[Bug tree-optimization/30052] [4.2 Regression] points-to analysis slow and memory hungry
--- Comment #60 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2008-06-10 17:26 --- If a knowledgable GCC developer could suggest *any* workaround at -O1 for this bug in 4.2 (including disabling whatever alias analysys causes the problem), it might be proposed as a fix within distros at least. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30052
[Bug tree-optimization/30052] [4.2 Regression] points-to analysis slow and memory hungry
--- Comment #56 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2008-05-21 15:49 --- What is the workaround for this bug? It looks like not even -O1 fixes the compile-time hog. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30052
[Bug bootstrap/33676] libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22: Segmentation fault
--- Comment #5 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-10-09 16:14 --- After each merge command, use svn info to identify the unique revision number to which those dates correspond. You can then use the same svn merge with revision number to further reghunt this bug. -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|libgfortran bootstrap |libgfortran bootstrap |failure:|failure: |selected_int_kind.f90:22: |selected_int_kind.f90:22: |Segmentation fault |Segmentation fault |libgfortran bootstrap | |failure:| |selected_int_kind.f90:22: | |internal compiler error:| |Segmentation fault: 11 | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33676
[Bug bootstrap/33676] libgfortran bootstrap failure: selected_int_kind.f90:22: Segmentation fault
--- Comment #6 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-10-09 16:15 --- Scratch that, sorry, svn info wouldn't convey the correct info. You need to use svn log to roughly convert between dates and revnums. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33676
[Bug tree-optimization/30052] [4.2/4.3 Regression] points-to analysis slow and memory hungry
--- Comment #44 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-09-11 10:59 --- Daniel, are you then going to fix the slow part of this bug? As for the memhog, CC'ing Honza which is expert on memory allocations and leaks :) -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30052
[Bug tree-optimization/32328] [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing causes skipped code
--- Comment #25 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-09-05 06:47 --- Daniel, can we backport this patch to 4.2, please? It's a P1 regression! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32328
[Bug tree-optimization/32328] [4.2/4.3 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing causes skipped code
--- Comment #15 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-07-16 13:39 --- ping: anything that can be done for 4.2.1? This is a really serious regression. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32328
[Bug tree-optimization/30252] [4.2 regression] miscompilation of sigc++-2.0 based code with -fstrict-aliasing
--- Comment #13 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-05-01 02:11 --- (In reply to comment #2) Hmm, typedef typed_slot_repT_functor typed_slot; typed_slot *typed_rep = static_casttyped_slot*(rep); return (typed_rep-functor_)(); This code could violate C++ aliasing rules. But: template class T_functor struct typed_slot_rep : public slot_rep so it looks like it might be valid. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30252
[Bug middle-end/30908] tree cost for types which are WORD_SIZE
--- Comment #18 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-04-10 15:34 --- (In reply to comment #15) Yes, the tendency to handle far too many items as 16 bits (the sizeof(int) on that machine) when 8 bits would suffice is one of the major issues the AVR-GCC users have with the compiler. I might be wrong here, but I believe that this could eventually get fixed if AVR backend was changed to support the new subreg lowering pass that Ian added to GCC 4.3. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30908
[Bug target/29524] [4.2/4.3 Regression] Too much RAM used: __clz_tab[] linked
--- Comment #7 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-04-02 22:47 --- Anatoly, can you have a look? It's a regression in 4.2 for AVR! -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aesok at pautinka dot net http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29524
[Bug tree-optimization/18438] vectorizer failed for vector matrix multiplication
--- Comment #4 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2007-01-05 00:37 --- Thanks Ira. What about store with gaps? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18438
[Bug middle-end/26823] ICE with OpenMP in add_stmt_to_eh_region_fn, at tree-eh.c:100
--- Comment #2 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2006-04-12 22:25 --- RTH, this bug is very serious for OpenMP and C++. Can you please have a look? -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26823
[Bug c/8268] no compile time array index checking
--- Comment #28 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2006-02-18 14:48 --- Jakub, you have provided some infrastructure to compute object size and provide warnings for unsafe use of builtins. Do you believe that infrastructure could be reused/enhanced for this bug? -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8268
[Bug c++/10243] typeof(expr) yields wrong result if expr has reference type
--- Comment #7 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-12-24 21:53 --- This is by design. It's out typeof() implementation works. It has pros and cons. See this link (and followups) for papers about this. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01642.html -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10243
[Bug middle-end/25248] [4.1/4.2 Regression] 2.6.15-rc4 arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c miscompiled
--- Comment #7 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-12-04 23:17 --- Further bonus points if you can spot which function is miscompiled. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25248
[Bug c++/25220] [g++] (in class) static (const integral) member initialization.
