[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution||FIXED

--- Comment #103 from Jakub Jelinek  2010-11-22 
17:18:07 UTC ---
Fixed.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #102 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-11-22 
16:20:26 UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Mon Nov 22 16:20:16 2010
New Revision: 167038

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167038
Log:
2010-11-22  Paolo Bonzini

PR bootstrap/44970
* Makefile.in (fwprop.o) Add sparseset.h.
* fwprop.c: Include sparseset.h
(struct find_occurrence_data, find_occurrence_callback,
find_occurrence): Remove.
(active_defs, active_defs_check, register_active_defs,
update_df_init, update_uses): New.
(update_df): Rewrite.
(try_fwprop_subst, forward_propagate_asm): Add calls to
update_df_init and update_df.
(fwprop_init): Allocate active_defs and active_defs_check.
(fwprop_done): Free them.
(fwprop, fwprop_addr): Adjust comments.
* df.h (df_uses_create): Declare.
* df-scan.c (df_install_ref_incremental): Break out of df_ref_create.
(df_ref_create): Return result of df_ref_create_structure directly.
(df_ref_create_structure): Call df_install_ref_incremental when
no collection_rec is passed.
(df_ref_record): Do not create multiword hard reg info when no
collection_rec is passed.
(df_uses_create): New. 


Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/Makefile.in
trunk/gcc/df-scan.c
trunk/gcc/df.h
trunk/gcc/fwprop.c

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #101 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-11-17 
23:44:28 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01832.html

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #100 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-11-14 
23:34:28 UTC ---
> Cool!  The reduced code no longer makes any sense but it should compile.
> I'm sure this was a fair bit of work.

Actually delta made all the work down to 31 lines of typedefs/structs and 35
lines of mostly-dead code.  All I did manually was remove the remaining Linux
structs (replacing them with multiple scalars), propagate constants, and little
more.

Anyway, I have a new patch that I'm bootstrapping; forward_propagate_asm wasn't
adjusting use->def info properly, and the new stricter checking caught that. 
To avoid code duplication the patch is a bit different from the other.  It's
more aesthetic differences than practical differences in behavior, but still I
prefer to test it first on x86_64 before posting it.  It should take only a day
or two.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #99 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-14 23:12:25 UTC ---
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:

> Minimized testcase:
> 
> int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
> {
>   int *p = (int *) arg;
>   int x = *cr;
>   long pu_err = 0;
>   if (x)
> asm volatile ("stw %2,0(%1)": "=r" (pu_err): "r" (p), "r" (x));
> 
>   asm volatile ("stw %2,0(%%sr3,%1)": "=r" (pu_err): "r" (p), "r" (x));
>   return pu_err;
> }
> 
> Fails at -O2.

Cool!  The reduced code no longer makes any sense but it should compile.
I'm sure this was a fair bit of work.

Dave

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #98 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-11-14 22:35:54 
UTC ---
Minimized testcase:

int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
{
  int *p = (int *) arg;
  int x = *cr;
  long pu_err = 0;
  if (x)
asm volatile ("stw %2,0(%1)": "=r" (pu_err): "r" (p), "r" (x));

  asm volatile ("stw %2,0(%%sr3,%1)": "=r" (pu_err): "r" (p), "r" (x));
  return pu_err;
}

Fails at -O2.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #97 from H.J. Lu  2010-11-08 17:30:36 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #96)
> (In reply to comment #88)
> > I also tested the patch on armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi.  The ICE in
> > function '__popcountsi2' is still there, so this must be a separate issue.
> 
> I have bisected the __popcountsi2 ICE on arm, and it's caused by the infamous
> r164552.  That revision has recently been reverted, so current trunk should
> hopefully be better.

I suggest you open a bug report, if there isn't one already, and make it
depend on PR 46257 so that Bernds can double check it when he works on
the proper fix.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[mikpe at it dot uu.se]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #96 from Mikael Pettersson  2010-11-08 
17:24:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #88)
> I also tested the patch on armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi.  The ICE in
> function '__popcountsi2' is still there, so this must be a separate issue.

I have bisected the __popcountsi2 ICE on arm, and it's caused by the infamous
r164552.  That revision has recently been reverted, so current trunk should
hopefully be better.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #95 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-08 17:00:41 UTC ---
>   CC  fs/ioctl.o
> fs/ioctl.c: In function 'do_vfs_ioctl':
> fs/ioctl.c:601:1: internal compiler error: in update_df, at fwprop.c:877
> Please submit a full bug report,

Here is full compile command:

hppa64-linux-gnu-gcc -Wp,-MD,fs/.ioctl.o.d  -nostdinc -isystem
/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc64/lib/gcc/hppa64-linux-gnu/4.6.0/include
-I/home/dave/linux/linux-2.6.36.y/arch/parisc/include -Iinclude  -include
include/generated/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common
-Werror-implicit-function-declaration -Wno-format-security
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -O2 -pipe -mno-space-regs -mfast-indirect-calls
-mdisable-fpregs -ffunction-sections -march=2.0 -mschedule=8000
-Wframe-larger-than=2048 -fno-stack-protector -fno-omit-frame-pointer
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign
-fno-strict-overflow -fconserve-stack-D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s"
-D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(ioctl)"  -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(ioctl)"  -c
-o fs/ioctl.o fs/ioctl.c

Attached preprocessed source.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #94 from John David Anglin  2010-11-08 
16:39:09 UTC ---
In doing a 2.6.36 kernel build with

d...@mx3210:~/opt/gnu/gcc64/bin$ ./hppa64-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./hppa64-linux-gnu-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc64/libexec/gcc/hppa64-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: hppa64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --with-gnu-as
--with-as=/usr/bin/hppa64-linux-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
--with-ld=/usr/bin/hppa64-linux-gnu-ld --disable-shared --disable-nls
--prefix=/home/dave/opt/gnu/gcc64 --disable-threads --disable-target-libiberty
--disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --build=hppa-linux-gnu
--host=hppa-linux-gnu --target=hppa64-linux-gnu --enable-languages=c
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.6.0 20101108 (experimental) [trunk revision 166433] (GCC)

