--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 06:10
---
(In reply to comment #2)
We should actually emit DW_AT_calling_convention for the main program.
We currently correctly emit DW_AT_calling_convention.
The DW_AT_entry_point attribute is for alternate entries,
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 12:49
---
Subject: Bug 40327
Author: rearnsha
Date: Sat Jun 13 12:49:25 2009
New Revision: 148452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148452
Log:
PR target/40327
* arm/constraints.md (Pa,
--- Comment #5 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:04
---
fixed
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from vovata at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 13:23 ---
Hello,
It works for me, to bootstrap GCC 4.3.3 on AIX 5.3
Regards,
vladimir penev
(In reply to comment #12)
Maybe you are running out of native heap. Try with something like:
export LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA=0x4000
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:56 ---
Thanks. I'll have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:57 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 13:58 ---
I guess the types used for builtins are not properly unified with the
streamed in types?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40410
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
Component|fortran
--- Comment #15 from tammer at tammer dot net 2009-06-13 14:18 ---
Hello,
OK I will try gcc 4.3.3.
Please could you be so kind and post your complete configure call + additional
env settings (if set) ?
Thanks in advance.
Bye
Rainer
--
--- Comment #93 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 14:18
---
I would say that was the new SRA.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 14:38 ---
I have a fix.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 15:52 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Changing
type :: polarization_t
logical :: polarized = .false.
integer :: spin_type = 0
integer :: multiplicity = 0
type(state_matrix_t) :: state
end type
Hello
line 14 of the attached code does compile fine on gcc 4.4.0, although it should
not according to 8.3.5p5 (pair(pair __p):
first(std::move(__p.first)),second(std::move(__p.second)) { } get triggered -
afaik this no exception to the rule)
Is this a bug or am I missing something?
Thank you
--- Comment #9 from bart dot vanassche at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 16:23
---
(In reply to comment #7)
The patch below is sufficient to suppress all conflicting accesses reported by
DRD. I've done my best to ensure that this patch is not only sufficient but
also minimal. Although Jakub
--- Comment #1 from d3607773 at bsnow dot net 2009-06-13 16:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=17991)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17991action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40434
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Summary|g++ does not obey 8.3.5p5?! |[C++0x] g++
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 17:02
---
Subject: Bug 40389
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jun 13 17:02:17 2009
New Revision: 148458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148458
Log:
2009-06-13 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 17:08 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40359
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:14 ---
Actually -rpath is worse than LD_LIBRARY_PATH. And in this case it is not
GCC's fault for where you installed mpfr/gmp that you need to set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:16 ---
Can you supply the preprocessed source?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:17 ---
This is expected as -E really just preproesses the source and does not tokenize
the code that much.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:18 ---
Oh and the tokenizer happens during preprocessing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40369
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:21 ---
Isn't this known by Fortran/C developers already? Does this belong in manual
really because this is standard Fortran/C issues?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40377
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:23 ---
As mentioned, this is not a regression, just new testcase changing the summary
and removing the target milestone.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:29 ---
This is expected because long double is only 80bits (only 64bits for
significand), so adding one to unsigned long's max (64bit) will cause a
rounding to happen.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:30
---
So, if I see correctly the issue only manifests itself if we elide the copy?
The C++ FE seems to unconditionally set TREE_ADDRESSABLE on the LHS.
Stripping down the fix to only apply if TREE_ADDRESSABLE is set
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:32 ---
This sounds like ASM_COMMENT_START is not defined for crx-elf.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40424
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:33 ---
Yep that is the issue.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
|
On Linux/ia32, revision 148455 gave
FAIL: gcc.dg/Wshadow-3.c (test for warnings, line 47)
FAIL: gcc.dg/Wshadow-3.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/func-ptr-conv-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/func-ptr-conv-1.c bad conversion (test for warnings, line 40)
FAIL:
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 20:22 ---
It may be caused by revision 148438:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00418.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 20:27 ---
Or revision 148442:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00422.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from vovata at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 20:31 ---
Hello,
I configured with:
../gcc-4.3.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local/4.3.3 --enable-shared
--enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libunwind-exceptions
--- Comment #3 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 21:28 ---
Wshadow-3.c and pr36902.c are definitely mine. My original request for
approval indicated that these were problems with fold being location agnostic,
and that I would be addressing the issues post merge. The
Rev 147852, which claims (according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00812.html) to improve code size,
really makes things worse by ~0.5% for ARM, thumb and thumb2 code when building
CSiBE.
--
Summary: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by
Rev 147852, which claims (according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00812.html) to improve code size,
really makes things worse by ~0.5% for ARM, thumb and thumb2 code when building
CSiBE.
--
Summary: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:51 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 40436 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:51 ---
*** Bug 40437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:58
---
Subject: Bug 40389
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jun 13 22:58:13 2009
New Revision: 148462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148462
Log:
2009-06-14 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:58
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:07 ---
Hmm, the measurements are most likely on x86 which might have slight
differences when it comes to code size differences than arm.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:10
---
For ARM -Os 114 files in CSiBE increase in size (total increase 21449 bytes)
20 files decrease in size (total decreases 1039 bytes); over all increase 20410
bytes)
Worst single increase is from bzip2/compress
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Keywords|
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:45 ---
I would still like to know why these constants can't be lowered earlier.
Exposing the split-up insns may allow CSE to do a better job, etc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40327
--- Comment #5 from oleg_dolomanov at hotmail dot com 2009-06-14 00:49
---
It is an open source project..
So just get it from the svn:
https://olex2.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/olex2/trunk
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40365
--- Comment #33 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 00:59
---
Patch tested on Cygwin and submitted for approval. Need a tester for mingw.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32784
--- 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
--- 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
in
54 matches
Mail list logo
