From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2006-06-14 12:21:48
|
Bugs item #1486853, was opened at 2006-05-11 22:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by maartenbrock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Live range problems Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Assigned to: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Summary: LR: valdiag tests fail with mcs51-large Initial Comment: SDCC rev. #4166 valdiag tests bug-895992.c and bug-971834.c fail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2006-06-14 14:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Bernhard, What exactly do you mean by fail? They now generate a proper warning, but compile ok. I guess my fix for bug 1294475 also fixed this. Please verify my assumption. Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2006-06-18 19:46:02
|
Bugs item #1486853, was opened at 2006-05-11 22:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bernhardheld You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Live range problems Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Assigned to: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Summary: LR: valdiag tests fail with mcs51-large Initial Comment: SDCC rev. #4166 valdiag tests bug-895992.c and bug-971834.c fail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2006-06-18 21:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 > What exactly do you mean by fail? I mean this: > Summary for 'mcs51-large': 5 failures, 221 tests, 101 test cases, 0 bytes, 0 ticks > Please verify my assumption. The bug is still there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2006-06-14 14:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Bernhard, What exactly do you mean by fail? They now generate a proper warning, but compile ok. I guess my fix for bug 1294475 also fixed this. Please verify my assumption. Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2006-06-19 09:17:22
|
Bugs item #1486853, was opened at 2006-05-11 22:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by maartenbrock You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Live range problems Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Assigned to: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Summary: LR: valdiag tests fail with mcs51-large Initial Comment: SDCC rev. #4166 valdiag tests bug-895992.c and bug-971834.c fail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2006-06-19 11:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Thanks, I guess I wasn't really aware what valdiag was for in the first place. It is supposed to check if SDCC generates the correct warnings and errors. In this case, the generated code is correct, but for -- model-large the warnings are not issued. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2006-06-18 21:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 > What exactly do you mean by fail? I mean this: > Summary for 'mcs51-large': 5 failures, 221 tests, 101 test cases, 0 bytes, 0 ticks > Please verify my assumption. The bug is still there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2006-06-14 14:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Bernhard, What exactly do you mean by fail? They now generate a proper warning, but compile ok. I guess my fix for bug 1294475 also fixed this. Please verify my assumption. Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2006-06-19 14:20:33
|
Hello all, I think we can no longer pretend a new release will be out in Q2 2006. So we must change the wiki page stating so. But I would also like a date to be fixed. How close is the pic16 to passing the regression tests? I do no= t mean to rush anyone, but if it will still take some time, maybe it's better to go for a release without this feature. I also wonder if anyone looked at my patch attached to bug 1487644 removing the stdint.h dependency from src/pic/gen.c (Bernhards idea). I think it's better than to continue to patch up things for different compilers. If no one complains I will commit it later this week. Greets, Maarten |
From: Raphael N. <rn...@we...> - 2006-06-19 16:56:05
|
Hi, > I think we can no longer pretend a new release will be out in Q2 2006. So > we must change the wiki page stating so. But I would also like a date to > be fixed. How close is the pic16 to passing the regression tests? I do not > mean to rush anyone, but if it will still take some time, maybe it's > better to go for a release without this feature. I also vote for a release without the pic16 port being called "stable", simply because I cannot tell how many minor/major have to be tackled on the way. Having fixed onebyte.c and muldiv.c this weekend, I recognized that another test case (name forgotten) fails due to no code being emitted for 'if (b ^ 0x1234)'. No idea where to look for this one. Additional bugs in rotating routines might be fixed even in short time until the release... or they might not... who knows? Anyways, the current state of both the pic16 and the pic14 ports are largely superior to the state in SDCC 2.5.0, so even the PIC community might profit from a new release. > I also wonder if anyone looked at my patch attached to bug 1487644 > removing the