file.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
--- Comment #1 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 12-Jul-14, at 8:47 PM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> ../../gcc/gcc/gcov-tool.c:313:42: error: 'atoll' was not declared in
> this scope
sscanf will work.
Dave
--
J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61853
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 19-Jul-14, at 5:39 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Not sure what you mean exactly but store_field shouldn't have been
> invoked on a
> PARALLEL so the problem is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26472
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11-Aug-14, at 7:26 PM, wzis at hotmail dot com wrote:
> Not sure whether the issue I got is related to this bug: When using
> GCC to
> compile a C program, the binary got is link
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 1-Sep-14, at 5:23 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> So fixed?
I left it open because of the following fail on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu:
FAIL: gcc.dg/delay-slot-2.c scan-assembler pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 26-Sep-14, at 3:46 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Have you tried with the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 1:30 AM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
> I double checked the function optimize_range_tests_diff. Overall, I
> think it
> does the right thing. X86 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 10:34 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> This is what I see on the trunk, but 4.9 is wrong. Possibly, there is
> a transformation
> after optimize_range_tests_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 1:30 AM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
> X86 and ARM work correctly.
I suspect this is because both have "need_64bit_hwint=yes" in
config.gcc.
--
John
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 9:17 PM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
> Can you show more detail dumps with -fdump-tree-reassoc1-details?
Attached is 4.9 dump with more details.
Dave
--
John Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 28-Sep-14, at 9:17 PM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
> Can you show more detail dumps with -fdump-tree-reassoc1-details?
Same for trunk.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 29-Sep-14, at 2:43 AM, zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com wrote:
> Please try the attached patch. If it works, I will run all tests and
> send it
> for community review.
The patch a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 9/29/2014 9:02 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> I've started a full build and
> check
> with 4.9 branch. I'll also test it on hpux starting this evening.
I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63403
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/7/2014 2:48 PM, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you try the patches I posted here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02636.html
> https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63403
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Hi Richard,
On 7-Oct-14, at 2:48 PM, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you try the patches I posted here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02636.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 10/8/2014 9:43 AM, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hmm, maybe add something like
>
> AC_CHECK_DECLS_ONCE([ttyname_r])
>
> to configure.ac and then in unix.c(stream_ttyn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68643
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-02, at 5:22 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> so this is set wrongly for your target? Or rather
>
> # Return 1 if compilation with -freorder-blocks-and-partition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68644
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-02, at 5:20 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please attach ivopts-details-scev dumps.
Attached.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36638
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-05, at 11:44 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this still a problem?
I haven't checked recently. The breakage in PR 60403 broke build.
--
John Davi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38229
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-05, at 12:14 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this still a problem?
It is no longer a problem on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39756
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Yes.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39756
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
It fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. See for example:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-12/msg00395.html
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48756
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
No. It looks like it was fixed in 4.3.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68744
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> WORKSFORME (x86_64-apple-darwin14) and for others (see x86_64-apple-darwin14).
> Is this a regression? If yes, what was your last working revision and did
> anything change in your sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68729
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-08 2:53 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> In the case you're running into, I believe he high portion has to be
> considered
> "clobbered" as in we won&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68733
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-10, at 12:31 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Has OpenMP ever worked on PA?
Likely not.
Although the issue is not exposed in the libgomp for earlier gcc versions, I
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68744
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-11 6:45 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Is this PR fixed by revision r231485?
No. It just fixed the undefined __sync function warnings from HP ld.
The above
revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-07, at 5:58 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> Could you
> please investigate what is wrong with your libs?
There is a problem with the call to floor in the floorf funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-12, at 3:50 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
>
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-12, at 4:10 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Yes. The puzzle is why "return (float) floor (x);" calls floorf.
floorf:
.PROC
.CALLINFO FR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-12, at 4:21 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
>> Yes. The puzzle is why "return (float) floor (x);" calls floorf.
It comets from the forwprop1 pass:
;;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-13, at 11:16 AM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> What happens if you change -std=gnu11 to -std=c11?
I will check soon. Possibly, this should be -std=c90 as most
c99 functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-13, at 1:36 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> If gcc is doing an optimization that changes (float)floor(x) to
> __builtin_floorf() and then __builtin_floor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-13, at 3:09 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> Inspection of the other z.c.* files show that floor is called.
> Is hpux defining floorf someplace th
501 - 600 of 758 matches
Mail list logo
