--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 06:54 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Here is a case where we do have to evaluate at run time. So maybe we can not
do what is proposed above.
Well, I understood the request such that one passes a boolean for the 'YES' /
'NO'
--- Comment #3 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 08:02 ---
Mine
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-09-21 08:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] New LTO test failures
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #15 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 00:44
---
Similar errors on
Hi,
I'm building gcc 4.5.1 and I encounter the below error:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gmp/mpn/sb_div_q.o differs
mpfr/get_d.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/IEK2/gcc-4.5.1-build'
This
Between revisions 164405 (working) and 164451, compiling the following code on
*-apple-darwin* gives an ICE:
[macbook] f90/bug% cat pr32083_1_red.f90
PROGRAM TestInfinite
integer(8) :: bit_pattern_NegInf_i8 = -4503599627370496_8
integer(8) :: i
real(8):: r
r =
--
iek at c-w dot be changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45737
--- Comment #4 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 08:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=21854)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21854action=view)
Patch that fixes the problem
Here's the patch I'm testing. Turns out it's not enough to take only the
second
--- Comment #1 from iek at c-w dot be 2010-09-21 08:55 ---
Forgot to mention:
GMP 4.3.2
MPFR 3.0.0
MPC 0.8.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45737
--- Comment #2 from iek at c-w dot be 2010-09-21 09:10 ---
And GNU make 3.80
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45737
--- Comment #4 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:19 ---
Mine. It's something wrong in combine, causing the cmp insn to be deleted as
trivially dead.
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:20 ---
Any idea what could be done from the gfortran side? Without being able to
reproduce it, it is a bit difficult to debug :-(
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:28 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Similar fails:
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O0 (test for warnings, line 69)
FAIL: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
--- Comment #8 from urbanjost at comcast dot net 2010-09-21 09:34 ---
Subject: Re: WRITE of NAMELIST group to internal file contains newline
characters
Per some discussions today, there were apparently different versions on some
of the nodes I was using, ranging from 4.3.4 to 4.6.0
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:52
---
Subject: Bug 45580
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 21 09:52:00 2010
New Revision: 164474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164474
Log:
2010-09-21 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:53
---
ICE fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|paolo dot carlini at oracle |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|dot com
--- Comment #5 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=21855)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21855action=view)
Patch that fixes the problem
cse was losing track of cc0 set/use because of intervening debug insns. Anyone
got
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:12 ---
The following is miscompiled since ever (and also ICC miscompiles it), so
I'm not sure if it is valid to use 'f' to refer to the Bar object.
namespace std {
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
}
inline void* operator
Testcase:
#include emmintrin.h
__m128i foo;
int main()
{
foo = _mm_xor_si128(_mm_setzero_si128(), foo);
return 0;
}
Resulting Assembly (with -O3):
pxor%xmm0, %xmm0
xorl%eax, %eax
pxorfoo(%rip), %xmm0
movdqa %xmm0, foo(%rip)
ret
Expected Result:
since any value xor zero does
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:15
---
Target: sparc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/ebotcazou/src-4.4/configure --build=sparc-linux-gnu
--prefix=/home/ebotcazou/install-4.4 --enable-languages=c,ada
--with-cpu=ultrasparc
Thread model: posix
gcc
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:25 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from t7 at gmail dot com 2010-09-21 10:28 ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #0)
Hi,
(i first reported this to mingw32-w64's bug tracker:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3067541group_id=202880atid=983354
and was forwarded here)
Kai has posted a patch
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:29 ---
this should be fixed by patch introducing static_object_in_other_unit_p.
However it seems bit strange that we can get into VAR_DECL not in a varpool by
folding. I know this is possible for vtables and type infos,
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:47 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:47 ---
Subject: Bug 45704
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 21 10:47:28 2010
New Revision: 164475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164475
Log:
2010-09-21 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #19 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 11:12 ---
Can you provide a .i file for which this is reproducible with a cross compiler?
Before/after -fdump-rtl-ira dumps and assembly files could also be helpful.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #20 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-21 11:30 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Can you provide a .i file for which this is reproducible with a cross
compiler?
Before/after -fdump-rtl-ira dumps and assembly files could also be helpful.
I'm leaving in a couple of
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-21 12:23 ---
It is caused by revision 164438:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00734.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 12:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=21856)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21856action=view)
gcc46-pr45739.patch
Fix. For further optimizations (like vector A | ~0, A | ~A, A ^ ~0, A ~0), I
guess we'd need
From Fortran 2008:
C549 An entity with the PROTECTED attribute shall be a procedure pointer or
variable.