--- Comment #1 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-12-02 12:43 --- This is a FAQ. You need the accompanying definition for static member variables, irrespective of the use of an initialization on the declaration. -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25220
[Bug tree-optimization/25000] [4.1/4.2 Regression] ICE in coalesce_abnormal_edges, at tree-outof-ssa.c:646
--- Comment #10 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-11-30 09:52 --- Jeff, did you backport the patch to the 4.1 branch? I don't see the commit there. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25000
[Bug rtl-optimization/25115] [4.2 Regression] Segmentation fault in pre_insert_copy_insn
--- Comment #4 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-11-28 13:01 --- Out of curiosity, can you show the code before and after Paolo's patches? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25115
[Bug c++/15938] ICE with anonymous unions
--- Comment #12 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-11-27 23:38 --- Thanks Volker -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
[Bug target/24779] [4.0 Regression] Python miscompilation - TOC reload
-- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Python miscompilation - TOC |[4.0 Regression] Python |reload |miscompilation - TOC reload Target Milestone|--- |4.0.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24779
[Bug c++/23171] [4.1 Regression] ICE on pointer initialization with C99 initializer
--- Comment #9 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-11-14 00:30 --- Mark, do you believe that the introduction of COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPR in the C++ frontend could be feasable for 4.1? -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||giovannibajo at libero dot ||it, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu ||dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23171
[Bug c++/24629] Can't use template argument as friend
--- Comment #2 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-11-02 09:20 --- Template parameters can't be used in friend declarations (nor in any elaborated type specifier construct). -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24629
[Bug target/21275] [4.0 Regression] gcc 4.0.0 crash with mingw when using stdout in global var
--- Comment #17 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-10-14 18:54 --- Danny, is it possible to have a less invadent fix for the 4.0 branch? Something hackish that can get the bug fixed just for the branch... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21275
[Bug rtl-optimization/23585] [4.0 regression] mem_fun* code fine with -O1, bus error with -O2
--- Comment #7 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-10-11 13:43 --- Yes, I think the problem is in delay slot scheduling too. COND_EXPR means that either branch must not be evaluated because it could be illegal; if you hoist a mem from a branch into the delay slot of the condition, you are effectively partially evaluting the branch. -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||giovannibajo at libero dot ||it http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23585
[Bug rtl-optimization/23585] [4.0 regression] mem_fun* code fine with -O1, bus error with -O2
--- Comment #15 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-10-11 17:16 --- Probably. But what if the problem with dereferencing p was that it is NULL, instead of a misalignment? Would that case be caught in reorg by something else? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23585
[Bug rtl-optimization/23585] [4.0 regression] mem_fun* code fine with -O1, bus error with -O2
--- Comment #19 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-10-11 22:57 --- (In reply to comment #16) Probably. But what if the problem with dereferencing p was that it is NULL, instead of a misalignment? Would that case be caught in reorg by something else? Well, then the code would have undefined behavior, and the bus error would be OK. Uh? I'm speaking of a NULL dereference on the branch of COND_EXPR which will not get executed. The point of this PR (as far as I understand it) is that an instruction of a branch which should not be evaluated (and thus potentially dangerous) is hoisted into the delay slot of the condition. Fixing the frontend so to not emit the unaligned load (which should not get executed anyway) is just papering over the bug in reorg which causes it to be (partially) executed. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23585
[Bug c++/19163] __attribute__((aligned)) not working in template
--- Comment #9 from giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-10-06 06:44 --- The patch was rejected. Not working on this anymore. -- giovannibajo at libero dot it changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|giovannibajo at libero dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu |it |dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19163
[Bug c++/23977] fails to resolve templated constructor
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-09-20 12:34 --- Yes, this is how C++ works. There is no template argument deduction from constructors. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23977
[Bug c/12245] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Uses lots of memory when compiling large initialized arrays
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-09-12 10:08 --- The problem is that the gimplifier always want the index field of the constructor element to be filled. If you fix that in the obvious way (so that no index means previous index + 1), it should be quite easy to fix, for C++. In C, I have no clue how this interacts with designated initializers though. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