I get the following assertion failure:

  CC  fs/ioctl.o
fs/ioctl.c: In function 'do_vfs_ioctl':
fs/ioctl.c:601:1: internal compiler error: in update_df, at fwprop.c:877
Please submit a full bug report,

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[sje at cup dot hp.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #93 from Steve Ellcey  2010-10-29 22:39:00 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #92)
> See followup here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01636.html

Ah yes, that's better.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #92 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-10-29 22:33:04 
UTC ---
See followup here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01636.html

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[sje at cup dot hp.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #91 from Steve Ellcey  2010-10-29 22:29:10 
UTC ---
I just noticed that the latest patch is causing a failure of
gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 with -O1 on my ia64-hp-hpux11.23 platform.

Note that the original bug we were fixing was on hppa, not ia64, and this test
doesn't fail on hppa.

On IA64 I am getting a segfault in fwprop:


#0  0x496a5c0:0 in VEC_df_mw_hardreg_ptr_stack_reserve (vec_=0xc, alloc_=1, 
file_=0x41ac338 "/proj/opensrc/sje/reg/src/trunk/gcc/df-scan.c", 
line_=2881, function_=0x41aca48 "df_ref_record")
#1  0x496a810:0 in VEC_df_mw_hardreg_ptr_stack_safe_push (vec_=0xc, 
obj_=0x40936f30, 
file_=0x41ac338 "/proj/opensrc/sje/reg/src/trunk/gcc/df-scan.c", 
line_=2881, function_=0x41aca48 "df_ref_record")
#2  0x4984470:0 in df_ref_record (cl=DF_REF_REGULAR, collection_rec=0x0, 
reg=0x65436df8, loc=0x6543b18c, bb=0x653da048, insn_info=0x40416b80, 
ref_type=DF_REF_REG_USE, ref_flags=4096)
#3  0x49858f0:0 in df_uses_record (collection_rec=0x0, loc=0x6543b18c, 
ref_type=DF_REF_REG_USE, bb=0x653da048, insn_info=0x40416b80, flags=0)
#4  0x4985bc0:0 in df_uses_record (collection_rec=0x0, loc=0x65438b08, 
ref_type=DF_REF_REG_USE, bb=0x653da048, insn_info=0x40416b80, flags=0)
#5  0x496fd40:0 in df_uses_create (loc=0x65438b08, insn=0x65438af0, 
ref_flags=0)
#6  0x6217f60:0 in try_fwprop_subst (use=0x4044b910, loc=0x6543b1a8, 
new_rtx=0x652d0050, def_insn=0x65438a28, set_reg_equal=0 '\000')
#7  0x621afd0:0 in forward_propagate_and_simplify (use=0x4044b910, 
def_insn=0x65438a28, def_set=0x65439ef0)
#8  0x621b780:0 in forward_propagate_into (use=0x4044b910)
#9  0x621bff0:0 in fwprop ()

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #90 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-20 14:39:26 UTC ---
> The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation.  Is it caused by Bernd's patch
> too?  Or by fwprop?

Actually, the ICE I saw this morning was in stage3.  This box is only
accessible at my contractor's site, so my access to it is limited.

Dave

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #89 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-10-20 14:09:33 
UTC ---
The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation.  Is it caused by Bernd's patch
too?  Or by fwprop?

According to comment 22, previously it was not bootstrapping but the failure
was elsewhere.  But we don't know if it is one or two bugs, and we don't know
how it relates with the fwprop problem (which was latent all the time even
before Bernd's patch).  The only good news is that a stage2 libgcc crash is
slightly simpler to debug than a stage3 comparison failure.  In any case, the
next thing to do is to bisect to find where the crash appeared, then go to the
previous revision, try applying my patch and see if it fixes the failure of
comment 22.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[danglin at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #88 from John David Anglin  2010-10-20 
13:41:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Created attachment 22079 [details]
> patch
> I haven't yet tested this on a cross-compiler, but it bootstrapped and
> regtested fine on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

I also tested the patch on armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi.  The ICE in
function '__popcountsi2' is still there, so this must be a separate issue.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[sje at cup dot hp.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #87 from Steve Ellcey  2010-10-19 16:09:57 
UTC ---
My testing on 32 bit and 64 bit PA boxes went fine.  The patch looks good to
me.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[sje at cup dot hp.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #86 from Steve Ellcey  2010-10-18 19:52:39 
UTC ---
I was able to bootstrap the 32 bit PA compiler using the latest patch. I
haven't done a full test run yet but I will do that overnight.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

Paolo Bonzini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #21699|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #85 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-10-18 17:20:05 
UTC ---
Created attachment 22079
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22079
patch

I haven't yet tested this on a cross-compiler, but it bootstrapped and
regtested fine on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[sje at cup dot hp.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #84 from Steve Ellcey  2010-10-13 17:36:15 
UTC ---

> > My patch is not finished and doesn't bootstrap, I'll look at it (promised) 
> > next
> > weekend.  I suggest just using BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -fno-forward-propagate".
> 
> I'll give it a try.  Currently, I have Bernd's change reverted.
> 
> Dave

I have done this on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 and it worked for me.  (Actually, I
tweaked the code to turn off the forward propogate pass.)

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #83 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-13 11:42:45 UTC ---
> My patch is not finished and doesn't bootstrap, I'll look at it (promised) 
> next
> weekend.  I suggest just using BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -fno-forward-propagate".

I'll give it a try.  Currently, I have Bernd's change reverted.

