: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39086
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-03 15:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=17232)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17232action=view)
Preprocessed source
Enough to compile with -O2 -g -fno-tree-sra explicit_instantiation.ii
--
http
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-03 16:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=17236)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17236action=view)
Preprocessed source
OK, this one is hopefully without any precompiled headers.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-06 21:45
---
Indeed, this testcase is fully scalarized by the new SRA even as it is
today. (If you don't know what new SRA I mean, I hope I'll post it to
the list as an RFC next week).
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-23 14:09 ---
I don't understand the comment above the assert at all (Honza probably
does) and so this might not be the correct approach but the following
patch should just obviously work. At least it does for this testcase
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-24 13:44 ---
After discussion with Honza, I have tried a more complex approach, the
patch is at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg01118.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-25 18:19 ---
Fixed with:
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Feb 25 17:34:40 2009
New Revision: 144428
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144428
Log:
2009-02-25 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
* tree-inline.c
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-28 00:30
---
I have just posted a patch to fix this issue on the 4.3 branch to the
mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg01245.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37861
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-28 18:33
---
Subject: Bug 37861
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Feb 28 18:33:27 2009
New Revision: 144491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144491
Log:
2009-02-28 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
Backport
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-28 22:46
---
Fixed with revision 144491:
te: Sat Feb 28 18:33:27 2009
New Revision: 144491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144491
Log:
2009-02-28 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
Backport from
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-10 10:29 ---
New SRA handles this fine by not scalarizing anything that has volatile fields
in it. There is already a fortran testcase with a union with a volatile field
that made me aware of this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-21 16:02 ---
With he new SRA, the optimized dump looks like:
D.6886_10 = {1, 1, 1, 1};
D.6887_11 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRvector long long int(D.6886_10);
D.6893_12 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRvector int(D.6887_11);
D.6891_14
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-02 10:51 ---
Apparently I was not careful enough when turning an if branch to a while loop.
I'll prepare and test a patch straight away.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-02 17:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=17946)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17946action=view)
Fix
Ok, creating a simple testcase was not easy for me but here is a patch
that includes one (and fixes
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 11:56 ---
Subject: Bug 40323
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 3 11:56:05 2009
New Revision: 148126
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148126
Log:
2009-06-03 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 12:54 ---
I have just verified this is fixed on the current trunk.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-05 15:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=17955)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17955action=view)
Fix
This patch fixes this problem. I'll post it to the mailing list once
I get to bootstrap it which may take
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-07 14:41
---
(In reply to comment #11)
It is caused by revision 147980:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html
Revision 147978 also does not work if you compile the testcase with
the -fno-tree-sra switch
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-08 13:27 ---
This is obviously mine. Will look into it shortly.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-08 17:49
---
(In reply to comment #16)
Wait, (In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #11)
It is caused by revision 147980:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html
Revision 147978 also
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-09 16:53 ---
Subject: Bug 40351
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 9 16:52:57 2009
New Revision: 148315
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148315
Log:
2009-06-09 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-09 20:59 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 01:30 ---
Mine, will look into it shortly.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #94 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 04:43
---
(In reply to comment #92)
In the meanwhile something caused tree incremental SSA to jump up from 10s
to
26s. Sob.
(In reply to comment #93)
I would say that was the new SRA.
OK, I'll try to investigate
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 04:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I want to say the SRA changes caused this ...
Yes it did. I can reproduce it and it should not be difficult to
fix. However, I'll have a look at why SRA constructs such a statement
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 09:07 ---
Created an attachment (id=18001)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18001action=view)
Fix
This was quite a serious oversight on my part, I wonder how it went
for so long unnoticed. I am about
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 09:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=18002)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18002action=view)
Fix
OK, the statement is fine except that it is not gimple ;-). Fixed
with this patch, I will submit
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:54
---
Bootstrap and testing passed, submitted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01179.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40413
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:57 ---
Bootstrapped, tested, submitted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01182.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40432
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 10:12
---
Subject: Bug 40413
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 16 10:11:55 2009
New Revision: 148520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148520
Log:
2009-06-16 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 10:16 ---
Subject: Bug 40432
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 16 10:16:40 2009
New Revision: 148522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148522
Log:
2009-06-16 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 10:24 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 10:24
---
Fixed
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 13:14 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Confirmed. Caused by new SRA - we are creating a temporary with
TREE_ADDRESSABLE
type.
