[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 13:56 --- Subject: Bug 40493 Author: hjl Date: Tue Jun 30 13:55:43 2009 New Revision: 149097 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=149097 Log: 2009-06-30 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com Backport from mainline: 2009-06-30 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz PR tree-optimization/40582 * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40582.c: New test. 2009-06-29 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com PR c++/40274 * g++.dg/template/debug1.C: New. 2009-06-25 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz PR tree-optimization/40493 * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c: New test. Added: branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/debug1.C - copied unchanged from r149095, trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/debug1.C branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40582.c - copied unchanged from r149095, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40582.c branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c - copied unchanged from r149096, trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c Modified: branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 10:38 --- Subject: Bug 40493 Author: jamborm Date: Thu Jun 25 10:38:13 2009 New Revision: 148941 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148941 Log: 2009-06-25 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz PR tree-optimization/40493 * tree-sra.c (sra_modify_expr): Correct BIT_FIELD_REF argument numbers. (enum unscalarized_data_handling): New type. (handle_unscalarized_data_in_subtree): Return what has been done. (load_assign_lhs_subreplacements): Handle left flushes differently. (sra_modify_assign): Use unscalarized_data_handling, simplified condition determining whether to remove the statement. * testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 14:21 --- I have checked out trunk 148941, compiled binutils with it (configured with --disable-werror), ran the testsuite and there were no failures. Thus I consider this fixed. -- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 16:38 --- Fix submitted to the mailing list, pending maintainer approval: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01918.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 13:21 --- The miscompiled file seems to be gas/tc-i386.o. Early SRA is enough to trigger the problem. Digging deeper... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-23 13:40 --- (In reply to comment #10) The miscompiled file seems to be gas/tc-i386.o. Early SRA is enough to trigger the problem. Digging deeper... tc-i386.c uses union with bit fields. See opcodes/i386-opc.h for details. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 16:45
---
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
typedef union i386_operand_type
{
struct
{
unsigned int reg8:1;
unsigned int reg16:1;
unsigned int reg32:1;
unsigned int reg64:1;
unsigned int floatreg:1;
unsigned int regmmx:1;
unsigned int regxmm:1;
unsigned int regymm:1;
unsigned int control:1;
unsigned int debug:1;
unsigned int test:1;
unsigned int sreg2:1;
unsigned int sreg3:1;
unsigned int imm1:1;
unsigned int imm8:1;
unsigned int imm8s:1;
unsigned int imm16:1;
unsigned int imm32:1;
unsigned int imm32s:1;
unsigned int imm64:1;
unsigned int disp8:1;
unsigned int disp16:1;
unsigned int disp32:1;
unsigned int disp32s:1;
unsigned int disp64:1;
unsigned int acc:1;
unsigned int floatacc:1;
unsigned int baseindex:1;
unsigned int inoutportreg:1;
unsigned int shiftcount:1;
unsigned int jumpabsolute:1;
unsigned int esseg:1;
unsigned int regmem:1;
unsigned int mem:1;
unsigned int byte:1;
unsigned int word:1;
unsigned int dword:1;
unsigned int fword:1;
unsigned int qword:1;
unsigned int tbyte:1;
unsigned int xmmword:1;
unsigned int ymmword:1;
unsigned int unspecified:1;
unsigned int anysize:1;
} bitfield;
unsigned int array[2];
} i386_operand_type;
unsigned int x00, x01, y00, y01;
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
i386_operand_type a,b,c,d;
a.bitfield.reg16 = 1;
a.bitfield.imm16 = 0;
a.array[1] = 22;
b = a;
x00 = b.array[0];
x01 = b.array[1];
c = b;
y00 = c.array[0];
y01 = c.array[1];
d = c;
if (d.bitfield.reg16 != 1)
abort();
if (d.bitfield.imm16 != 0)
abort();
if (d.array[1] != 22)
abort();
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #8 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-06-22 10:05 --- This is probably the same bug: binutils 2.19.51.20090616 (build, host: i686-pc-linux-gnu, target: i686-pc-mingw32), compiled with GCC 4.5.0 20090618. GAS aborts when tries to assemble this instruction: imull $-1431655765, %eax, %eax Internal error, aborting at ../../binutils-2.19.51/gas/config/tc-i386.c line 4917 in build_modrm_byte To avoid errors when compiling binutils, simply pass --disable-werror to configure script. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 18:57 --- Right, now I can reproduce the problem and it indeed is introduced by the new SRA commit. None of the fixes I have done so far deals with this one either. I am investigating this further (but don't hold your breath, it is going to take me a while). -- jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-22 18:57:00 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 13:21 --- Created an attachment (id=18032) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18032action=view) A patch to avoid warning from -Wall You can apply this patch to binutils to avoid warning from -Wall in gcc 4.5.0. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
-- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 18:09 --- I will look into this next week. However, I have never compiled binutils before, so unless it is obvious, please describe how to reproduce the problem. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-19 18:24 --- (In reply to comment #1) I will look into this next week. However, I have never compiled binutils before, so unless it is obvious, please describe how to reproduce the problem. Just download the current Linux binutils: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/binutils-2.19.51.0.10.tar.bz2 on Linux/x86-64 and do 1. Untar 2. mkdir build 3. cd build 4. ../configure 5. make 6. make check There should be no failures in testsuite. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #3 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2009-06-19 23:38 --- With 148536 and current mainline cvs binutils I see no failures in the gas testsuite. I do see a bunch of failures in the ld testsuite, which are all because /usr/bin/ld is being run despite a -B option being passed to gcc that should cause the newly built ld to be used. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 01:11 --- (In reply to comment #3) With 148536 and current mainline cvs binutils I see no failures in the gas testsuite. I do see a bunch of failures in the ld testsuite, which are all because /usr/bin/ld is being run despite a -B option being passed to gcc that should cause the newly built ld to be used. With revision 148536, I got cc1: warnings being treated as errors /export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c: In function elf_link_add_object_symbols: /export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c:3552:6: error: jump skips variable initialization /export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c:3637:7: note: label error_free_dyn defined here /export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c:3626:18: note: tagv declared here It won't even compile. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #5 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2009-06-20 03:26 --- Oops, you're correct. I wan't using the compiler I thought I was. make CC=... wasn't passing $CC down to the bfd dir for some reason. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 04:11 --- Revision 148512 failed to build binutils. You may need to remove -Werror from CFLAGS in Makefile by hand when building binutils. See PR 40500. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||40500 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