Dave

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #82 from Paolo Bonzini  2010-10-13 07:36:45 
UTC ---
My patch is not finished and doesn't bootstrap, I'll look at it (promised) next
weekend.  I suggest just using BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -fno-forward-propagate".

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[laurent at guerby dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

--- Comment #81 from Laurent GUERBY  2010-10-12 
17:43:19 UTC ---
Now testing r165387 + Paolo patch as this seems to be the last PR preventing
bootstrap on arm-linux.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[laurent at guerby dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

Laurent GUERBY  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target|hppa64-*-*  |hppa64-*-* arm-linux

--- Comment #80 from Laurent GUERBY  2010-09-25 
06:31:12 UTC ---
On arm-linux as of r164594

/home/guerby/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/guerby/build/./gcc/
-B/n/57/guerby/install-trunk-164594/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/n/57/guerby/install-trunk-164594/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/lib/
-isystem /n/57/guerby/install-t\
runk-164594/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/include -isystem
/n/57/guerby/install-trunk-164594/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/sys-include   
-g -O2 -O2  -g -O2 -DIN_GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmiss\
ing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition  -isystem ./include  -fPIC
-Wno-missing-prototypes -g -DHAVE_GTHR_DEFAULT -DIN_LIBGCC2
-D__GCC_FLOAT_NOT_NEEDED   -I. -I. -I../.././gcc -I../../../trunk/libgcc
-I../../../trunk/libgcc/. -I../../.\
./trunk/libgcc/../gcc -I../../../trunk/libgcc/../include  -DHAVE_CC_TLS  -o
_popcountsi2.o -MT _popcountsi2.o -MD -MP -MF _popcountsi2.dep -DL_popcountsi2
-c ../../../trunk/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c \
  -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS
../../../trunk/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__popcountsi2':
../../../trunk/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:783:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See  for instructions.
make[3]: *** [_popcountsi2.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/home/guerby/build/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/libgcc'
make[2]: *** [all-stage2-target-libgcc] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/guerby/build'
make[1]: *** [stage2-bubble] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/guerby/build'

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #79 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-09-04 16:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=21699)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21699&action=view)
incomplete patch

This shows what I plan to do.  It doesn't even compile stage2, so it is more or
less useless.  Still here it is.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

-- 

bonzini at gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-09-04 16:46:13
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 GCC target triplet||hppa64-*-*
   Priority|P3  |P1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #78 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-24 13:44 ---
My plan for fwprop is to replace the whole update_df machinery with a call to
df_uses_record.  The use-def links can be kept up to date by looking at the
original uses of both the propagated-from and propagated-into instructions.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #77 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-24 13:13 ---
We might also want to throttle back the change in function.c so that it's only
enabled when extending from a memory location.  But it still would be good to
know and fix what exactly is going wrong in fwprop.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #76 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-24 06:50 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
 to bootstrap

On 08/23/2010 10:49 PM, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #75 from sje at cup dot hp dot com  2010-08-23 20:49 ---
> Paolo, are you looking at this?  The hppa64-*-* bootstrap is still broken.

Yes, I'll submit a patch this week.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[sje at cup dot hp dot com]

--- Comment #75 from sje at cup dot hp dot com  2010-08-23 20:49 ---
Paolo, are you looking at this?  The hppa64-*-* bootstrap is still broken.


-- 

sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sje at cup dot hp dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #74 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-06 13:38 ---
Thanks for the help.  I'll look at it tomorrow/next week.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at codesourcery dot com]

--- Comment #73 from bernds at codesourcery dot com  2010-08-06 10:27 
---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
 to bootstrap

On 08/06/2010 12:00 PM, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #72 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-06 10:00 ---
> No, why is there no def for r25 _where it is clobbered_?

There is.  The problem seems to be that we first propagate into insn 15,
which then looks like

(insn 15 14 16 3 (set (reg:DI 67 [ obj.8+-4 ])
(sign_extend:DI (reg:SI 25 %r25 [ obj ])))
../../gcc/gcc/cfg.c:1211 139 {extendsidi2}
 (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:DI 74 [ obj+-4 ])
(nil)))

and from there, we propagate into another insn.  However, at this point,
insn 15 has no uses associated with it, so all_uses_available_at returns
true without doing anything.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #72 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-06 10:00 ---
No, why is there no def for r25 _where it is clobbered_?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at codesourcery dot com]

--- Comment #71 from bernds at codesourcery dot com  2010-08-06 09:57 
---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
 to bootstrap

On 08/06/2010 11:54 AM, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #70 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-06 09:54 ---
> The real reason is the first: why is there no def for r25?

Because it's an incoming argument.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #70 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-06 09:54 ---
The real reason is the first: why is there no def for r25?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #69 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-06 09:29 ---
(In reply to comment #68)

> Also, since fwprop can lengthen lifetimes arbitrarily (though this wouldn't
> happen often) propagate_rtx actually forbids copy propagation of hard
> registers:
> 
>   if (REG_P (new_rtx) && REGNO (new_rtx) < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
> return NULL_RTX;

Clearly that isn't working.  Maybe it's because we have (zero_extend
(hardreg))?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bonzini at gnu dot org]

--- Comment #68 from bonzini at gnu dot org  2010-08-06 07:07 ---
fwprop.c doesn't handle it directly, but local_ref_killed_between_p should see
defs created by df-scan.c for each hard register in regs_invalidated_by_call
(see df_get_call_refs).

Also, since fwprop can lengthen lifetimes arbitrarily (though this wouldn't
happen often) propagate_rtx actually forbids copy propagation of hard
registers:

  if (REG_P (new_rtx) && REGNO (new_rtx) < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
return NULL_RTX;


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #67 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
20:54 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> I think initial RTL generation is fine, so it looks like my change has exposed
> a latent bug.  What seems to happen is that some pass between expand and
> combine lengthens the lifetime of register %r25, which holds an incoming
> argument, so that it now crosses another call, which clobbers it.
> 
> This seems to happen in fwprop1, Cc Paolo.  I can't find any code in that pass
> which tries to handle the situation.