Again? Well, let me see where...
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 17:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=18025)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18025action=view)
Fix
The offset we pass to build_ref_for_offset in sra_modify_assign does not make
any sense. I am about
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 18:09 ---
I will look into this next week. However, I have never compiled binutils
before, so unless it is obvious, please describe how to reproduce the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 10:54 ---
Subject: Bug 40492
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jun 22 10:54:16 2009
New Revision: 148787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148787
Log:
2009-06-22 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 18:57 ---
Right, now I can reproduce the problem and it indeed is introduced by the new
SRA commit. None of the fixes I have done so far deals with this one either. I
am investigating this further (but don't hold your breath
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 13:21
---
The miscompiled file seems to be gas/tc-i386.o. Early SRA is enough to trigger
the problem. Digging deeper...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 14:12 ---
Fixed
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 16:45
---
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
typedef union i386_operand_type
{
struct
{
unsigned int reg8:1;
unsigned int reg16:1;
unsigned int reg32:1;
unsigned int reg64:1
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 16:38
---
Fix submitted to the mailing list, pending maintainer approval:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01918.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 10:38
---
Subject: Bug 40493
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 25 10:38:13 2009
New Revision: 148941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148941
Log:
2009-06-25 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 14:21
---
I have checked out trunk 148941, compiled binutils with it (configured
with --disable-werror), ran the testsuite and there were no failures.
Thus I consider this fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-26 13:53 ---
This is some sort of cgraph consistency check. Honza added it and he also said
he will look into this :-)
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-26 14:59 ---
OK, I have finally managed to reproduce this and the patch does indeed result
into a segfault. I will keep looking into this, even though probably won't be
able to do much until Monday.
--
jamborm at gcc dot
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-26 15:08 ---
The miscompiled file seems to be derivative_approximation.o
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40554
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-27 23:41 ---
I believe the following (but yet untested) patch fixes this issue.
I will bootstrap and test it once I have a testcase that is simple
enough to be put into the testsuite. I hope to do all of this on
Monday
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 11:16 ---
OK, I'll have a look at it after I am done with PR 40554.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 11:22 ---
I'm quite confident this is a cgraph bug = CCing honza. (I'll try to keep
this on my radar but there are other issues for which I am certainly
responsible now).
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 17:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=18094)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18094action=view)
Fix
It turns out that build_ref_for_offset apparently needs to check for
full type compatibility and node
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 11:39 ---
As you may have noticed, I changed the testcase a little bit so that
it ICEs as my i386 desktop too. A freshly checked out trunk no longer
does. So I believe this is indeed fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 11:44 ---
When compiled with a freshly checked-out trunk the testcase no longer
segfaults and gives exactly the same output as if compiled with trunk
revision 147978 (i.e. just before my new SRA got in). So I consider
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 10:11 ---
This looks like PR 40556.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-26 21:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=18903)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18903action=view)
Proposed fix
Indeed, the users of build_ref_for_offset in ipa-prop.c and ipa-cp.c
do not unshare the base
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 13:59 ---
The problem here is that build_ref_for_offset_1() cannot find a field
corresponding to a replacement within its own aggregate. The field is
identified by its offset (zero) and type. Unfortunately
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:04 ---
I have just sent the patch to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01625.html
I had to change the testcase a bit so that it compiles on x86_64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:39 ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #7)
Maybe IPA SRA gets
those two types from unrelated places?
I believe they are quite elated. The body of the function is:
bb 2:
init = c_parser_initializer (0B); [return slot
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:45
---
I have downloaded binutils 2.20 and compiled the file on a native ia64
compiler. I have only managed to look at the dumps but so far could
not see any problem there. I will have another look on Thursday
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 12:41 ---
Subject: Bug 41775
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 29 12:40:48 2009
New Revision: 153699
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153699
Log:
2009-10-29 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 12:50 ---
I did. This is now fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 13:44
---
(In reply to comment #20)
I'm not sure, but by my impression that's a host issue, no? So, I doubt that
working on target will get you any further.
