https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65289
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net ---
Also reproducible with -O2 -fgraphite-identity .
I use both of these optimizations regularly to help get the most out of
prefetch on the embedded ARM targets I work on.
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matt at use dot net
Created attachment 34929
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34929action=edit
pre-processed source file that reproduces the crash
Using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55500
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net ---
Phillip, the problem is not that the program doesn't run properly. It's that
the code isn't inline via de-virtualization when it could be. The main() should
contain a few printf/puts calls
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55499
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |ipa
Version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55498
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.0 |4.9.0
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55500
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.0 |4.9.0
--- Comment #2
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matt at use dot net
I'm getting this failure when trying to bootstrap on RHEL6.1, with either the
system compiler (gcc 4.4.x) or a 4.7-based compiler I bootstrapped successfully
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-03-06 02:06:03 UTC
---
It does fix that warning, but there's a bug in the analysis that makes it a
false positive. I've had difficulty reducing it to a self-contained example,
and I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
Bug #: 56526
Summary: [4.8 regression] false positive for
maybe-uninitialized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56526
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-03-04 19:04:58 UTC
---
Created attachment 29580
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29580
save-temps output from same commandline/path
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-03-01 23:11:50 UTC
---
I'll file a new bug for each warning false positive that results in a bootstrap
failure. Feel free to close this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bootstrap-lto fails on |maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-03-01 23:38:51 UTC
---
Created attachment 29566
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29566
files generated during compilation where false positive happens with save
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-14 18:00:57 UTC
---
Sorry, but wouldn't that be papering over bugs? I'm confounded by the
attitude around bootstrap failures, regardless of the basic supported options
being used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #11 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-14 21:27:54 UTC
---
Attached is an updated version of the tests Maxim committed to the google/4_7
branch. The only difference is that more of the tests are xfail'd than
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-14 21:28:33 UTC
---
Created attachment 29455
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29455
diff against trunk adding new testcases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44938
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55496
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231
--- Comment #11 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-12 01:55:28 UTC
---
can you add the reduced test case you came up with to the testsuite? I've seen
these issues come and go at various points.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-12 02:02:33 UTC
---
looking at the patch for merging elsewhere, I noticed that
location_t
lto_input_location (struct bitpack_d *bp, struct data_in *data_in)
{
+ static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
--- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-11 01:55:51 UTC
---
I just tested with latest trunk (4.8.0 20130210). inline-devirt-2.C does indeed
pass when adding an outer loop, but only at -O3. That is probably fine, but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #9 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-11 02:02:46 UTC
---
Just tested with latest trunk and it passes at -O3. With Maxim's previous
devirt patches, it passed at -O2. That being said, I'm happy and this can be
marked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55498
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-11 02:11:36 UTC
---
Just tested with latest trunk and things have regressed/changed a bit. This is
another test case where I *have* to use both -O3 and -funroll-loops to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56231
Bug #: 56231
Summary: warning traces have bogus line information when using
LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-02-06 01:23:02 UTC
---
the latest failure, with current trunk:
/work/mhargett/gcc-trunk-obj/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/work/mhargett/gcc-trunk-obj/./prev-gcc/
-B/u/mhargett/x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
--- Comment #13 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-01-17 18:28:18 UTC
---
No.
4.6 doesn't devirt (at -O2 or -O3) and therefore the DCE isn't relevant.
At both -O2 and -O3, with and without -fwhole-program, both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50148
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2013-01-07 22:14:21 UTC
---
This appears to be resolved for me, as of r194995. If someone with permissions
can mark as RESOLVED, I'll VERIFY.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50148
--- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-18 17:26:54 UTC
---
Applying the supplied patch reveals another issue underneath, which is a false
positive:
/work/mhargett/gcc-trunk-obj/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/work/mhargett/gcc-trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50148
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-17 19:12:11 UTC
---
Just verified this still happens in 4.7 and trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55498
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-17 23:34:08 UTC
---
Would iterating during LTO work in this instance, or would it need to happen
during early IPA?