Yes, the rtl generated by fwprop1 is wrong as r25 is clobbered by the call
to pool_alloc.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #66 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-05 19:56 ---
(In reply to comment #57)

> Failure occurs for N = 0.  N = 1 compiles successfully.  Attached files.

Argh.  I seem to have swapped the logic of the dbg_cnt test.  Still, this
result appears useful.

I think initial RTL generation is fine, so it looks like my change has exposed
a latent bug.  What seems to happen is that some pass between expand and
combine lengthens the lifetime of register %r25, which holds an incoming
argument, so that it now crosses another call, which clobbers it.

This seems to happen in fwprop1, Cc Paolo.  I can't find any code in that pass
which tries to handle the situation.


-- 

bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
 AssignedTo|bernds at gcc dot gnu dot   |bonzini at gnu dot org
   |org |
 Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #57 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> If you could experiment with passing -fdbg-cnt=bug:N to the compiler, where N
> is an integer value, using a binary search you should arrive relatively 
> quickly
> at a value of N where the generated code is OK for N but fails for N + 1. 
> Then, could you attach good/bad assembly files and debug dumps?  Just the
> .expand, .combine and .ira dumps initially would be helpful if we want to save
> disk space here.

Failure occurs for N = 0.  N = 1 compiles successfully.  Attached files.

Dave


--- Comment #58 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21403)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21403&action=view)


--- Comment #59 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21404)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21404&action=view)


--- Comment #60 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21405)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21405&action=view)


--- Comment #61 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21406)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21406&action=view)


--- Comment #62 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21407)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21407&action=view)


--- Comment #63 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21408)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21408&action=view)


--- Comment #64 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21409)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21409&action=view)


--- Comment #65 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-05 
19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=21410)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21410&action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #56 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-05 11:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=21400)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21400&action=view)
A patch to aid debugging

This patch should help pinpoint exactly what went wrong.  It adds a dbg-cnt to
the code in question.

If you could experiment with passing -fdbg-cnt=bug:N to the compiler, where N
is an integer value, using a binary search you should arrive relatively quickly
at a value of N where the generated code is OK for N but fails for N + 1. 
Then, could you attach good/bad assembly files and debug dumps?  Just the
.expand, .combine and .ira dumps initially would be helpful if we want to save
disk space here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #55 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-08-04 
19:52 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap

The exception is caused by get_bb_copy returning NULL.  However, get_bb_copy
is not miscompiled.

The change to function.c changes various copies to extracts for
zero/sign extension.  These might cause a functional difference.
For example,

-   copy %r26,%r23
+   extrd,u %r26,63,32,%r23

It won't be easy to substitute functions in the .s file because
there are a many label changes.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #54 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-30 15:12 ---
Yeah, that's what I did.  I if (0)ed the newly added code block to produce
comparisons, but I haven't found anything yet that looks wrong in the dumps
(and I can't read PA assembly very well).  So it would be useful to pinpoint
the problem further.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #53 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-30 
15:09 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> --- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-29 19:46 
> ---
> Thanks.  I can more-or-less produce the same assembly with a cross compiler,
> but just from looking at the assembly and the debugging dumps I can't quite
> figure out which function is being miscompiled.  Can you produce a good (not
> miscompiled) .s file with a working cc1 and attach that as well for 
> comparison?

Just one further point, I know that the problem is related to

2010-07-16  Bernd Schmidt  

PR target/42235
* function.c (record_hard_reg_sets): New static function.
(assign_parm_setup_reg): If an optab for extending exists and the
generated code clobbbers no hard regs, emit the insn directly and
create a REG_EQUIV note.

At least at one time, reverting this change restored bootstrap.  It probably
would be useful to compare .s files with and without this change.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #52 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-30 
02:27 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> --- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-29 19:46 
> ---
> Thanks.  I can more-or-less produce the same assembly with a cross compiler,
> but just from looking at the assembly and the debugging dumps I can't quite
> figure out which function is being miscompiled.  Can you produce a good (not
> miscompiled) .s file with a working cc1 and attach that as well for 
> comparison?

It probably will be several days before I can look at this again.  My
daughter is getting married this Saturday.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-29 19:46 ---
Thanks.  I can more-or-less produce the same assembly with a cross compiler,
but just from looking at the assembly and the debugging dumps I can't quite
figure out which function is being miscompiled.  Can you produce a good (not
miscompiled) .s file with a working cc1 and attach that as well for comparison?
 It would help massively if you could do a search similar to that for the
miscompiled .o file, this time to find the miscompiled function.  That can be
done by replacing those functions that differ in the assembly files one by one
and then compiling the modified assembly file to .o and producing a cc1 binary
as previously.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #47 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-29 
15:05 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Comment #33 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-19 
> 14:31 ---
> Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
> 
> > This patch (with/without the patch in
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt) does not fix the
> > bootstrap failure on x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.
> 
> Same on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11.  With the rc-fix4.diff and entrymode.diff
> patches, we still fail compiling libgcc in stage2, although at a slightly
> different spot:
> 
> /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
> -B/opt/gnu64/gcc/g
> cc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
> -B/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
> /lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/include -isystem
> /op
> t/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/sys-include-g -O2 -O2  -g -O2
> -DIN
> _GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
> -Wmissing-protot
> ypes -Wold-style-definition  -isystem ./include  -fPIC -Dpa64=1 -DELF=1
> -mlong-c
> alls -g -DHAVE_GTHR_DEFAULT -DIN_LIBGCC2 -D__GCC_FLOAT_NOT_NEEDED   -I. -I.
> -I..
> /.././gcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc/.
> -I../../../gcc/libgcc/..
> /gcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc/../include  -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o
> __gcc_bcmp.
> o -MT __gcc_bcmp.o -MD -MP -MF __gcc_bcmp.dep -DL__gcc_bcmp -c
> ../../../gcc/libg
> cc/../gcc/libgcc2.c \
>   -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS
> ../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__gcc_bcmp':
> ../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1979:1: internal compiler error:
> Segmentati

It appears cfg.c is being miscompiled.  Replacing stage2 version with
stage1 version results in the above compilation completing successfully.

