* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-01 8:32 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-01 8:44 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (20 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-01 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-01 08:32 -------
Hi. Can you have a quick look at what is going on outside the testsuite? (as
usual, just change testsuite_hooks.h to cassert and any VERIFY to assert). For
reference, on a P4-2400/linux running the test takes around 1/4 of sec, therefore
I suspect something is going seriously wrong in the compiler... But, if it's just
a matter of making the testcase a little simpler (on the border of timing out on
those platforms), not a big deal, just let me know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-01 8:32 ` [Bug libstdc++/23667] " pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-01 8:44 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-02 16:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (19 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-01 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-01 8:32 ` [Bug libstdc++/23667] " pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-01 8:44 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-02 16:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2005-09-02 16:17 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (18 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2005-09-02 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-09-02 16:12 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression]
tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> Hi. Can you have a quick look at what is going on outside the testsuite? (as
> usual, just change testsuite_hooks.h to cassert and any VERIFY to assert). For
> reference, on a P4-2400/linux running the test takes around 1/4 of sec, therefore
> I suspect something is going seriously wrong in the compiler... But, if it's just
> a matter of making the testcase a little simpler (on the border of timing out on
> those platforms), not a big deal, just let me know.
Running outside the testsuite, it appears to hang (taking at least 3min)
on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, whereas by comparison on the same machine but
configured for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 (32-bit rather than 64-bit) it takes
19s user time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 16:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2005-09-02 16:17 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-02 16:38 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (17 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-02 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-02 16:16 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Running outside the testsuite, it appears to hang (taking at least 3min)
> on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, whereas by comparison on the same machine but
> configured for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 (32-bit rather than 64-bit) it takes
> 19s user time.
I see. Everthing considered, I will make the testcase simpler, at least 10
times faster here and much lower memory consumption, will remain sufficiently
strict. Should not hang, however, we'll see...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 16:17 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-02 16:38 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-02 19:09 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (16 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-02 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-02 16:37 -------
An important note: I'm currently using an updated compiler (didn't in my
previous messages), 20050901, and I can confirm that on x86 (too) there is a
very large slow-down of the generated executable, of 1-2 orders of magnitude!
This means, that this problem is *real* and due to the compiler. Should be
definitely further investigated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 16:38 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-02 19:09 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-02 19:18 ` [Bug c++/23667] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-02 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-02 19:08 -------
A couple of numbers: the above mentioned 1/4 sec on P4-2400/linux has become
43 secs! :( The amended 23465 takes about 3.5 secs. This is with current mainline,
4_0-branch very similar. I'm currently trying to profile a bit this horrible
thing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 19:09 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-02 19:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-02 19:23 ` [Bug libstdc++/23667] " pcarlini at suse dot de
` (14 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-02 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02 19:18 -------
I am thinking this was caused by the patch for PR c++/23099.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|libstdc++ |c++
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 19:18 ` [Bug c++/23667] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-02 19:23 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-02 19:25 ` [Bug c++/23667] " pcarlini at suse dot de
` (13 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-02 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-02 19:23 -------
Now hashtable<>::m_rehash dominates the profile, more than 10 times bigger
than the second entry, hashtable<>::m_find_node. Before, when the things were
sane, the latter dominated it and m_rehash was much lower. Something is going
badly wrong.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 19:23 ` [Bug libstdc++/23667] " pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-02 19:25 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-02 19:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-02 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|libstdc++ |c++
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 19:25 ` [Bug c++/23667] " pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-02 19:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-02 21:29 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-02 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02 19:31 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I am thinking this was caused by the patch for PR c++/23099.
I should say how I came to this conclusion.
The only non front-end patches which changes code gen that went on both branches are:
2005-08-31 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) <VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR>: Force subregs
into a pseudo before applying gen_lowpart.
2005-08-30 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
PR target/23630
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) <VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR>: Use gen_lowpart
whenever the mode sizes match.
But that should only improve things and not hurt things as we are no longer storing things on stacks.
And then the it could only be a C++ patch and that is the one only went in around the time noted here
which could have caused a code gen:
2005-08-30 Volker Reichelt <reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de>
PR c++/23586
* parser.c (cp_parser_namespace_name): Move diagnostic for
invalid namespace-name to here from ...
* name-lookup.c (do_namespace_alias): ... here and ...
(do_using_directive): ... here. Remove dead code.
2005-08-28 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
PR c++/23099
* cp-tree.h (saved_scope): Add skip_evaluation.
* decl.c (start_decl): Use DECL_INITIALIZED_IN_CLASS_P, not
DECL_INITIAL, to determine whether or not a static data member was
initialized in the class-specifier.
(cp_finish_decl): Add comment.
* init.c (integral_constant_value): Subtitute into the
initializers for static data members in templates.
* name-lookup.c (push_to_top_level): Save skip_evaluation.
(pop_from_top_level): Restore it.
* pt.c (instantiate_class_template): Do not substitute into the
intializers of static data members when instantiating a class.
(regenerate_decl_from_template): Simplify.
(instantiate_decl): Tidy. Substitute into the initializer for a
static data member even when the definition of the data member is
not available.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 19:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-02 21:29 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-03 1:16 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-02 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-02 21:29 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I am thinking this was caused by the patch for PR c++/23099.
> I should say how I came to this conclusion.
...