is stage3 too late for the IPA-CP enhancement you mention?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
Bug #: 55644
Summary: profiledbootstrap fails on current trunk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|profiledbootstrap fails on |bootstrap-lto fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55595
Bug #: 55595
Summary: [google] r172952 (LIPO) broke profiledbootstrap on
google/main, and later in google/gcc-4_7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55596
Bug #: 55596
Summary: [google] r191813 broke bootstrap-lto on google/gcc-4_7
branch
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55074
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51233
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-04 20:35:09 UTC
---
ping? if you're more comfortable with relegating multiple passes to LTO, I
think that's a good starting point. we can wait for a per-unit C++ template
case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55595
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-05 00:06:47 UTC
---
I'm not trying to use google/main, but rather google/gcc-4_7. I got to the
beginning of the 4.7 branch and was still getting the error, so I traced it
back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55596
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-05 00:56:56 UTC
---
We have a large C++ application that was working with LTO in google/gcc-4_6,
and now we're running into issues on google/gcc-4_7. We saw performance gains
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48670
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-03 23:17:22 UTC
---
I no longer have access to the source tree that exhibited this problem, but it
was likely the same as the qemu issue referenced earlier. Feel free to resolve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45700
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42628
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50398
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-12-03 23:20:57 UTC
---
loop flattening was removed as a feature, yes? If so, this bug can be closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48670
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50468
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 17:32:01 UTC
---
I'll rewrite the test to add a loop that hopefully triggers it as hot at -O3
(and gets unrolled). shouldn't it inline at -O2 since DCE would eliminate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 17:37:01 UTC
---
I'll add a loop to the test that hopefully triggers the inlining (and does the
unrolling).
Adding both variants (renamed main and with loop) to the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55498
Bug #: 55498
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails inline-devirt test #6
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55499
Bug #: 55499
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails to eliminate dead functions where
all call sites were inlined
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55499
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 22:26:28 UTC
---
Created attachment 28800
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28800
test case that devirtualizes correctly, but DCE fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55500
Bug #: 55500
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails inline-devirt test #7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Bug #: 55477
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails inline-devirt tests #2 and and #3
whereas they pass in google/4_7
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55478
Bug #: 55478
Summary: [devirt] trunk fails inline-devirt test #4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Bug #: 55481
Summary: [4.8 regression] -O2 generates a wrong-code infinite
loop in C++Benchmark's simple_types_constant_folding
int8 xor test
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 01:09:28 UTC
---
Created attachment 28784
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28784
zip containing preprocessed source of reduced examples and multiple binaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-27 02:11:29 UTC
---
Actually, the same problem happens at -O3 with const int SIZE 20.
base_iterations can be very high; it's just SIZE that's the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Bug #: 55219
Summary: [4.7 regression] attempting to compile a pre-processed
unit eats up memory until OOM kills the cc1 process
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-11-06 01:31:22 UTC
---
Perhaps worth noting that gcc/trunk and google/4_7 also still exhibit the
problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55074
Bug #: 55074
Summary: error during bootstrap of trunk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53572
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #16 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-23 18:01:08 UTC
---
Back/forward-porting of the trivial restoration of the old behavior is
acceptable to me, as it would remove a major barrier to our adoption of 4.7.x.
That being
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-21 17:26:55 UTC
---
Paolo, what about listint? Does VC11 achieve the size GCC 4.6 has by not
being compliant somehow?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-21 21:40:11 UTC
---
I've been doing research into LLVM 3.1 and other GCC versions. LLVM 3.1
correctly eliminate the (near) empty loop, and their current trunk does not
regress like 4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #20 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-20 23:52:31 UTC
---
Some additional information:
Compared to LLVM 3.1 with -O3, GCC 4.7 is twice as slow on these benchmarks.