This is the backtrace as much as can be trusted:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
find_edge (pred=0x83fffdf8e750, succ=0x0) at ../../gcc/gcc/cfganal.c:492
492   if (EDGE_COUNT (pred->succs) <= EDGE_COUNT (succ->preds))
(gdb) bt
#0  find_edge (pred=0x83fffdf8e750, succ=0x0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/cfganal.c:492
#1  0x402ba014 in redirect_edge_succ_nodup (e=0x83fffdcd1f00, 
new_succ=0x0) at ../../gcc/gcc/cfg.c:398
#2  0x40749f1c in ssa_redirect_edge (e=0x83fffdcd1f00, dest=0x0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/tree-ssa.c:207
#3  0x405f2330 in gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch (
e=0x83fffdcd1f00, dest=0x0) at ../../gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c:4951
#4  0x405f29d4 in gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch_force (
e=, dest=)
at ../../gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c:4973
#5  0x402cf08c in redirect_edge_and_branch_force (
e=0x83fffdcd1f00, dest=0x0) at ../../gcc/gcc/cfghooks.c:400
#6  0x402d3aa4 in copy_bbs (bbs=0x80010014f820, 
n=, new_bbs=, 
edges=0x83fffdff1578, num_edges=1, new_edges=0x83fffdff15e8, 
base=, after=)
at ../../gcc/gcc/cfglayout.c:1452

Attached cfg.i and cfg.s from stage2, and cc1 command.

Dave


--- Comment #48 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-29 
15:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=21352)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21352&action=view)


--- Comment #49 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-29 
15:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=21353)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21353&action=view)


--- Comment #50 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-29 
15:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=21354)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21354&action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #46 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-22 
22:57 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> Did the failing bootstrap include the function.c fix in r162391, or was it an
> earlier revision?

I believe that it did.  It was done after you requested HJ and myself to
retest mainline.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #45 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-22 22:54 ---
(In reply to comment #44)

> I had a success bootstrap with revision 162414 and function.c reverted
> to 162239.

Did the failing bootstrap include the function.c fix in r162391, or was it an
earlier revision?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #44 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-22 
22:46 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> > HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
> 
> Still same problem.  I'm trying with function.c reverted to 162239.

I had a success bootstrap with revision 162414 and function.c reverted
to 162239.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #43 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-22 
18:16 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?

Still same problem.  I'm trying with function.c reverted to 162239.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #42 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-22 16:47 
---
(In reply to comment #40)
> (In reply to comment #39)
> > HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
> > 
> 
> Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
> as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
> on ia64.
> 

Revision 162399 bootstraps OK on Linux/ia64.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #41 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-22 
14:26 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?

Testing.

With the previous versions, hash table lookups were somehow broken,
resulting in NULL being returned by the call to htab_find in get_bb_copy.
Don't know why.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #40 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-22 14:07 
---
(In reply to comment #39)
> HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
> 

Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
on ia64.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #39 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-22 11:48 ---
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #38 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-21 22:48 ---
Subject: Bug 44970

Author: bernds
Date: Wed Jul 21 22:48:14 2010
New Revision: 162390

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162390
Log:
PR bootstrap/44970
PR middle-end/45009
* postreload.c: Include "target.h".
(reload_combine_closest_single_use): Don't take DEBUG_INSNs
into account.
(fixup_debug_insns): Don't copy the rtx.
(reload_combine_recognize_const_pattern): DEBUG_INSNs can't
have uses.  Don't copy when replacing.  Call fixup_debug_insns
in the case where we merged one add with another.
(reload_combine_recognize_pattern): Fail if there aren't any
uses.  Try harder to determine whether we're picking a valid
index register.  Don't set store_ruid for an insn we're going
to scan in the next iteration.
(reload_combine): Remove unused code.
(reload_combine_note_use): When updating use information for
an old insn, ignore a use that occurs after store_ruid.
* Makefile.in (postreload.o): Update dependencies.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/Makefile.in
trunk/gcc/postreload.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #37 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-21 
01:37 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> David, here's a new patch which might fix the PA problem.  Please apply it to
> current trunk.  I don't have access to a hppa64 machine unfortunately.

Unforunately, it doesn't fix the last bootstap issue.

With the previous change, the testsuite error was fixed.  There were
no testsuite regressions with it.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #36 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-20 15:35 ---
I've committed another fix for the (not only) powerpc problem as r162342.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #35 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-20 14:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=21264)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21264&action=view)
Another attempt to fix the pa64 problem

David, here's a new patch which might fix the PA problem.  Please apply it to
current trunk.  I don't have access to a hppa64 machine unfortunately.


-- 

bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #21247|0   |1
is obsolete||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #34 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-07-20 06:46 ---
At revision 162313, bootstrap failed on powerpc-apple-darwin9 
Configured with: ../gcc-4.6-work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w
--build=powerpc-apple-darwin9
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,java --with-gmp=/sw
--with-libiconv-prefix=/usr --with-system-zlib --with-cloog=/sw --enable-lto

...
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/java/expr.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1
make[1]: *** [stage3-bubble] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #33 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-19 
14:31 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> This patch (with/without the patch in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt) does not fix the
> bootstrap failure on x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.

