--- Comment #23 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 14:36
---
(In reply to comment #22)
(In reply to comment #20)
buf[n] = 6;
memset (buf+n, 0, i + j);
if (buf[0] != 6)
It looks like you forgot to replace the second buf[0] by buf[n].
Sorry, my
--- Comment #24 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 14:44
---
I should have added, the core dumps were observed on gcc versions
3.4.3
4.2.4
4.4.0
4.4.1 20090715 (prerelease)
on the Sun T5240 with it's T2+ processors.
The success on the Sun Blade 2000 was only tried
--- Comment #25 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 19:33
---
(In reply to comment #24)
I should have added, the core dumps were observed on gcc versions
3.4.3
4.2.4
4.4.0
4.4.1 20090715 (prerelease)
on the Sun T5240 with it's T2+ processors.
The success
--- Comment #18 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-17 11:19
---
(In reply to comment #17)
Try:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
extern void *memset (void *, const void *, size_t);
extern void abort (void);
volatile size_t i = 0x8000U, j = 0x8000U;
char buf[16];
--- Comment #19 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2009-07-17
15:51 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
I've compiled and linked that code. It does not abort.
Bad point for this theory :-(
The result could still depend on the alignment of the pointer, so you could try
replacing
--- Comment #20 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 01:14
---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
I've compiled and linked that code. It does not abort.
Bad point for this theory :-(
The result could still depend on the alignment of the pointer, so
--- Comment #21 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 01:18
---
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
I've compiled and linked that code. It does not abort.
Bad point for this theory :-(
The result could still depend on
--- Comment #22 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2009-07-18
04:50 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
buf[n] = 6;
memset (buf+n, 0, i + j);
if (buf[0] != 6)
It looks like you forgot to replace the second buf[0] by buf[n].
--
--- Comment #5 from zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr 2009-07-16 07:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=18203)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18203action=view)
preprocessed version of the file mpn_exp.c from mpfr-2.4.1
Note that replacing line 74:
MPN_ZERO (a, n - 1);
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-16 08:31 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created an attachment (id=18203)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18203action=view) [edit]
preprocessed version of the file mpn_exp.c from mpfr-2.4.1
Note that replacing
--- Comment #7 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 10:19
---
(In reply to comment #4)
mpfr-2.4.1 compiles and tests Ok for me on an Ultra5 (USIIi) running
sparc64-linux, with gmp-4.2.4 (compiled by gcc-4.3.4) and gcc 4.3.4, 4.4.0,
and
4.4.1 20090630.
I don't have
--- Comment #8 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 10:24
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Sounds a lot like PR39867 and PR40747 are hitting you. Can you grab those
fixes, apply them to your 4.4.0, rebuild it, and test mpfr again? Or get the
4.4.1-RC and test that
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-16 10:31 ---
folding happens even at -O0 and both bugs are in the folder. So, please try
ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.1-RC-20090715/
first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40757
--- Comment #10 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 12:32
---
(In reply to comment #9)
folding happens even at -O0 and both bugs are in the folder. So, please try
ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.1-RC-20090715/
first.
I tried it.
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-16 14:07 ---
You haven't mentioned what options you compiled this file with. So, assuming
-O2, I see:
add %i4, -1, %l5! n,, tmp186
sethi %hi(1073740800), %o2!, tmp189
sll %l5, 2, %l5
--- Comment #12 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2009-07-16
20:34 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
for this memset call, which looks correct to me. The st %g1, [%i0+%l5] line
stores to %i0 a[n-1] and memset is called with memset (a, 0, (n + 0x3fffU)
2); So, if this
--- Comment #13 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 21:29
---
(In reply to comment #11)
You haven't mentioned what options you compiled this file with. So, assuming
-O2, I see:
add %i4, -1, %l5! n,, tmp186
sethi %hi(1073740800), %o2!,
--- Comment #14 from zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr 2009-07-17 00:57 ---
You haven't mentioned what options you compiled this file with.
the problem appears both with -O0, -O1 and -O2.
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40757
--- Comment #15 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-17 03:21
---
(In reply to comment #14)
You haven't mentioned what options you compiled this file with.
the problem appears both with -O0, -O1 and -O2.
Paul
Also worth noting is that this builds fine with some
--- Comment #16 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-17 04:11
---
(In reply to comment #0)
See http://websympa.loria.fr/wwsympa/arc/mpfr/2009-07/msg00031.html
and the following discussion.
This was on t2.math.washington.edu with
/usr/local/gcc-4.4.0-sun-linker/bin/gcc:
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 06:27
---
Thanks for the report, but we need a preprocessed testcase, see instructions at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 09:55 ---
I would also recommend to try a newer snapshot from the gcc 4.4 release branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40757
--- Comment #4 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-15 13:15 ---
mpfr-2.4.1 compiles and tests Ok for me on an Ultra5 (USIIi) running
sparc64-linux, with gmp-4.2.4 (compiled by gcc-4.3.4) and gcc 4.3.4, 4.4.0, and
4.4.1 20090630.
I don't have a T2, but could possibly do some tests on
--- Comment #1 from zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr 2009-07-15 02:02 ---
Note this bug was noticed on a Sun T5240, and might be specific to T2+.
David Kirkby offers access to the machine for gcc developers who might want
to reproduce/isolate/fix the bug.
--
24 matches
Mail list logo