LLVM even outperforms GCC 4.1, which previously had
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307
Bug #: 54307
Summary: [4.7 regression] increases in memory usage by some
C++11 (and C++03) standard containers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #19 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-14 17:25:40 UTC
---
Does this mean there will be a fix for this regression committed for 4.7.2? If
there's a patch I can test ahead of time, please let me know. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51233
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-14 17:43:30 UTC
---
I agree it's more appropriate in LTO, but can still provide measurable benefit
for template-heavy C++ applications where lots of implementation bodies are in
header
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51233
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-14 00:26:35 UTC
---
Okay. I filed this bug at your request last year because of your concerns that
some of the improvements seen with multiple iterations might be papering over
existing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-29 18:49:35 UTC
---
Pinging on this again since this patch has been back ported to a couple of
4.6-based branches now. Anyone attempting to use a recent cloog release with
GCC 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #22 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-29 00:20:17 UTC
---
Hey Andrew, any word on your patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-27 18:26:55 UTC
---
Is there a fix targeted for 4.7.2? I can apply the patch and do some testing,
if that helps. Let me know what I can do, if anything, so we can make 4.7
deployable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #15 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-14 18:01:31 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #14)
Mine, at least for a 4.8 solution.
What enhancement to 4.7 caused the regression? Can whatever the change was be
(partially) reverted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Bug #: 53676
Summary: [4.7/4.8 regression] constant folding regression,
shown as slowdown as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-14 22:48:49 UTC
---
Created attachment 27622
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27622
ZIP containing pre-processed source and binaries that demonstrate the const
folding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-14 23:00:33 UTC
---
I forgot to mention -- it's the same result on all types, both signed and
unsigned. the int8_t case is (hopefully) representative of the root cause for
all/most
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #11 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-12 18:25:25 UTC
---
Richard,
Thanks for the quick analysis! Sounds like a perfect storm of sorts :/
re: cprop failure: this may be indicated by another major regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-11 19:56:14 UTC
---
Created attachment 27603
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27603
ZIP with pre-processed shorter example, callgrind output, and smaller binaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-11 19:57:12 UTC
---
Created attachment 27604
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27604
shorter source example, ~150 lines w/o comments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-11 20:02:41 UTC
---
Got rid of graphite options, it made no difference. I reduced the original test
from the suite and attached it's source, preprocessor output from 4.6 and 4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Bug #: 53533
Summary: [4.7 regression] loop unrolling as measured by Adobe's
C++Benchmark is twice as slow versus 4.4-4.6
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-05-31 00:55:36 UTC
---
Created attachment 27526
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27526
tarball containing buildable sources and binaries that demonstrate the severe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-05-11 17:58:27 UTC
---
It's not an IRIX-specific thing AFAICS, but rather that newer versions of
cloog/ppl renamed the macro to avoid conflicts on IRIX. 4.6 still checks for
the old macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-05-11 20:19:01 UTC
---
Applying the patch does allow DWARF serialization to get further, but now it
dies here:
internal compiler error: in add_AT_specification, at dwarf2out.c:7536
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #13 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-04-23 15:19:47 UTC
---
*** Bug 52704 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52704
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52610
Matt Hargett matt at use dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #7 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-03-28 03:22:49 UTC
---
Is there any more information I need to provide for this class of issues to be
resolved? Mozilla, WebKit, and others all eventually fail with similar errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-03-26 17:09:55 UTC
---
Attachment was too big. Here's a URL for an archive that includes the ltrans
objects, ltrans asm, and cc temp files:
http://www.clock.org/~matt/tmp/smbta-util-lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-03-26 17:32:51 UTC
---
The link line that fails:
gcc -o bin/smbta-util utils/smbta-util.o dynconfig.o param/loadparm.o
param/loadparm_server_role.o param/util.o lib/sharesec.o
lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
Bug #: 52717
Summary: thunk referenced in discarded section when building
samba with -flto
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52610
--- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-03-24 20:20:42 UTC
---
Great. I verified the fix yesterday. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52704
Bug #: 52704
Summary: thunk referenced in discarded section when combining
-flto -ftree-vectorize -fipa-cp-clone on Debian/SPARC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52704
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-03-24 21:12:21 UTC
---
Created attachment 26975
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26975
save-temps output from /tmp and linking dir
1 - 100 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