Thanks a lot Andrew. Over the we I will try reverting a few patches and more
generally I will further investigate the issue. Any additional help is much
appreciated, of course!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-02 21:29 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-03 1:16 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-03 1:31 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (9 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-03 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-03 01:16 -------
Ok, I can confirm that Andrew's guess, about the involvment of Mark's patch:
what is happening is that, inside hashtable<>::m_rehash, X<0>::n_primes == 0
whereas, at line 383 of tr1/hashtable we find:
template<int dummy>
struct X
{
static const int n_primes = 256;
static const unsigned long primes[n_primes + 1];
};
therefore, n_primes is supposed to be 256. Then everything goes nuts, in
short, at every insertion a very costly rehashing happens.
Mark, can you please have a look at this issue?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-03 1:16 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-03 1:31 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-03 18:52 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-03 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-03 01:31 -------
Sorry about the typo: X<0>::n_primes is found wrongly equal to zero (instead of
256) inside prime_rehash_policy::need_rehash.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-03 1:31 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-03 18:52 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-03 19:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-03 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-03 18:52 -------
Does anyone happen to have a smallish test-case for this one?
Obviously, I can build one of the affected toolchains, but if someone has a
cut-down test case handy, I'll take it. :-)
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-03 18:52 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-03 19:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-03 20:08 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-03 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-03 19:04 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Does anyone happen to have a smallish test-case for this one?
>
> Obviously, I can build one of the affected toolchains, but if someone has a
> cut-down test case handy, I'll take it. :-)
It effects all targets, just the slower the machine, the more likely the timeout.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-03 19:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-03 20:08 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2005-09-03 23:06 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mark at codesourcery dot com @ 2005-09-03 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-09-03 20:08 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc
execution test times out
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-03 19:04 -------
> (In reply to comment #12)
>
>>Does anyone happen to have a smallish test-case for this one?
>>
>>Obviously, I can build one of the affected toolchains, but if someone has a
>>cut-down test case handy, I'll take it. :-)
>
>
> It effects all targets, just the slower the machine, the more likely the timeout.
Yes, but that makes it no easier for me to test and debug the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-03 20:08 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
@ 2005-09-03 23:06 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-04 3:08 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-03 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-03 23:06 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> Yes, but that makes it no easier for me to test and debug the problem.
Hi, today I tried, quickly, but failed to find a simple testcase. Tomorrow,
I'll try again, harder. Thanks for taking care of this issue: as far as I'm
concerned, tr1/unordered* are completely broken (now that we sorted out the
most important bugs and would be seriously usable for 4.0.2 :(
And the issue seems serious in general, anyway.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-03 23:06 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-04 3:08 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2005-09-04 14:10 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mark at codesourcery dot com @ 2005-09-04 3:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-09-04 03:08 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc
execution test times out
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-03 23:06 -------
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
>>Yes, but that makes it no easier for me to test and debug the problem.
>
>
> Hi, today I tried, quickly, but failed to find a simple testcase. Tomorrow,
> I'll try again, harder. Thanks for taking care of this issue: as far as I'm
> concerned, tr1/unordered* are completely broken (now that we sorted out the
> most important bugs and would be seriously usable for 4.0.2 :(
> And the issue seems serious in general, anyway.
Definitely! One way or the other, I'll get this fixed, but I appreciate
your help. Please do make sure that you've got the patch I checked in
today; it's possible that patch magically fixed the problem. (We can hope!)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-04 3:08 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
@ 2005-09-04 14:10 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2005-09-05 16:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2005-09-04 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-04 14:10 -------
By the way, the error message I get with mainline (or current 4_0-branch):
reduced_2005_09_04.cc: In function 'int main()':
reduced_2005_09_04.cc:66: error: '(((int)X<0>::n_primes) == 256)' is not a valid
template argument for type 'bool' because it is a non-constant expression
is *very* interesting: non-constant?!?!?!
For comparison, with 4.0.1 (which is OK), if I change 256 -> 0:
reduced_2005_09_04.cc: In function 'int main()':
reduced_2005_09_04.cc:66: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct
static_assert<false>'
reduced_2005_09_04.cc:59: error: declaration of 'struct static_assert<false>'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-04 14:10 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2005-09-05 16:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-05 16:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-05 16:15 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-05 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-05 16:12 -------
Subject: Bug 23667
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org 2005-09-05 16:12:15
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template: static15.C
Log message:
PR c++/23667
* pt.c (tsubst_decl): Clear DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED when
copying a VAR_DECL.
PR c++/23667
* g++.dg/template/static15.C: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4870&r2=1.4871
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.1028&r2=1.1029
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.6010&r2=1.6011
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/static15.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-05 16:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-05 16:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-05 16:15 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-05 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-05 16:13 -------
Subject: Bug 23667
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org 2005-09-05 16:13:03
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog pt.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template: static15.C
Log message:
PR c++/23667
* pt.c (tsubst_decl): Clear DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED when
copying a VAR_DECL.
PR c++/23667
* g++.dg/template/static15.C: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.4648.2.90&r2=1.4648.2.91
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/pt.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.978.2.21&r2=1.978.2.22
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=1.5084.2.377&r2=1.5084.2.378
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/static15.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branch&r1=NONE&r2=1.1.2.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/23667] [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out
2005-09-01 1:43 [Bug libstdc++/23667] New: [4.0/4.1 Regression] tr1/6_containers/unordered/hashtable/23465.cc execution test times out jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-05 16:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-05 16:15 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-05 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-05 16:15 -------
Fixed in 4.0.2.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23667
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread