--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-11 21:30 ---
Subject: Bug 28672
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Sep 11 21:30:07 2006
New Revision: 116859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116859
Log:
2006-09-11 Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-11 23:11
---
Fixed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28672
--- Comment #15 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-09-12 00:35 ---
Fixed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-09/msg00586.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-08-22 16:46 ---
The patch mentioned in comment #11 also works for me. Note that I had to only
use the patch that fixed the bug, the sencond patch / rest of the patch that is
for improved debuggability caused warnings during bootstraps
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28672
--- Comment #11 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-08-17 15:53 ---
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-08/msg00521.html
works for me on ia64:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-08/msg00722.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28672
--- Comment #7 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-15 07:23 ---
I believe it should be a MO_COPY, yes, in spite of the REG_DEAD note. That's
because, even though GCC no longer cares about the register content, the value
is actually still there until something else writes to it.
--- Comment #8 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-15 10:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=12076)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12076action=view)
Patch that appears to fix the bug
The problem was that we were killing unrelated live variables while clobbering
--- Comment #9 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-15 10:22 ---
Err, there's at least one bug in the patch that cause an early bootstrap crash.
Replacing both occurrences of (loc) with (node-loc), which was what I had
intended, fixes it.
--
--- Comment #10 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-08-15 15:22 ---
The first hunk generates a warning since tree != void *.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28672
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-08-11 18:40 ---
The loop in vt_find_locations starts with
Basic block 22:
IN:
Stack adjustment: 80
Reg 8: __ret+0
Reg 15: this+0 this+0
Reg 32: __ret+0
Reg 33: __ret+0
Reg 35: __c+0
Reg 112: this+0
Reg 113: __ret+0
Reg 114: __ret+0
Reg 115:
--- Comment #2 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-08-10 06:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=12050)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12050action=view)
A tescase
This is the best I can get so far. Gcc hangs with -O2 -g.
--
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-08-10 06:22 ---
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-08/msg00238.html
causes the gcc to hang. Gdb backtrace looks like
(gdb) bt
#0 htab_find_slot_with_hash (htab=0x602cce30,
element=0x25417b20,
--- Comment #4 from tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-10 11:53 ---
*** Bug 28676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
tbm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28672
--- Comment #5 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-08-10 15:21 ---
I can reproduce the hang with a cross compiler from Linux/i686 to Linux/ia64.
It looks like the compiler is miscompiled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28672
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-10 02:08 ---
Testcase?
Do you ever follow directions?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
17 matches
Mail list logo