stdint.h dependency from src/pic/gen.c (Bernhards idea). I "Someone" looked at your patch---even read it---but was unable to verify that pic1[46]aopLiteral() did what was needed. Call me incompetent as I do not know my tools, but I just was not aware of that routine when I wrote my variant. Being unable to check the patch immediately, I put it aside and forgot it. So, blame my being lazy and irresponsive. I apologize for having (seemingly) ignored your (both Maarten's and Bernhard's) help; it was not on purpose. Actually, I am thankful for your reminder, dug out the (still closed...) bug report, verified and applied your good patch. Thank you for your help. > think it's better than to continue to patch up things for different > compilers. If no one complains I will commit it later this week. Right, right, right. I just committed a slightly adapted variant as SDCC r4242 (Sorry, Maarten, this will raise conflicts with your code). Regards, Raphael Neider |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2006-06-19 18:23:10
|
>> I think we can no longer pretend a new release will be out in Q2 2006. So >> we must change the wiki page stating so. But I would also like a date to >> be fixed. How close is the pic16 to passing the regression tests? I do not >> mean to rush anyone, but if it will still take some time, maybe it's >> better to go for a release without this feature. >> > > I also vote for a release without the pic16 port being called "stable", > simply because I cannot tell how many minor/major have to be tackled on > the way. I agree with the release without a "stable" pic16 port. We can make an other one when we'll feel that the pic16 port is stable enough. So we still have 10 days. Do you think it is enough? Is there a volunteer to do the job? The good starting point is the Maarten's page for 2.4.0 release at http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/release_wiki/index.php?page=SDCC+2.4.0+Release. We also need someone to review / verify the documentation... P.S.: In case you haven't noticed: the automated snapshot builds are back, even for alpha linux and sparc solaris. Now they are implemented by using the VPATH functionality, so they can be done even on CF machines without svn client. Borut |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2006-06-19 19:28:54
|
> >> I think we can no longer pretend a new release will be out in Q2 2006. So > >> we must change the wiki page stating so. But I would also like a date to > >> be fixed. How close is the pic16 to passing the regression tests? I do not > >> mean to rush anyone, but if it will still take some time, maybe it's > >> better to go for a release without this feature. > > > > I also vote for a release without the pic16 port being called "stable", > > simply because I cannot tell how many minor/major have to be tackled on > > the way. > > I agree with the release without a "stable" pic16 port. We can make an > other one when we'll feel that the pic16 port is stable enough. > > So we still have 10 days. Do you think it is enough? Is there a > volunteer to do the job? Frankly, I don't think it is enough. Also I will be away for half a week at the end of june. Do you mean to abandon all outstanding points on the 2.6.0 release wikipage? > The good starting point is the Maarten's page for 2.4.0 release at > http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/release_wiki/index.php?page=SDCC+2.4.0+Release. Please don't give me credit for this page as I have not created it. Nevertheless it seems full of clever points. > We also need someone to review / verify the documentation... > > P.S.: In case you haven't noticed: the automated snapshot builds are > back, even for alpha linux and sparc solaris. Now they are implemented > by using the VPATH functionality, so they can be done even on CF > machines without svn client. Very nice. I also saw a new OSX machine in the CF list today. It would be nice to see a release of SDCC for that platform too. Greets, Maarten |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-19 19:54:40
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Maarten Brock wrote: > Frankly, I don't think it is enough. Also I will be away for half a week at > the end of june. Do you mean to abandon all outstanding points on the > 2.6.0 release wikipage? Shouldn't we add the worst bugs to that lists? I define "worst bugs" as bugs where for valid standard C code the compiler crashes or generates invalid code in stable ports. That would be [ 1469393 ] Compiler does not initialize static data [ 1292721 ] variable load wrongly optimized away [ 1399290 ] Bad Code Generated in Z80 port [ 1294691 ] nested ifs make compiler crash Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFElwD5btUV+xsoLpoRAojWAKDOA/ls3PNjGABP3xUzGebKjRTlTQCfRlRm X3DJxhd0I6tdbAw3n0FfhTE= =Hg4X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2006-06-19 20:41:45
|