C551 A nonpointer object that has the PROTECTED attribute and is accessed by
use association shall not appear in a variable definition context (16.6.7) or
as the data-target or proc-target in
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 12:37 ---
Another issue besides comment 5 is the following program (from PR 45740), which
gives an ICE.
Actually, I am not quite sure the example is valid as p2's target is not
known at compile time.
module m
--- Comment #6 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:01 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thus, I would say middle-end? However, certainly doesn't happen on Linux, for
some reason... Honza, in case please recategorize.
This happens also on i686-darwin9 at m32 m64.
However, it
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44495
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44945
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45054
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:17
---
Hm, fixed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45250
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45251
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:24 ---
Still broken?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:32 ---
Probably another callee-copy thing. Needs investigation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45491
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:34 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45562
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45563
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45565
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:37 ---
Not a bug; all these testcases (should) have undefined behavior. I'm working
on clarifying the standard to that end. This is related to
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#1116
and on the C
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:47 ---
TODO: Check whether the code is really invalid - C551 talks only about
nonpointers, but it also talks about proc-target - which only applies to
procedures and the PROTECTED only applies per C549 to variables and
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:52 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
procedure(), pointer :: ptr3 = p2
I now believe that this is invalid (all quotes are F2008):
R505 initialization is [...] or = initial-data-target
R443 initial-data-target is
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 13:56 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 14:00 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45687
--- Comment #9 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 14:13 ---
Subject: Bug 45645
Author: iains
Date: Tue Sep 21 14:12:58 2010
New Revision: 164479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164479
Log:
2010-09-21 Jonathan Wakely r...@gcc.gnu.org
Jack
--- Comment #29 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 14:19 ---
Subject: Bug 45678
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 21 14:18:34 2010
New Revision: 164480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164480
Log:
PR middle-end/45678
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1)
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 14:19 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
TODO: Check whether the code is really invalid
I have now asked at J3,
cf. http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2010-September/thread.html
--
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 14:39
---
Fixed on the 4.4 branch:
LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: branches/gcc-4_4-branch revision 164288
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
--- Comment #3 from ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 14:40 ---
Which architecture/cpu are you wanting to build for? I'm not sure what the
default is. If you can specify that when you configure, and then post the
outcome of the build, that would be helpful.
--
ibolton at
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-21 14:46 ---
It is caused by revision 162911:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00122.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-21 14:54 ---
It is caused by revision 162911:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-08/msg00122.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2010-09-21 14:59 ---
https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=gcc-snapshot
yes, 20100918 still fails to build:
--
doko at ubuntu dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 15:09
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 15:11 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created an attachment (id=21855)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21855action=view) [edit]
Patch that fixes the problem
cse was losing track of cc0 set/use because of
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-21
15:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/01_assoc_laguerre/check_nan.cc
Hm, fixed?
It's fixed on the target. I left it open because I wasn't sure whether
the
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 15:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=21857)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21857action=view)
Same patch, just s/0/NULL_RTX/ in two places.
As mentioned plus one more place.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rafael dot carre at gmail dot com 2010-09-21 15:20
---
Same output with -mcpu=arm926ej-s or -mcpu=arm7tdmi
What did you mean with when I configure ? I posted gcc -v output, should I
rebuild gcc with a specific option?
I build with
--- Comment #1 from ibolton at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 15:30 ---
Unfortunately, LTO does not officially work on ARM yet. There are many LTO
failures in the gcc testsuite at the moment.
Can you retry without LTO so we can diagnose the interworking problems?
--
ibolton at gcc
--- Comment #30 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 16:30 ---
Subject: Bug 45678
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 21 16:30:21 2010
New Revision: 164486
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164486
Log:
PR middle-end/45678
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1)
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 16:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=21858)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21858action=view)
Same patch, just gunzipped this time. :)
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #31 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 16:42 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
I misunderstood you. I thought you said 'anybody,' and so I supposed
'anybody' included--well, anybody; that is, everybody. It
doth--anybody
that is of lofty birth; and the better if he be royal. That, it
meseemeth, might well be, said the abbot, who saw his opportunity to
smooth things and avert
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:08 ---
This is the full backtrace:
#0 0x081e945d in cp_build_unary_op (code=ADDR_EXPR, xarg=0xb76d0dac,
noconvert=0, complain=3)
at /home/mjambor/gcc/icln/gcc/cp/typeck.c:5091
#1 0x080d10b3 in build_this
Command line:
$ gcc testcase.c
$ cat testcase.c
static const int data[2048];
void foo (void *ptr)
{
__builtin_memcmp (data, ptr, 1);
}
Relevant valgrind output:
$ valgrind --trace-children=yes
/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-164484-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/bin/gcc
testcase.c
==13187==
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:14 ---
*** Bug 45563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:14 ---
The same patch works for both bugs so I assume they are duplicates.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45572 ***
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=21859)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21859action=view)
Proposed fix.