Same on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11.  With the rc-fix4.diff and entrymode.diff
patches, we still fail compiling libgcc in stage2, although at a slightly
different spot:

/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu64/gcc/g
cc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
-B/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/include -isystem
/op
t/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/sys-include-g -O2 -O2  -g -O2
-DIN
_GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-protot
ypes -Wold-style-definition  -isystem ./include  -fPIC -Dpa64=1 -DELF=1
-mlong-c
alls -g -DHAVE_GTHR_DEFAULT -DIN_LIBGCC2 -D__GCC_FLOAT_NOT_NEEDED   -I. -I.
-I..
/.././gcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc/.
-I../../../gcc/libgcc/..
/gcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc/../include  -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o
__gcc_bcmp.
o -MT __gcc_bcmp.o -MD -MP -MF __gcc_bcmp.dep -DL__gcc_bcmp -c
../../../gcc/libg
cc/../gcc/libgcc2.c \
  -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__gcc_bcmp':
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1979:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentati

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu]

--- Comment #32 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu  2010-07-19 
13:25 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, the bootstrap failure at r162303 is exhibited as a
miscompiled build/genattrtab...


/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/
-B/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/bin/
-B/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/bin/
-B/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/lib/ -isystem
/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/include -isystem
/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/sys-include  -g -O2 -gtoggle
-DIN_GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Werror -Wold-style-definition
-Wc++-compat   -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -static-libstdc++
-static-libgcc  \
build/gcov-iov.o -o build/gcov-iov
build/gcov-iov '4.6.0' 'experimental' \
> tmp-gcov-iov.h
/bin/sh ../../gcc/gcc/../move-if-change tmp-gcov-iov.h gcov-iov.h
/bin/sh: line 1: 30108 Illegal instruction build/genattrtab
../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md > tmp-attrtab.c


gdb ./build/genattrtab

(gdb) r ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md > tmp-attrtab.c
Starting program: /Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/gcc/build/genattrtab
../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md > tmp-attrtab.c
Reading symbols for shared libraries +. done

Program received signal EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION, Illegal instruction/operand.
0x000125f7 in attr_rtx ()
(gdb) bt
#0  0x000125f7 in attr_rtx ()
#1  0x00014a8c in check_attr_test ()
#2  0x0001482b in check_attr_test ()
#3  0x0001483e in check_attr_test ()
#4  0x00014edd in check_attr_value ()
#5  0x00018985 in main ()
(gdb) 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #31 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-07-19 07:53 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Created an attachment (id=21243)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243&action=view) [edit]
> Patch v4

This patch (with/without the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt) does not fix the
bootstrap failure on x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #30 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-18 22:22 
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Created an attachment (id=21243)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243&action=view) [edit]
> Patch v4
> 
> I found another potential bug in the interaction between the existing code and
> the new one.  Fixing this doesn't seem to cause any code generation 
> differences
> in any of the testcases I looked at, but maybe it could help with some of the
> bootstrap failures on other targets or with Spec2k6?
> 

This doesn't fix SPEC CPU 2006.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #29 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-18 
21:15 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

> David, this seems to be caused by a different revision.  The postreload pass
> we're discussing here makes no changes to RTL on that testcase.  Please ensure
> you find the right revision that introduces a problem.

Possibly, that is true.  The title of this PR was quite general.  Anyway,
I will start a new PR if there are multiple unrelated issues.  I will
determine the exact revision.  Last successful bootstrap on this target
was 162195.

> -(insn 3 5 4 2 950605-1.c:3 (set (reg/v:DI 68 [ c+-7 ])
> -(zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 26 %r26 [ c+-3 ]))) 133 {*pa.md:4633} (nil))
> +(note 5 0 4 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)

It looks to me like the extend insn is wrong.  With 4.4, we had

(insn 4 3 5 2
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/950605-1.c:3
 (set (reg/v:DI 68 [ c+-7 ])
 (zero_extend:DI (subreg:QI (reg:SI 69) 3))) -1 (nil))

> I can't find anything wrong with this, as it's a SImode comparison.  Is the
> backend emitting the correct compare instruction?

The backend has only SImode and DImode comparisons.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #28 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-18 21:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=21247)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21247&action=view)
Minimally tested patch for the hppa problem

Seems like we're extending from the wrong mode.  Does this fix it?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #27 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-18 21:00 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
> 
> Doing a non bootstrap build, I see the following new fail:
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950605-1.c execution,  -O1

David, this seems to be caused by a different revision.  The postreload pass
we're discussing here makes no changes to RTL on that testcase.  Please ensure
you find the right revision that introduces a problem.

In this case, it probably was another of my changes that caused this failure,
although I can't tell what's wrong.  The extend insn disappears during fwprop1:

-(insn 3 5 4 2 950605-1.c:3 (set (reg/v:DI 68 [ c+-7 ])
-(zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 26 %r26 [ c+-3 ]))) 133 {*pa.md:4633} (nil))
+(note 5 0 4 2 [bb 2] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)

-(note 4 3 7 2 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)
+(note 4 5 7 2 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)

 (insn 7 4 8 2 950605-1.c:4 (set (reg:SI 69)
 (const_int 255 [0xff])) 71 {*pa.md:2130} (nil))

 (jump_insn 8 7 9 2 950605-1.c:4 (set (pc)
-(if_then_else (eq (subreg/s/u:SI (reg/v:DI 68 [ c+-7 ]) 4)
+(if_then_else (eq (reg:SI 26 %r26 [ c+-3 ])
 (reg:SI 69))
 (label_ref:DI 23)
-(pc))) 46 {*pa.md:1330} (expr_list:REG_BR_PROB (const_int 9996
[0x270c])
-(nil))
+(pc))) 46 {*pa.md:1330} (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 69)
+(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:DI 68 [ c+-7 ])
+(expr_list:REG_BR_PROB (const_int 9996 [0x270c])
+(nil

