https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91419
Bug ID: 91419 Summary: [10 Regression]: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr91091-2.c, ssa-fre-61.c, ssa-fre-61.c with r273232 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: hp at gcc dot gnu.org CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: cris-elf, pru-elf, m68k-unknown-linux-gnu Commit r273232 (of 2019-07-08) introduced these regressions for (at least) cris-elf, pru-elf and m68k-unknown-linux-gnu: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr91091-2.c scan-tree-dump-times fre1 "x = " 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-61.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-61.c scan-tree-dump-times fre1 "Replaced \\*p" 3 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-77.c scan-tree-dump fre1 "return 1;" For cris-elf, the "excess errors" are (from gcc.log): Excess errors: ssa-fre-61.c:(.text+0x16): undefined reference to `link_error' ssa-fre-61.c:(.text+0x30): undefined reference to `link_error' ssa-fre-61.c:(.text+0x4a): undefined reference to `link_error' The revision is confirmed for cris-elf by own testing. For pru-elf and m68k-unknown-linux-gnu entries before and after r273232 on gcc-testresults@ were compared, for example: Before: <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg00954.html> (Results for 10.0.020190708(experimental)[trunkrevision273226](GCC) testsuite on pru-unknown-elf) <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg00932.html> (Results for 10.0.0 20190707 (experimental) [trunk revision 273184] (GCC) testsuite on m68k-unknown-linux-gnu) After: <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg01192.html> (Results for 10.0.020190710(experimental)[trunkrevision273328](GCC) testsuite on pru-unknown-elf) <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-07/msg01052.html> (Results for 10.0.0 20190708 (experimental) [trunk revision 273247] (GCC) testsuite on m68k-unknown-linux-gnu) Also, more recent gcc-testresults entries confirms that the regressions remain. I'm guessing that some target-ABI-structure-related knob has been overlooked, common to these targets but different to more mainstream targets. One that seems to match that criteria is PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS. FWIW, the new test ssa-fre-78.c passes.