https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98776
Luis Machado changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luis.machado at linaro dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98148
--- Comment #2 from Luis Machado ---
In my particular example, The DWARF information tells us the value is at the
following expression...
<11ac> DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value: 6 byte block: 8d ec 0 f6 4 2d
(DW_OP_breg29 (x29): 108;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98148
--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado ---
You can find the sources for this testcase in binutils-gdb repo, at
gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/O2_float_param.
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: luis.machado at linaro dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: aarch64-linux
Target: aarch64-linux
Created attachment 49685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: luis.machado at linaro dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
Luis Machado changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #5 from Luis Machado ---
Thanks for confirming this behavior. There have been some changes to the DWARF
unwinding code that exposed this particular case. I'm guessing this will need
to go back to GDB for a fixup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #3 from Luis Machado ---
Here's a DWARF and asm dump from the same binary:
00d0 001c FDE cie=
pc=07f4..0830
DW_CFA_advance_loc: 4 to 07f8
DW_CFA_def_cfa_offset: 32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502
--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado ---
CC-ing ARM folks so they can assign this to whoever is more appropriate.
: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: luis.machado at linaro dot org
Target Milestone: ---
I've noticed this while investigating a GDB testsuite failure in
gdb.opt/inline-break.exp. Basically GDB runs into an internal error due to not
being able to unwind the PC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85682
Luis Machado changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85682
--- Comment #4 from Luis Machado ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #3)
> The bisect robot doesn't bootstrap, only build a stage 1 compiler.
>
> I've checked your most recent patch against these testcases, and they
> execute and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85682
--- Comment #2 from Luis Machado ---
Did it even bootstrap properly? It shouldn't have been built in the first place
i guess, due to the signedness error of a particular chunk of code.
I did a fresh x86-64 bootstrap with the changes in and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85681
--- Comment #6 from Luis Machado ---
Would you please confirm the bootstrap is back to normal and declare it
resolved? I don't have permission to change its state.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85682
--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado ---
Will do.
I've temporarily reverted the prefetcher changes since it caused x86 bootstrap
issues. I'll investigate this alongside it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85681
--- Comment #4 from Luis Machado ---
Reverted the offending changes for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85681
--- Comment #3 from Luis Machado ---
There are a couple fixups needed in there. The second error you ran into was
already caught by gcc in the first comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85681
--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado ---
Working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83474
--- Comment #3 from Luis Machado ---
Another bit of information...
On an early investigation (with an unoptimized compiler and unreduced
testcase), this bit in profile-count.h was causing the assertion to fail:
/* Return true if vlaue can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83474
--- Comment #2 from Luis Machado ---
Backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=file@entry=0x157d9b2 "../../gcc/gcc/profile-count.h",
line=line@entry=1038, function=function@entry=0x161d6a0
<_ZZNK13profile_count14probability_inES_E12__FUNCTION__>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83474
--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado ---
during GIMPLE pass: aprefetch
testcase.i:52:1: internal compiler error: in probability_in, at
profile-count.h:1038
update_call_from_tree (gimple_stmt_iterator * si_p, tree expr)
^
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: luis.machado at linaro dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42911
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42911=edit
Reproducer testcase
I
22 matches
Mail list logo