I can't find anything wrong with this, as it's a SImode comparison.  Is the
backend emitting the correct compare instruction?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2010-07-18 
20:43 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

Doing a non bootstrap build, I see the following new fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950605-1.c execution,  -O1

f:
.PROC
.CALLINFO FRAME=128,CALLS,SAVE_RP,ENTRY_GR=3
.ENTRY
std %r2,-16(%r30)
ldi 255,%r28
cmpb,= %r28,%r26,L$0003


The least significant byte of the argument passed in register %r26
is no longer extracted, causing compare to fail.  The is what I see
with gcc-4.4:

f:
.PROC
.CALLINFO FRAME=128,CALLS,SAVE_RP,ENTRY_GR=3
.ENTRY
std %r2,-16(%r30)
extrd,u %r26,63,8,%r26
ldi 255,%r28
cmpb,= %r28,%r26,L$0004

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #25 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-18 20:40 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> And on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 gcc-4.6 162277 in stage2:

> ../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:791:1: internal compiler error:
> Segmentatio
> n fault

If the latest patch does not fix this, could you run the testsuite on the
stage1 compiler (i.e. make check in stage1-gcc or prev-gcc if the former
doesn't exist)?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #24 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-18 20:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=21243)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243&action=view)
Patch v4

I found another potential bug in the interaction between the existing code and
the new one.  Fixing this doesn't seem to cause any code generation differences
in any of the testcases I looked at, but maybe it could help with some of the
bootstrap failures on other targets or with Spec2k6?


-- 

bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #21242|0   |1
is obsolete||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #23 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-18 20:34 
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Created an attachment (id=21242)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242&action=view) [edit]
> Another patch
> 
> I've managed to reproduce some differences with -g vs. no-debug builds.  This
> patch fixes them for me.  I still didn't see it during bootstrap - do I need 
> to
> do anything unusual (other than configure/make?)

This fixed bootstrap on Linux/ia32. There are no regressions in
gcc testsuite.

> 
> There's one fix in there that may also help with miscompilations, although I
> still haven't managed to reproduce any of those either.  The ia64 crash HJ
> reported also doesn't happen here with a cross compiler.

This still miscompiles 450.soplex.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

--- Comment #22 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2010-07-18 19:53 ---
And on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc-4.6 r162277:

Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/tree-ssa.o differs
gcc/sel-sched-ir.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1

Configured just with --enable-languages=c --with-arch=armv5te
--with-tune=xscale 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-18 19:03 
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Created an attachment (id=21242)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242&action=view) [edit]
> Another patch
> 

This patch passed the last failure. I will report any regressions
in testsuite.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-18 18:52 
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Created an attachment (id=21242)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242&action=view) [edit]
> Another patch

I am testing it now.

> I've managed to reproduce some differences with -g vs. no-debug builds.  This
> patch fixes them for me.  I still didn't see it during bootstrap - do I need 
> to
> do anything unusual (other than configure/make?)

What is your glibc version? I can reproduce it with glibc 2.11 and 2.12.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #19 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-18 18:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=21242)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242&action=view)
Another patch

I've managed to reproduce some differences with -g vs. no-debug builds.  This
patch fixes them for me.  I still didn't see it during bootstrap - do I need to
do anything unusual (other than configure/make?)

There's one fix in there that may also help with miscompilations, although I
still haven't managed to reproduce any of those either.  The ia64 crash HJ
reported also doesn't happen here with a cross compiler.


-- 

bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #21239|0   |1
is obsolete||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-18 15:22 
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
> 
> HJ, any chance you could run make check on the stage1 compiler on ia64 to find
> a testcase?
> 

New failures from revision 162264 to 162270 are:

FAIL: gcc.dg/20020425-1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20020425-1.c (test for excess errors)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #17 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-18 15:20 
---
And on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 gcc-4.6 162277 in stage2:

/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu64/gcc/g
cc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
-B/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/include -isystem
/op
t/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/sys-include-g -O2 -O2  -g -O2
-DIN
_GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-protot
ypes -Wold-style-definition  -isystem ./include  -fPIC -Dpa64=1 -DELF=1
-mlong-c
alls -g -DHAVE_GTHR_DEFAULT -DIN_LIBGCC2 -D__GCC_FLOAT_NOT_NEEDED   -I. -I.
-I..
/.././gcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc/.
-I../../../gcc/libgcc/..
/gcc -I../../../gcc/libgcc/../include  -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o
_popcountdi
2.o -MT _popcountdi2.o -MD -MP -MF _popcountdi2.dep -DL_popcountdi2 -c
../../../
gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c \
  -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function
'__popcountsi2':../../../gcc/l
ibgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__popcountdi2':

../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:791:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentatio
n fault


-- 

danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

--- Comment #16 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2010-07-18 12:31 ---
And on sparc64-linux with gcc-4.6 r162277:

Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
libdecnumber/decimal32.o differs
libdecnumber/decimal64.o differs
libdecnumber/decimal128.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1

Configured just --with-cpu=v8 --enable-languages=c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

--- Comment #15 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2010-07-18 11:55 ---
And on powerpc64-linux with gcc-4.6 r162277:

Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/tree-ssa.o differs
libiberty/regex.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1

Configured just with --with-cpu=default32 --enable-languages=c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

--- Comment #14 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2010-07-18 09:57 ---
gcc-4.6 r162277 bootstrap failure on i686-linux:

Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
gcc/reg-stack.o differs
gcc/reload.o differs
gcc/recog.o differs
gcc/i386.o differs
libiberty/hashtab.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1

Configured just with --enable-languages=c and --with-gmp/mpfr/mpc paths.