I'm testing this fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45572
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
GCC target triplet|
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-21 17:37 ---
It is caused by revision 164438:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00734.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #30 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-09-21 17:55
---
More correctly (in the meanwhile went through a exchange at the beginning of
this year), Howard stores the hash, which boils down to a memory requirement
similar to that of the traditional doubly linked list
--- Comment #12 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 17:58 ---
Subject: Bug 45694
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Sep 21 17:58:32 2010
New Revision: 164489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164489
Log:
2010-09-21 Kai Tietz kai.ti...@onevision.com
PR
--- Comment #10 from nicola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 18:51 ---
Subject: Bug 25965
Author: nicola
Date: Tue Sep 21 18:51:34 2010
New Revision: 164491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164491
Log:
PR objc/25965
In gcc/objc/:
* objc-act.c
--- Comment #11 from nicola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 18:52 ---
Patch applied to trunk.
Thanks
--
nicola at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 19:04 ---
Subject: Bug 45648
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Sep 21 19:04:09 2010
New Revision: 164494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164494
Log:
2010-09-21 Mikael Morin mik...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #13 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 19:05 ---
Subject: Bug 45694
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Sep 21 19:05:18 2010
New Revision: 164495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164495
Log:
2010-09-21 Kai Tietz kai.ti...@onevision.com
PR
--- Comment #14 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 19:09 ---
Issue fixed on mainline and backported to 4.5 branch
--
ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-21
20:40 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] New LTO test failures
Similar errors on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Excess errors are:
cc1: error: LTO support has not been enabled in this configuration
cc1: error:
--- Comment #3 from nicola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 20:47 ---
Subject: Bug 23710
Author: nicola
Date: Tue Sep 21 20:47:04 2010
New Revision: 164497
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164497
Log:
PR objc/23710
In gcc/:
* c-family/c-common.h
--- Comment #4 from nicola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 20:48 ---
Fix committed to trunk.
Thanks
--
nicola at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 20:52 ---
The changes.html patch went in a while ago; I'm leaving open PR 43132 for
remaining issues but closing this one.
--
rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 20:56 ---
trunk is fixed by r163993, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-09/msg00285.html
--
rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 20:58 ---
Please send patches to the gcc-patches list, in the usual format and with all
information attached as per http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html. You might
want to consider wrapping lines so neither source file nor
i...@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Compare cat op.f90
program main
integer, volatile :: j
if (jj) call notfound
end program main
i...@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Compare gfortran op.f90
i...@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Compare
The call to notfound should not be elided.
--
Summary: VOLATILE not honored
--- Comment #9 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 21:26 ---
Subject: Bug 41085
Author: hp
Date: Tue Sep 21 21:25:57 2010
New Revision: 164498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164498
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/41085
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 21:26 ---
Subject: Bug 45051
Author: hp
Date: Tue Sep 21 21:25:57 2010
New Revision: 164498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164498
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/41085
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #10 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 21:30 ---
.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #9 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 21:44 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Created an attachment (id=21858)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21858action=view) [edit]
It fixes the bug with no regressions for r164480.
Thanks!
--
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 21:45
---
Java is severely broken on sparc64-linux with gcc 4.5/4.6, which is a major
regression from 4.4:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/msg00853.html (4.6 broken)
The ICE message is similiar to PR45076 and PR45733, but this might be different
problem.
Compiler output:
$ gfortran -O -finline-small-functions whole_file_3.f90
whole_file_3.f90:17.71:
call PHLOAD (R, 1) ! { dg-error Missing alternate return spec }
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 23:33 ---
Subject: Bug 45739
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 21 23:33:01 2010
New Revision: 164501
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164501
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/45739
* simplify-rtx.c
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo