--- Comment #39 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-31 10:31
---
Ok. That looks good. I think the S/390 problem from comment #33 got fixed with
that patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01392.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #38 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-12-30 11:09 ---
Andreas, for s390-linux I get this jumpless code:
f:
xr %r2,%r3
lpr %r2,%r2
ahi %r2,-1
srl %r2,31
br %r14
for this testcase:
int f(int a, int b)
{
return (a
--- Comment #37 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-12-30 10:59 ---
The bootstrap failure is fixed, please reconfirm and reopen bugs for other
failures or other targets.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #36 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-23 23:01 ---
No, all patches were committed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #35 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2009-07-23
23:00 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc bootstrap is broken due to changes in expmed.c
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52:01PM -, paolo dot bonzini at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #34 from paolo dot bonzi
--- Comment #34 from paolo dot bonzini at gmail dot com 2009-07-23 22:52
---
Subject: Re: Powerpc bootstrap is broken due to changes
in expmed.c
On 07/23/2009 02:37 PM, krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> In emit_store_flag the following code now invokes emit_store_flag_1 instead
--- Comment #33 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 12:37
---
Your patch from 2009-06-30 prevents the following code from being implemented
jumpless on S/390:
int a, b;
...
int x = a == b;
In emit_store_flag the following code now invokes emit_store_flag_1 instead of
emit_s
--- Comment #32 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-15 06:05 ---
Yes, but I don't think it's infinite recursion. There are 11,000 else ifs in
the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #31 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 02:50
---
I think we recursed off the stack. This is the backtrace:
#0 0x1047bedc in gimple_boolify (expr=0x45e33c0) at
/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/gimplify.c:2750
#1 0x1047e230 in
--- Comment #30 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 02:23
---
Comparing the testsuite runs against the result from r149023 (the commit
previous to the cond-optab checkin), the default 32-bit testsuite run showed no
regressions. The 64-bit default testsuite run has a few extr
--- Comment #29 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 21:05
---
The 64-bit default build finished bootstrapping with no errors too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #28 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 18:35
---
Mainline + patch from Comment #27 has passed bootstrap with a 32-bit default
build (the 64-bit default run is still running). I'm running the testsuite now
and will compare to one of Janis' recent nightly testsuit
--- Comment #27 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-01 16:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=18112)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18112&action=view)
... watch out, this is on top of mainline, not on top of pr40957-3.patch
(It would apply and just not work!)
--
bo
--- Comment #26 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 15:32
---
Created an attachment (id=18111)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18111&action=view)
And yet another one...
Here's another test case to use with the patch from Comment #25.
--
http://gcc.gn
--- Comment #25 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-01 14:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=18110)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18110&action=view)
... and one more patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #24 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 13:42
---
Created an attachment (id=18107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18107&action=view)
Yet another ICE test case
New test case for use after the commit of the patch in Comment #23.
--
http://
--- Comment #23 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-01 12:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40597
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jul 1 12:05:56 2009
New Revision: 149137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149137
Log:
2009-07-01 Paolo Bonzini
PR bootstrap/40597
* ex
--- Comment #22 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-01 10:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=18106)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18106&action=view)
patch to test
This is the patch to fix the bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #21 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 03:29
---
Created an attachment (id=18104)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18104&action=view)
Tetscase for use without comment #11 patch
/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/build/gcc-mainline-base-32/./prev-gcc/cc
--- Comment #20 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 03:26
---
Here's a backtrace for a 32-bit default build without Comment #11 patch:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x1096c5e4
"/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/simplify-rtx.c", line=4966,
function=0x1096d0a0 "sim
--- Comment #19 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-30 22:13 ---
I have a patch that seems to fix the problem, but I am afraid it's just
papering over it. Since the attached file does not fail without the patch from
comment #11, would you please attach a testcase that fails without the
--- Comment #18 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 21:57
---
This is my backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x1091d148
"/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/simplify-rtx.c", line=4966,
function=0x1091dc04 "simplify_subreg") at
/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/gcc-main
--- Comment #17 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-30 21:31 ---
Regarding powerpc64, I see no difference at -O2 in assembly output between
2009-06-26 version and the version after the patch attached to this bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #16 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 21:02
---
Created an attachment (id=18103)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18103&action=view)
Preprocessed testcase
Preprocessed source file compiled with:
/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/build/gcc-mainline-b
--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-30 19:40 ---
Guys, when something breaks can you attach preprocessed testcases?...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #14 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 18:40
---
Confirmed, a --with-cpu=default32 build dies with:
/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/builtins.c: In function
get_memory_rtx:
/home/bergner/gcc/PR40597/gcc-mainline-base/gcc/builtins.c:1210:10: inte
--- Comment #13 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 18:16 ---
The failure appears to need a compiler built in 32 bit mode.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #12 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 17:01 ---
I tried bootstrapping with that patch and it did not solve the bootstrap
failure in simplify_subreg.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-30 16:53 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc bootstrap is broken due to changes
in expmed.c
What happens with this patch?
Index: expmed.c
===
--- expmed.c(revision 149
--- Comment #10 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 16:46 ---
Bootstrap of trunk revision 149105 fails on powerpc64-linux with the same ICE
that David reported in comment #8, but building stage2:
/libcpp/expr.c: In function _cpp_parse_expr:
/home/janis/gcc_trunk_anonsvn/gcc/l
--- Comment #9 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 15:07 ---
The traceback leads to the store flag change.
(gdb) print op
$3 = (rtx) 0x30153558
(gdb) pr
(reg:SI 234)
(gdb) print innermode
$4 = DImode
(gdb) print outermode
$5 = SImode
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x10e8a5b8 "/farm/dje/s
--- Comment #8 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 14:50 ---
Now I see failures when building libgcc:
../../.././gcc/dp-bit.c: In function '__pack_d':
../../.././gcc/dp-bit.c:268:39: internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at
simplify-rtx.c:4966
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-30 07:59 ---
The bootstrap was successful on x86_64-linux, I'll look at the failures
tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-30 07:59 ---
Subject: Bug 40597
Author: bonzini
Date: Tue Jun 30 07:59:01 2009
New Revision: 149083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149083
Log:
2009-06-30 Paolo Bonzini
PR boostrap/40597
* expm
--- Comment #5 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2009-06-30
04:20 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc bootstrap is broken due to
changes in expmed.c
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:32:47PM -, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot or
--- Comment #4 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2009-06-29
21:46 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc bootstrap is broken due to changes in expmed.c
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:34:02PM -, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-
--- Comment #3 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-29 21:36
---
Created an attachment (id=18097)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18097&action=view)
Proposed patch to fix the problem
This patch allows the powerpc64-gnu-linux system to boostrap once again.
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-29 21:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=18096)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18096&action=view)
patch currently in stage2
Here it is. A bit early for posting to gcc-patches, but if you want to approve
it I'll commi
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-29 21:32 ---
Mine of course. I was going to post the patch to the mailing list after it was
well into my x86_64-linux bootstrap, I'll add it here.
Thanks for the testcase BTW.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What
39 matches
Mail list logo