Perhaps, I don't know (or do you mean that you know
--- Comment #24 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 18:22
---
Thanks for the simple testcase, it has certainly helped me. I have
sent a patch to address this issue to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01814.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #25 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 14:14
---
Subject: Bug 41750
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Nov 2 14:13:49 2009
New Revision: 153809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153809
Log:
2009-11-02 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #26 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 14:33
---
Tthis is now fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-04 16:10 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
This is -O vs. -O2 ICE because different IPA passes are selected
then. I think we have a dup for this - Martin, is it somehow easy
to avoid the ICE?
Well, it seems that calling
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-10 16:20 ---
Proposed patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00501.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42009
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 14:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=19004)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19004action=view)
Testcase
This is the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42009
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 41932
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Nov 11 15:07:18 2009
New Revision: 154095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154095
Log:
2009-11-11 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR lto
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-11 15:10
---
Basile, can you please confirm that this is now fixed? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41932
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-13 16:36 ---
This seems to be IPA SRA and thus mine.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-13 19:34 ---
Yep, this is definitely mine. Even though I have a fix for the above
testcase, it unfortunately does not work for my all-time favorite
one-filed structures, e.g.:
typedef struct
{
void *p;
} Ptr;
struct
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-13 21:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19012)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19012action=view)
Proposed fix.
Proposed fix I am currently bootstrapping.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 22:57 ---
Subject: Bug 42025
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Nov 21 22:56:36 2009
New Revision: 154413
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154413
Log:
2009-11-21 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR middle
--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 23:43 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 14:01 ---
I'm looking into this. This example shows why using access-expr to create new
expressions is a dangerous thing to do, at least in some contexts (which I did
not really realize until now). I'd better look at them
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 22:19 ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01311.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42154
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 10:56 ---
Subject: Bug 42154
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Nov 24 10:56:14 2009
New Revision: 154493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154493
Log:
2009-11-24 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 10:58 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 18:16 ---
Can you please add a check before the qsort call (tree-sra.c, line
1407) whether all pointers in the access_vec seem OK or whether it is
SRA that passes the invalid pointer to qsort? Nothing fancy,
something
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 12:00
---
I can't reproduce this with revision 154673. Maybe it is fixed
already? (perhaps by a fix for PR 42151?)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41290
: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 18:46 ---
I have started a bootstrap and check of the following (with a testcase
and change log and stuff...) which for some reason fixes this
(renaming introduces the mess, the code as is generated by IPA-SRA is OK):
Index
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 22:22 ---
Just for the record, this also fails, for similar reasons like the
second testcase above:
union U
{
__complex__ int ci;
__complex__ float cf;
};
float gd;
extern float bar (float, float);
float foo (int b
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 22:34 ---
Subject: Bug 42006
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 27 22:34:40 2009
New Revision: 154715
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154715
Log:
2009-11-27 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR middle
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 22:35 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 10:36 ---
What a stupid oversight, I'll prepare a patch straight away.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 15:46 ---
Subject: Bug 42206
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Nov 30 15:46:00 2009
New Revision: 154820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154820
Log:
2009-11-30 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR middle
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 15:58 ---
The variable is initialized now. Thanks for pointing it out.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 18:00 ---
Subject: Bug 42196
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Nov 30 17:59:57 2009
New Revision: 154834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154834
Log:
2009-11-30 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR middle
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 18:16 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 22:22 ---
The lattices are OK per se. Lattices really only represent arguments
of calls that are represented in the call graph. When there might be
other calls that are not represented in the graph, the function body
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 13:04 ---
Right. IPA-SRA currently relies on that it can always replace a memory
reference with a memory reference. But both sides of this assignment
were originally one field structures turned into scalars and so
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 14:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=19197)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19197action=view)
Simple testcase
A simple test case that exhibits this bug and ICEs on both i386 and x86_64.
--
http
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 14:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=19198)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19198action=view)
Patch dealing with such assignments
I'm currently testing this patch to address the problem.
--
http
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 17:40 ---
Subject: Bug 42237
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 1 17:39:44 2009
New Revision: 154874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154874
Log:
2009-12-01 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR tree
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 17:49
---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 14:15 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
The problem is that the comparison of types is not anti-symmetrical:
Looking at the code, I see that we don't stabilize the sort for
integers. Can you please try the following
1 - 100 of 434 matches
Mail list logo
