http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #27 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-11
19:39:41 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Mon Oct 11 19:39:37 2010
New Revision: 165329
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165329
Log:
PR bootstrap/45445
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #25 from Laurent GUERBY laurent at guerby dot net 2010-09-29
07:08:58 UTC ---
On armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi with this patch at r164682 I still hit
PR44970 so bootstrap failed.
Mikael what made your bootstrap succeed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #26 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2010-09-29
11:07:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
On armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi with this patch at r164682 I still hit
PR44970 so bootstrap failed.
Mikael what made your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2010-09-28
20:50:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Created attachment 21902 [details]
A patch which should fix it
Please verify whether this patch fixes it.
I did a C-only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-09-27
12:45:36 UTC ---
Thanks, that's very well done. I've investigated a bit, and it seems the
sequence
mark_pseudo_regno_live (REGNO (reg));
mark_pseudo_regno_live (REGNO
--- Comment #19 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 11:12 ---
Can you provide a .i file for which this is reproducible with a cross compiler?
Before/after -fdump-rtl-ira dumps and assembly files could also be helpful.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #20 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-21 11:30 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Can you provide a .i file for which this is reproducible with a cross
compiler?
Before/after -fdump-rtl-ira dumps and assembly files could also be helpful.
I'm leaving in a couple of
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #17 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-20 12:40 ---
expmed.c:expand_shift () is miscompiled: breaking that function out to a
separate source file, compiling it with stage1/xgcc, and relinking stage2/cc1 I
get 'lsls', compiling it with the bootstrap gcc and relinking
--- Comment #18 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-20 22:05 ---
It's the 17 line if-for-return block headed by
/* Check whether its cheaper to implement a left shift by a constant
bit count by a sequence of additions. */
that gets miscompiled by stage1, which makes sense
--- Comment #14 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-19 15:30 ---
On the trivial sreal.c test case the dumps (-fdump-rtl-all -fdump-tree-all)
from stage1 and stage2 start to diverge at `150r.expand':
diff -ru dumps1/sreal.c.150r.expand dumps2/sreal.c.150r.expand
---
--- Comment #15 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-19 16:29 ---
The code generation difference originates from `expmed.o'. Using stage1's
expmed.o with stage2's other .o files I get 'adds', using stage2's expmed.o
with stage1's other .o files I get 'lsls'.
--
--- Comment #16 from laurent at guerby dot net 2010-09-19 16:54 ---
expmed.c:make_tree has some non deterministic calls:
tree
make_tree (tree type, rtx x)
{
...
case PLUS:
return fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, type, make_tree (type, XEXP (x, 0)),
make_tree
--- Comment #11 from laurent at guerby dot net 2010-09-16 11:49 ---
With --with-arch=armv5te --with-tune=xscale I get the comparison failure.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
--- Comment #12 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 13:50 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
So stage1 chooses adds but stage2 and stage3 choose lsls for of the lower
half of a long long. Since the behaviour of a stageN xgcc depends on both the
gcc source code and the compiler
--- Comment #13 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 16:54
---
(In reply to comment #12)
I think it's likely there really is a miscompilation. I've not been able to
get very far trying to set up a native compiler to run on qemu, so it would
help if you could try to
--- Comment #8 from laurent at guerby dot net 2010-09-14 19:19 ---
With 4.4.2 as base on gcc57 (and your PR45444 patch) I don't see the comparison
failure:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01282.html
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-14 19:40 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
With 4.4.2 as base on gcc57 (and your PR45444 patch) I don't see the
comparison
failure:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01282.html
Please try --with-arch=armv5te
--- Comment #10 from laurent at guerby dot net 2010-09-14 20:04 ---
Ok will do.
Note: arm.c:arm_reload_in_hi() seems to have a few non deterministic calls to
gen_rtx_*, eg:
emit_insn (gen_zero_extendqisi2 (gen_rtx_SUBREG (SImode, operands[0], 0),
--- Comment #7 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-09 10:21 ---
It's not a stage2/stage3 debug difference as far as I can tell. I've
recompiled every differing .o file with the stage 1/2/3 xgccs -fcompare-debug
without complaints.
The test case showing the different code generation
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-08 12:24 ---
The smallest .o file that differs between stage2 and stage3 is sreal.o. Diffing
the objdump -d output shows:
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-stage2-gcc/sreal.o: file format elf32-littlearm
+stage3-gcc/sreal.o: file format
--- Comment #3 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-07 14:25 ---
This set of bootstrap comparison failures were introduced by r162418:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00772.html
It's been a pain to bisect because pretty much every week between then and now
there's been some
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 16:42 ---
Confirmed based on comment #2
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-07 22:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I'm currently checking if latest trunk (r163951) is still broken.
It is. I'll try to come up with a cross-compiler friendly test case tomorrow.
--
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-09-02 20:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
With r163667 and fixes for PR45444 applied I don't see issues with a v7-a
bootstrap. Can we see if a later version works for you ?
With r163777 and the proposed PR45444 fix applied I still
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 14:54 ---
With r163667 and fixes for PR45444 applied I don't see issues with a v7-a
bootstrap. Can we see if a later version works for you ?
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45445
28 matches
Mail list logo
