https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #47 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 88608 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #46 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #44)
> In case I was a little unclear, the board freezes, not the binary.
Looks like GCC optimizes the output so much, the board cannot cope with such a
perfect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #45 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #44)
> In case I was a little unclear, the board freezes, not the binary.
Aarg, got it. That's definitely funny behavior ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #44 from PeteVine ---
In case I was a little unclear, the board freezes, not the binary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #43 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #42)
> Funnily enough, using `-fprofile-update=atomic` and targeting Cortex-A5/NEON
> immediately leads to a hard-freeze on trying to run the instrumented binary.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #42 from PeteVine ---
Funnily enough, using `-fprofile-update=atomic` and targeting Cortex-A5/NEON
immediately leads to a hard-freeze on trying to run the instrumented binary.
Probably a bug in the outdated kernel. (I've got a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Bug 58306 depends on bug 77466, which changed state.
Bug 77466 Summary: [7 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-dump-1.C -std=gnu++11
(test for excess errors)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77466
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #40 from PeteVine ---
Absolutely! Even at 32 threads there's no problem whatsoever.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #39 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #38)
> Aaargh, I was using a recent nightly for the first time in a month and
> completely forgot it was still necessary. Apologies!
No problem! Good that it works, may I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #38 from PeteVine ---
Aaargh, I was using a recent nightly for the first time in a month and
completely forgot it was still necessary. Apologies!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #37 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #36)
> The original patch is still not enough it seems. I've just tried profiling
> the C-ray benchmark from issue #53659 (./c-ray-mt -t 32 -s 160x120 -r 8 -i
> sphfract -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Artem S. Tashkinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #36 from PeteVine ---
The original patch is still not enough it seems. I've just tried profiling the
C-ray benchmark from issue #53659 (./c-ray-mt -t 32 -s 160x120 -r 8 -i sphfract
-o output.ppm) and any -t (for threads) greater than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #35 from Andreas Schwab ---
That patch doesn't change anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #33 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 39275
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39275=edit
Patch candidate for the fallout
Hi Andread.
Can you please test me the following patch. I understand why the symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #34 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #33)
> Created attachment 39275 [details]
> Patch candidate for the fallout
>
> Hi Andread.
*Andreas
>
> Can you please test me the following patch. I understand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #32 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #30)
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160811/Build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../libgcov.
> a(_gcov_time_profiler.o): In function `__gcov_time_profiler_atomic':
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #31 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #30)
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160811/Build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../libgcov.
> a(_gcov_time_profiler.o): In function `__gcov_time_profiler_atomic':
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #30 from Andreas Schwab ---
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160811/Build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../libgcov.a(_gcov_time_profiler.o):
In function `__gcov_time_profiler_atomic':
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #29 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #28)
> Fixed on trunk.
Thanks!
Will GCC 6.1.1 include these patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:14:56 2016
New Revision: 239324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239324=gcc=rev
Log:
Add new *_atomic counter update function
PR gcov-profile/58306
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #26 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24)
> > Wonderful! What are the chances of this patch being merged with GCC 4.9.x?
>
> Any, because 4.9 was closed last week and there's not going to be any
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #25 from PeteVine ---
Great news, thanks! What about backporting to 4.9? There's not going to be
another official release but manual patching could still be useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
> Wonderful! What are the chances of this patch being merged with GCC 4.9.x?
Any, because 4.9 was closed last week and there's not going to be any release.
If you are interested, I can back-port patches to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #23 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #22)
> Sure, as Nathan suggested, we'll select the proper default value according
> to -pthread argument.
Wonderful! What are the chances of this patch being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #21)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #20)
> > > Do I understand the patch correctly that it requires
> > > "-fprofile-update=atomic" option in order to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #21 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #20)
> > Do I understand the patch correctly that it requires
> > "-fprofile-update=atomic" option in order to eliminate this bug?
>
> Exactly, I hope I'll be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #19)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> > Ok, problem is that various value profilers are not updated atomically,
> > fixed in:
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #19 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> Ok, problem is that various value profilers are not updated atomically,
> fixed in:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00600.html
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, problem is that various value profilers are not updated atomically, fixed
in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00600.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #16 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Created attachment 39059
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39059=edit
unrarsrc-5.4.4 + profile data
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #15 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> Ok, I'll try to reproduce, but I would need:
>
> 1) echo ""> /tmp/ff.c && gcc -march=native /tmp/ff.c -c -v
Done.
> 2) please upload somewhere a sample
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #14 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Created attachment 39058
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39058=edit
gcc -march=native /tmp/ff.c -c -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #12)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> > I've just verified that GCC 5.3.1 and GCC 6.1.1 and latest trunk work fine
> > (x86_64-linux-gnu). I built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
--- Comment #12 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> I've just verified that GCC 5.3.1 and GCC 6.1.1 and latest trunk work fine
> (x86_64-linux-gnu). I built the binary and unrar a rar archive.
>
> Can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
39 matches
Mail list logo