public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably
@ 2004-07-18 22:33 steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-07-18 22:43 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (8 more replies)
  0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-18 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

$ cat t.i 
int i[2]; 
$ gcc-c4x t.i 
t.i:1: error: size of array `i' is too large 
$ gcc-c4x 
gcc-c4x (GCC) 3.5.0 20040718 (experimental) 
 
Seems like this pretty much inhibits real-world use of 
this compiler :-) 
 
It was suggested that this is libcpp using HOST_WIDE_INT, 
but I've put the bug in `target' for now anyway until we 
understand the problem better.

-- 
           Summary: C4x fails miserably
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i686-suse-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: c4x-unknown-elf


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-18 22:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27  0:36 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (7 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-18 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-07-18 22:43 -------
Zack you had said that libcpp should not dependent on HOST_WIDE_INT, here is the bug filed for that 
since it effects C4x.

Confirmed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |zack at gcc dot gnu dot org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|target                      |preprocessor
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
           Keywords|                            |rejects-valid
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2004-07-18 22:43:35
               date|                            |
            Summary|C4x fails miserably         |[3.5 Regression] C4x fails
                   |                            |miserably
   Target Milestone|---                         |3.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-07-18 22:43 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27  0:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27  0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 00:36 -------
Any news on this bug, it has been opened for a while now (4 months) and no news about it.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-07-18 22:43 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27  0:36 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 18:44 -------
libcpp no longer uses HOST_WIDE_INT. 
 
The computation which leads to the error is done in c-decl.c in "target 
arithmetic" as follows: 
 
                    /* Compute the maximum valid index, that is, size 
                       - 1.  Do the calculation in index_type, so that 
                       if it is a variable the computations will be 
                       done in the proper mode.  */ 
                    itype = fold (build2 (MINUS_EXPR, index_type, 
                                          convert (index_type, size), 
                                          convert (index_type, 
                                                   size_one_node))); 
 
                    /* If that overflowed, the array is too big.  ??? 
                       While a size of INT_MAX+1 technically shouldn't 
                       cause an overflow (because we subtract 1), the 
                       overflow is recorded during the conversion to 
                       index_type, before the subtraction.  Handling 
                       this case seems like an unnecessary 
                       complication.  */ 
                    if (TREE_OVERFLOW (itype)) 
                      { 
                        error ("size of array %qs is too large", name); 
                        type = error_mark_node; 
                        continue; 
                      } 
 
This looks OK. 
 
Steven, can you possibly check to see whether this bug still exists in 
mainline? 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 19:13 -------
Yes libcpp still uses HOST_WIDE_INT:
include/cpplib.h:typedef unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cpp_num_part;

plus we use cpp_num_part all over the place in libcpp.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 19:15 -------
But again ways this is now fixed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 20:10 -------
Have you actually verified that this is fixed?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
  2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-11-27 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2004-11-27 20:13 -------
Reopening until someone builds a C4x compiler and test it first-hand.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-27 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-27 20:14 -------
Yes I did verify it was fixed:
[zhivago:gcc/objdir-c4x/gcc] pinskia% cat t.c
int i[2]; 
[zhivago:gcc/objdir-c4x/gcc] pinskia% ./cc1 -version t.c
GNU C version 4.0.0 20041126 (experimental) (c4x-unknown-elf)
        compiled by GNU C version 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1495).
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
options passed: 
options enabled:  -falign-loops -fargument-alias -fbranch-count-reg
 -fcommon -feliminate-unused-debug-types -ffinite-math-only -ffunction-cse
 -fgcse-lm -fident -fivopts -fkeep-static-consts -fleading-underscore
 -floop-optimize2 -fpeephole -freg-struct-return -fsched-interblock
 -fsched-spec -fsched-stalled-insns-dep -fsplit-ivs-in-unroller
 -ftree-loop-im -ftree-loop-ivcanon -ftree-loop-optimize
 -funsafe-math-optimizations -fvar-tracking -fzero-initialized-in-bss
 -mrptb -m40 -mparallel-insns -mparallel-mpy -maliases

Execution times (seconds)
 parser                :   0.01 (33%) usr   0.00 ( 0%) sys   0.02 (10%) wall
 symout                :   0.00 ( 0%) usr   0.01 (25%) sys   0.01 ( 5%) wall
 TOTAL                 :   0.03             0.04             0.21
Extra diagnostic checks enabled; compiler may run slowly.
Configure with --disable-checking to disable checks.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably
  2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (7 preceding siblings ...)
  2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: zack at codesourcery dot com @ 2004-11-27 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com  2004-11-27 20:25 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] C4x fails miserably


I have no plans to do anything about this bug.  Someone who cares
about C4x should look at it.

zw


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16621


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-27 20:25 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-18 22:33 [Bug target/16621] New: C4x fails miserably steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-18 22:43 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27  0:36 ` [Bug preprocessor/16621] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 18:44 ` neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 19:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 19:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:10 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:13 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-11-27 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-27 20:25 ` zack at codesourcery dot com

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).