[Bug c++/23437] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] error: ... cannot appear in a constant-expression
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-09-05 23:28 --- Not yet, I still have to find some time to commit the patch. It will be fixed in GCC 4.1 and GCC 4.0.2. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
[Bug middle-end/21990] Wrong code for 4.0 and head: Reload clobbers the frame pointer by using it as spill register without recognizing the clobbering
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-09-04 11:19 --- Roger, want to have a look at this? -- What|Removed |Added CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21990
[Bug preprocessor/23479] Implement binary constants with a 0b prefix
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-19 16:28 --- If there was a voting system in this Bugzilla, I'd vote for this. It's a very useful feature in embedded programming. I also believe that it could be enabled by default in GNU C, since it's really easy and well-defined. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
[Bug c++/23437] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] error: ... cannot appear in a constant-expression
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-19 18:06 --- Patch posted, waiting for review: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg01169.html -- What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- ||patches/2005- ||08/msg01169.html Keywords||patch http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
[Bug c++/23437] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] error: ... cannot appear in a constant-expression
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-17 21:59 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-08-17 21:59:42 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
[Bug c++/23437] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] error: ... cannot appear in a constant-expression
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-17 22:13 --- Dumdelidum... -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |giovannibajo at libero dot |dot org |it Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23437
[Bug gcov/profile/23334] FIXME in coverage.c: use build_constructor directly
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-18 00:42 --- Yes, I posted a patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01678.html -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |giovannibajo at libero dot |dot org |it Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-08-18 00:42:39 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23334
[Bug tree-optimization/23361] Can't eliminate empty loops with power of two step and variable bounds
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-13 10:01 --- One thing is that if 'a' and 'b' are originally pointers of the same type, it should be clear the the loop can be removed. When they are lowered to integers, instead, we lose the precious alignment information. Can't the empty loop be removed before the pointers are lowered? Or am I missing something? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23361
[Bug c++/23372] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Temporary aggregate copy not elided when passing parameters by value
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-13 18:00 --- Why doesn't this happen with the copy constructor, then? there we should be calling the copyctor with *a, which would have the same problem. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23372
[Bug rtl-optimization/15265] delete_output_reload deletes necessary insn
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-12 09:35 --- Sure, but it's a good start. I read on http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/BerndSchmidt that the reload-branch would need some testing/fixing on autoinc target. Maybe Joern might be interested in giving a look at it. Also integrating the reload unit-tester in the branch would be a good step forward -- we really need a better way to test for reload features! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15265
[Bug tree-optimization/23352] ICE with vectorizer: verify_ssa failed - definition does not dominate use
-- What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE: verify_ssa failed -|ICE with vectorizer: |definition does not dominate|verify_ssa failed - |use |definition does not dominate ||use http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23352
[Bug tree-optimization/22548] Aliasing can not tell array members apart
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-12 12:58 --- Can you document what's the compile-time effect of raising salias-max-array- elements? For instance, how much do we lose in bootstrap+tramp3d if we raise it to 16 or even 1024? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22548
[Bug rtl-optimization/15265] delete_output_reload deletes necessary insn
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-11 17:05 --- Bernd, do you believe this is taken care of by the reload branch? -- What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15265
[Bug tree-optimization/23329] hack in may_propagate_copy should be able to removed
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-11 17:13 --- I don't think the hack should be removed until a verifier is committed, otherwise we could still get wrong code for other yet-to-be-fixed cases. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23329
[Bug c/23344] RFE: explicit section attribute disables the unused static const optimization
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-11 22:50 --- Yes, the concept of used and put in a specific section should be kept separate. I'm sure that it might be overloaded for specific variables in specific applications, but I can very well think of cases where static variables put in specific sections because of embedded system oddities become really unused because of preprocessor stripping of features from the code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23344
[Bug inline-asm/11807] GCC should error out when clobbering the stack pointer and frame pointer
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-10
11:25 ---
Small testcase from PR 23313, showing ICE on invalid:
-
int main(){
int i;
asm (
xorl %%ebp, %%ebp\n\t
movl %0, %%ebp\n\t
:: m (i)
: %ebp
);
return 0;
}
-
This makes this PR a bug, not simply an enhancement.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11807
[Bug middle-end/22439] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE with char VLA and __SIZE_TYPE__ argument (so no cast)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-10 13:49 --- No testcase was added, so reopening this until the testcase is committed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22439
[Bug c++/23316] Unused copy constructor can't be private
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-10 13:52 --- Please read: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23316
[Bug middle-end/23290] Layout changed for structure with single complex field
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-09 23:12 --- So, using limit 0 for when calculating the integer mode for the size would fix the regression on sh? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23290
[Bug c++/16002] [3.4 regression] Strange error message with new parser
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-28 10:24 --- Fixed also for GCC 3.4.5. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16002
[Bug c++/17413] [3.4 regression] local classes as template argument
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-28 10:24 --- Fixed also for GCC 3.4.5. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17413
[Bug c++/18124] [3.4 regression] ICE with invalid template template parameter
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-28 10:25 --- Fixed also for GCC 3.4.5. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18124
[Bug c++/18155] [3.4 regression] typedef in template declaration not rejected
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-28 10:25 --- Fixed also for GCC 3.4.5. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18155
[Bug c++/18378] [3.4 Regression] ICE when returning a copy of a packed member
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-28 10:26 --- Fixed also for GCC 3.4.5. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18378
[Bug target/19885] [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-27 08:54 --- Bjorn, do you have a copyright assignment filed with the FSF? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885
[Bug target/19885] [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-27 08:56 --- This is the patch RTH already approved for head and 4.0: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01899.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885
[Bug target/19885] [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-27 23:37 --- Fixed for GCC 4.0.2 and GCC 4.1.0. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885
[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section
-- Bug 17994 depends on bug 19885, which changed state. Bug 19885 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |WAITING Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994
[Bug target/19087] Overflowed address in dwarf debug line information
-- Bug 19087 depends on bug 19885, which changed state. Bug 19885 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |WAITING Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19087
[Bug target/17993] Error in dwarf2 debug output of bitfield members
-- Bug 17993 depends on bug 19885, which changed state. Bug 19885 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |WAITING Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17993
[Bug c++/19932] [3.4 Regression] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.jason/rfg12.C (test for excess errors)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-26 09:46 --- What is the value of 'type' when error() is called? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19932
[Bug c++/18462] [3.4 Regression] Segfault on declaration of large array member
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-26 16:39 --- The testcase in PR18602 does not cause a segfault anymore for GCC 3.4 CVS. Is this bug fixed then? Or do we need a new testcase? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18462
[Bug c++/19208] [3.4 Regression] Spurious error about variably modified type
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-25 20:41 --- Patch posted for 3.4: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01653.html -- What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- ||patches/2005- ||07/msg01653.html http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19208
[Bug c++/19208] [3.4 Regression] Spurious error about variably modified type
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-25 21:13 --- Fixed in GCC 3.4.5 too. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19208
[Bug c++/21232] [3.4 Regression] g++ segfaults
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-25 21:43 --- Works for me too on today's 3.4 branch. No feedback in 3 months. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||WORKSFORME http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21232
[Bug c++/17655] [3.4 regression] ICE with using a C99 initializer in an if-condition
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-25 22:17 --- Downgrading to normal. This is a bug in a C++ extension (borrowed from C99) which has been broken since 3.0. The bug appears to be in the FINISH_COND macro which does not seem ready to handle the additional TAG_DEFN tree which appeared in the statement list. The result is that the IF_STMT is built with TAG_DEFN as condition (and the real condition is lost!). But I'm clueless about how this should be fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17655
[Bug c++/22635] OVERLOAD should not be a linked list of trees
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-24 12:40 --- Can you measure how much memory do all the overload nodes take in the big testcases? Theoretically, an OVERLOAD could measure 8 bytes or so (on 32 bit systems). So we currently waste more than 100 bytes per each node, but if there are not so many of them it is not important. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22635
[Bug target/22577] [4.1 Regression] PA bootstrap fails
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-23 21:37 --- Thanks Steve! -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22577
[Bug c++/15938] ICE with anonymous unions
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21
13:18 ---
=
typedef union
{
struct { int i; };
struct { char c; };
} A;
A a = { 0 };
A b = {{ 0 }};
A c = {{{ 0 }}}; // { dg-error braces }
=
pr15938.cc:9: error: braces around scalar initializer for type 'int'
I believe everything is correct.
Volker, would you mind committing this testcase and closing this bug?
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
[Bug c++/22588] lookup error in template base class (regression/works in 3.3)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21 13:28 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22588
[Bug c++/15938] ICE with anonymous unions
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21
15:32 ---
It might indeed be obsolete code: I don't think you can currently create an
union (or a record) with only unnamed fields. If you want to purse this
further, you could regtest changing this:
if (!field)
{
error (union %qT with no named members cannot be initialized,
type);
ce-value = error_mark_node;
}
with gcc_assert (field);. Which will probably succeed, as there are no
occurrences of this error message in my last g++.log.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
[Bug c++/22591] std::swap() followed by list::erase() produces incorrect list::begin()
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21 16:59 --- It would greatly help to identify the patch that broke either this PR or PR 22513. One possible offender is the new alias stuff by Diego/Daniel. -- What|Removed |Added CC||janis at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22591
[Bug tree-optimization/22564] [4.1 Regression] Compilation time increased about 11%
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-20 08:15 --- Of course: March 1st is when GCC went back to Stage 1. There have been dozen and dozen of projects contributed for GCC 4.1, and probably some still require tuning. The best way to attack this is to find and analyze *specific* regressions. Would you please submit a couple of preprocessed sources which clearly show a compile time increase? -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22564
[Bug c/22565] GCC 3.4.1 Complex cast error in a kernel module compilation
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-20 09:53 --- Try again with GCC 3.4.4, and come back to us. You should always try the latest version of the compiler line you're using, otherwise we could all be wasting time on the bug report. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22565
[Bug tree-optimization/22564] [4.1 Regression] Compilation time increased about 11%
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-20 17:32 --- OK thanks. But let me stress one point: IMHO the graphs suggest that the daily bugfixes increased the compilation time day after day. In those days, we added something like 20 new projects to GCC (new optimization passes, algorithms and features). So it is kind of normal that new passes slow down the compiler day after day. Nonetheless, if you find specific testcases, we can probably optimize compile time here and there to compensate the general intrinsic slowdown. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22564
[Bug c++/22573] typedef in class scope not reported by error message
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-20 18:22 --- Absolutely not! There is no best way: sometimes it is better to go through the typedef, sometimes it is better to print the typedef. To tell you the truth, I consider the fact that GCC prints both a *feature*. However, we should decide whether the inconsistency is a bug. Gaby? -- What|Removed |Added CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22573
[Bug target/22577] [4.1 Regression] PA bootstrap fails
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21 01:01 --- Created an attachment (id=9313) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9313action=view) Proposed patch Can you test this patch please? -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |giovannibajo at libero dot |dot org |it Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22577
[Bug c++/15938] ICE with anonymous unions
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21 01:51 --- Yes, it's because of my patch. I would like to know if we agree that the code is invalid or not. It's a bit hard to have a definitive answer since it is GNU C++ (uses an extension), but given that the C frontend accepts it, I don't see why we should reject it. In which case, this bug can be closed as fixed. -- What|Removed |Added CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org, ||nathan at gcc dot gnu dot ||org AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse dot de |giovannibajo at libero dot ||it http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15938
[Bug c++/22575] immutable object placed in .bss section.
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-21 02:08 --- Does ICC put this in .rodata? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22575
[Bug tree-optimization/22504] [4.1 Regression] benchmark - galgel fails at runtime with miscompare output
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-16 09:52 --- I guess a reduced testcase might help. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22504
[Bug c++/22513] [4.0 regression] Miscompilation of std::list code in Boost.
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-16 19:15 --- Might be latent in HEAD -- What|Removed |Added CC||giovannibajo at libero dot ||it http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22513
[Bug fortran/20063] n*'xxxx' disables padding
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-09 15:48 --- This will likely change to an ICE in varasm.c after my CONSTRUCTOR patch goes in. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20063
[Bug c++/22355] Multiple local static variables initialization: missed optimization opportunity
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-07 20:52 --- I think Andres is right: what if C's constructor calls f() (only the first time it is invoked)? I believe this bug is invalid. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22355
[Bug c++/22354] g++ accepts specializiation without declaration
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-07 23:01 --- Notice that this is just a QoI issue, as the standard explicitly says that no diagnostic is required for this violation. Marking as enhancement. -- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords||diagnostic http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22354
[Bug c++/20746] [4.0 only] Incorrect return value for covariant return function returning null ptr
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-06 22:35 --- I reopen the bug so we don't forget about this for 4.0.2. Stephen, to clarify: we know that this is indeed a bug, and this is why it *was* fixed for 4.1. The fact is that the 4.0 serie is already out so we usually just consider regression fixes for it (that is, patches which fix problems appeared in 4.0 which were not present before). Since the code you provided never worked on any version of GCC, we assume it could wait another iteration up to 4.1. Anyway, Mark already approved it for 4.0.2 as an exception to the rule, so the fix will be present in that version. -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | Summary|Incorrect return value for |[4.0 only] Incorrect return |covariant return function |value for covariant return |returning null ptr |function returning null ptr Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20746
[Bug rtl-optimization/17692] [4.0/4.1? Regression] gcc -O hangs on glnxa64
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-07 00:20 --- Thus, we have a regression in 4.0. The regression does not show in 4.1, but it's unclear whether it was fixed or it is just hidden by the different code produced with the new tree passes. The compile-time-hog with 3.3 does not matter at this point, as 3.3 is unsupported. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Keywords|compile-time-hog|ice-on-valid-code Known to fail||4.0.1 Known to work||3.4.4 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-07-07 00:20:28 date|| Summary|gcc -O hangs on glnxa64 |[4.0/4.1? Regression] gcc -O ||hangs on glnxa64 Target Milestone|--- |4.0.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17692
[Bug tree-optimization/21963] [4.1 Regression] ICE (seg fault) with -m64 (in IV-OPTS)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-05 23:16 --- Zdenek, is the patch still valid? If so, maybe it's time to ping it? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963
[Bug tree-optimization/21963] [4.1 Regression] ICE (seg fault) with -m64 (in IV-OPTS)
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-05 23:17 --- Approved here already: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00293.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21963
[Bug target/22289] problem in gimp downscaling routines when compiling with -mfpmath=sse
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-04 15:34 --- To produce a testcase, you could try extracting the routine that is miscompiled and attach it to this bug (in a compilable form, so preprocessed with all needed headers). I believe the GIMP folk can help you with this. It might be that the bug is visible by just looking at the assembly code generated by the compiler (-S). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22289
[Bug middle-end/22276] [4.1 regression] bootstrap failure on i686-pc-mingw32
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-02 11:00 --- Provide a preprocessed testcase, this bug might be target-independent. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22276
[Bug tree-optimization/22279] [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-02 19:10 --- Can we get a preprocessed/reduced source? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22279
[Bug c++/22248] Incorrect work with multiple assigment.
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-30 17:58 --- Also you could simply use std::swap as Gaby suggested. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22248
[Bug middle-end/22253] [4.1 Regression] ICE while compiling libjava/gnu/gcj/xlib/natWindow.cc
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-30 18:08 --- I wonder why it's not caught by a tree verifier then. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22253
[Bug tree-optimization/22212] [4.1 Regression] SEGV in is_gimple_variable during loop-ivopts while building Ada RTS
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-30 18:09 --- It does. -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||21963 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22212
[Bug c++/22248] Incorrect work with multiple assigment.
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-30 18:27 --- It's there: -Wsequence-point, which is also enabled by -Wall. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22248
[Bug fortran/22210] gfc_conv_array_initializer weirdness
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-29 22:04 --- Created an attachment (id=9175) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9175action=view) Current CONSTRUCTOR patch As per Steven's request in private mail, I attach the current patch to make CONSTRUCTOR use VECs. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22210
[Bug fortran/22210] New: gfc_conv_array_initializer weirdness
There seems to be something weird going on in gfc_conv_array_initializer. In
the EXPR_ARRAY case, the code builds both an index and a range. Then,
optionally, it adds both of them to the constructor list being built. This is
strange: I would expect either of them to be added, but not both.
A testcase which triggers this behaviour is execute/data.f90. I caught this by
adding this additional verification hunk in varasm.c (but my tree is not clean
so I am not sure this is enough):
*** output_constructor (tree exp, unsigned H
*** 4089,4094
--- 4109,4115
if each element has the proper size. */
if ((field != 0 || index != 0) pos != total_bytes)
{
+ gcc_assert (pos = total_bytes);
assemble_zeros (pos - total_bytes);
total_bytes = pos;
}
*** output_constructor (tree exp, unsigned H
*** 4164,4169
--- 4185,4191
/* If still not at proper byte, advance to there. */
if (next_offset / BITS_PER_UNIT != total_bytes)
{
+ gcc_assert (next_offset / BITS_PER_UNIT = total_bytes);
assemble_zeros (next_offset / BITS_PER_UNIT - total_bytes);
total_bytes = next_offset / BITS_PER_UNIT;
}
Also, gfc_conv_array_initializer, in the EXPR_CONSTANT/EXPR_STRUCTURE case,
contains some code which builts a repeated initializer by hand. It looks like
it would be easier but much more memory friendly to just use a RANGE_EXPR.
Steven asked me to assign this to him. This is part of my work to make
CONSTRUCTOR use VECs (actually, it's the only issue left AFAICT).
--
Summary: gfc_conv_array_initializer weirdness
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: stevenb at suse dot de
ReportedBy: giovannibajo at libero dot it
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22210
[Bug c++/21799] [4.0/4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with pointers to members
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-22 01:24 --- For mainline, my patch has to be reworked as suggested by Jason in the review. It is not a difficult work, but I am working on another couple of big patches so don't hold your breath. As for the release branches, my patch might be acceptable there if and only if we decide that Nathan's patch can't be backed up. In which case, Nathan can probably both decide what to do with his patch, and re-review my patch for PR 8271 just for the 4.0 release branch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21799
[Bug c/8268] no compile time array index checking
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-21 00:10 --- Doesn't -fmudflap handle this? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8268
[Bug c++/21799] [4.1 regression] Spurious ambiguity with pointers to members
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-21 00:19 --- Does my patch for 8271 fix this bug? If so, whatever caused this might just have exposed the problem, and fixing 8271 would fix this as well. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21799
[Bug tree-optimization/22100] [4.1 regression] internal compiler error: in tree_verify_flow_info
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-06-18 10:43 --- Confirmed. Not fixed by RTH's recent patch to fix vectorizer failures, but still most likely related to Honza's patch to kill RBI. -- What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org, ||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22100