Reverting r162270 fixes it.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-18 00:32 
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=21239)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239&action=view) [edit]
> Better patch.
> 
> Here's something that's a little more likely to work.
> 

I still got

Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/varasm.o differs
gcc/fortran/simplify.o differs
libiberty/regex.o differs
libiberty/pic/regex.o differs
make[4]: *** [compare] Error 1


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #12 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-17 23:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=21239)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239&action=view)
Better patch.

Here's something that's a little more likely to work.


-- 

bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #21238|0   |1
is obsolete||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #11 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-17 22:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=21238)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21238&action=view)
Potential fix

Yeah, I think it trips over DEBUG_INSNs.  I'm testing this fix, does it help in
any way?


-- 

bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |bernds at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-17 17:42 
---
With stage3 gcc, I got

[...@gnu-29 stage3-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/
-isystem /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include-c   -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-DIN_GCC   -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Werror -Wold-style-definition
-Wc++-compat -fno-common  -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src-trunk/gcc
-I../../src-trunk/gcc/. -I../../src-trunk/gcc/../include
-I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libcpp/include  -I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber 
-DCLOOG_PPL_BACKEND  -I/usr/include/libelf  ../../src-trunk/gcc/recog.c -S
-fcompare-debug
xgcc: error: ../../src-trunk/gcc/recog.c: -fcompare-debug failure
[...@gnu-29 stage3-gcc]$ 

Bernd, can you duplicate it?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-17 17:39 ---
The patch uses uid of the insn. Will DEBUG_INSN affect
uid processing?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-17 17:35 ---
The difference in recog.o is in peep2_find_free_register:

@@ -5271,8 +5271,8 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
 4884:  74 5e   je 48e4

 4886:  8d 74 24 30 lea0x30(%esp),%esi
 488a:  8d b6 00 00 00 00   lea0x0(%esi),%esi
-4890:  83 c3 01add$0x1,%ebx
-4893:  8d 43 fblea-0x5(%ebx),%eax
+4890:  8d 43 fclea-0x4(%ebx),%eax
+4893:  83 c3 01add$0x1,%ebx
 4896:  83 fb 05cmp$0x5,%ebx
 4899:  0f 4d d8cmovge %eax,%ebx
 489c:  8b 04 dd 80 57 00 00mov0x5780(,%ebx,8),%eax

It makes no difference in results. But the code sequences are different.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-17 16:56 ---
It also miscompiled 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 on
Linux/i386 with

-m32 -O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math -funroll-loops


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-17 16:41 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent 
> > today.
> 
> With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt
> bootstrap fails at stage 1 with:

Hmm, doesn't happen here, but doesn't surprise me terribly either.  As I said,
I'll let the x86 maintainers fix this pattern.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-07-17 16:15 ---
> x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.

With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt
bootstrap fails at stage 1 with:


/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC   --mode=compile /opt/gcc/build_w/./gcc/xgcc
-B/opt/gcc/build_w/./gcc/ -B/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/bin/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/lib/ -isystem
/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/include -isystem
/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/sys-include-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../work/libgomp  -I../../../work/libgomp/config/bsd
-I../../../work/libgomp/config/posix -I../../../work/libgomp  -Wall -Werror
-Wc,-pthread -g -O2 -MT error.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/error.Tpo -c -o error.lo
../../../work/libgomp/error.c
libtool: compile:  /opt/gcc/build_w/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/build_w/./gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/bin/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/lib/ -isystem
/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/include -isystem
/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w/x86_64-apple-darwin10.4.0/sys-include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../work/libgomp -I../../../work/libgomp/config/bsd
-I../../../work/libgomp/config/posix -I../../../work/libgomp -Wall -pthread
-Werror -g -O2 -MT error.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/error.Tpo -c
../../../work/libgomp/error.c  -fno-common -DPIC -o .libs/error.o
../../../work/libgomp/error.c: In function 'gomp_error':
../../../work/libgomp/error.c:54:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 32 31 11 2 ../../../work/libgomp/error.c:48 (parallel [
(set (mem/c:BLK (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 6 bp)
(const_int -128 [0xff80])) [0 A64])
(unspec:BLK [
(reg:DI 21 xmm0)
(reg:DI 22 xmm1)
(reg:DI 23 xmm2)
(reg:DI 24 xmm3)
(reg:DI 25 xmm4)
(reg:DI 26 xmm5)
(reg:DI 27 xmm6)
(reg:DI 28 xmm7)
] UNSPEC_SSE_PROLOGUE_SAVE_LOW))
(use (reg:DI 0 ax [58]))
(use (const_int 0 [0]))
(use (label_ref:DI 0))
(use (const_int 4 [0x4]))
]) -1 (nil))
../../../work/libgomp/error.c:54:1: internal compiler error: in extract_insn,
at recog.c:2127


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-17 16:12 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> On Linux/ia32, revision 162270:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00624.html
> 
> caused:
> 
> make[6]: Leaving directory `/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld'
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
> Bootstrap comparison failure!
> gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
> gcc/i386.o differs
> gcc/java/expr.o differs
> gcc/reload.o differs
> gcc/reg-stack.o differs
> gcc/recog.o differs
> libiberty/hashtab.o differs
> make[5]: *** [compare] Error 1

The full configure option on Fedora 12/ia32 is

 ../src-trunk/configure \
 --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-shared
--with-demangler-in-ld -with-plugin-ld=ld.gold --enable-gold --with-fpmath=sse


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-17 15:53 ---
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.

HJ, any chance you could run make check on the stage1 compiler on ia64 to find
a testcase?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-07-17 15:49 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10.4 bootstrap fails with

/bin/sh: line 1: 55341 Illegal instruction build/genattrtab
../../work/gcc/config/i386/


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-17 15:28 ---
On Linux/ia64, I got

Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.o differs
gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
make[5]: *** [compare] Error 1


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970

[Bug bootstrap/44970] [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970