Maarten Brock wrote: > Frankly, I don't think it is enough. Also I will be away for half a week at > the end of june. Do you mean to abandon all outstanding points on the > 2.6.0 release wikipage? > > There are 3 items left: 1496419 sdcc loops creating new symbol 1477159 fix pic16 regression test bugs for SDCC 2.6.0 release 1477189 fix gcc-4 warnings I think that we (almost) agreed that 1477159 will be postponed, 1477189 is low priority by my opinion (by the way: mingw WIN32 snapshot builds are now compiled with gcc 4.1.1), so the only one remaining is 1496419 which might be pic16 specific. > Please don't give me credit for this page as I have not created it. > Nevertheless it seems full of clever points. > > Sorry, the author was Michael Hope. Apologies to you an to Michael :-[ > Very nice. I also saw a new OSX machine in the CF list today. It would > be nice to see a release of SDCC for that platform too. > > Thank you for the info. I already tried to compile sdcc on pps-osx3, but it seems that the compiler is broken :-( Borut |
From: Raphael N. <rn...@we...> - 2006-06-19 21:04:24
|
Hi, > There are 3 items left: > 1496419 sdcc loops creating new symbol > 1477159 fix pic16 regression test bugs for SDCC 2.6.0 release > > 1477189 fix gcc-4 warnings > > I think that we (almost) agreed that 1477159 will be postponed, 1477189 > is low priority by my opinion (by the way: mingw WIN32 snapshot builds > are now compiled with gcc 4.1.1), Agreed on both points. > so the only one remaining is 1496419 > which might be pic16 specific. Nope, its not pic16 specific: sdcc b1496419.c and sdcc -mmcs51 b1496419.c fail just the same way. Unfortunately, I do not manage to reach the end of the stack trace: SDCC fails somewhere in copyIlist (SDCCval.c), copyAst (SDCCast.c), copyValue (SDCCval.c) and/or copySymbol (SDCCsymt.c); these call each other infinitely recursively. I guess, this should be fixed... This might require creative bug hunting approaches ;-) Regards, Raphael |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2006-06-19 19:08:44
|
Raphael, I never meant to call you anything. If my wordings offended you I apologize sincerely. I appreciate all the work you do and can only be sorry I cannot help you better with it. My knowledge and experience lies with 8051, z80 a long time ago and a bit of 6811 which resembles 6808. I have no knowledge of PIC as you've probably already gathered. Therefor I usually try to stay out of your and other PIC port maintainers way. I will definitely not blame you for not knowing some routine inside SDCC. Its codebase is just too big to know every routine. I'm sure I don't know everything about it. And don't worry about the conflict in my code. May the source be with you, always > > I also wonder if anyone looked at my patch attached to bug 1487644 > > removing the stdint.h dependency from src/pic/gen.c (Bernhards idea). I > > "Someone" looked at your patch---even read it---but was unable to verify > that pic1[46]aopLiteral() did what was needed. Call me incompetent as I > do not know my tools, but I just was not aware of that routine when I > wrote my variant. Being unable to check the patch immediately, I put it > aside and forgot it. So, blame my being lazy and irresponsive. > I apologize for having (seemingly) ignored your (both Maarten's and > Bernhard's) help; it was not on purpose. Actually, I am thankful for > your reminder, dug out the (still closed...) bug report, verified and > applied your good patch. Thank you for your help. > > > think it's better than to continue to patch up things for different > > compilers. If no one complains I will commit it later this week. > > Right, right, right. I just committed a slightly adapted variant as SDCC > r4242 (Sorry, Maarten, this will raise conflicts with your code). > > Regards, > Raphael Neider > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2006-07-01 21:03:25
|
Bugs item #1486853, was opened at 2006-05-11 22:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bernhardheld You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Live range problems >Group: fixed >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Assigned to: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Summary: LR: valdiag tests fail with mcs51-large Initial Comment: SDCC rev. #4166 valdiag tests bug-895992.c and bug-971834.c fail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2006-07-01 23:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 Fixed in src/SDCClrange.c, SDCC #4252 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2006-06-19 11:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Thanks, I guess I wasn't really aware what valdiag was for in the first place. It is supposed to check if SDCC generates the correct warnings and errors. In this case, the generated code is correct, but for -- model-large the warnings are not issued. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld) Date: 2006-06-18 21:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=203539 > What exactly do you mean by fail? I mean this: > Summary for 'mcs51-large': 5 failures, 221 tests, 101 test cases, 0 bytes, 0 ticks > Please verify my assumption. The bug is still there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2006-06-14 14:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=888171 Bernhard, What exactly do you mean by fail? They now generate a proper warning, but compile ok. I guess my fix for bug 1294475 also fixed this. Please verify my assumption. Maarten ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=1486853&group_id=599 |