[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-29 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #20 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #19) > I think that the patch is simply incorrect and should be reverted, it very > likely breaks other ports than PowerPC and SPARC and the failure more is > quite

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-28 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou --- > Another approach may be to make the middleend ask the backend for the actual > value of REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (VIRTUAL_STACK_DYNAMIC_REGNUM). Since on Sparc > the address is always 4 mod 8, we'd get an

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-25 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #18 from Dominik Vogt --- Another approach may be to make the middleend ask the backend for the actual value of REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (VIRTUAL_STACK_DYNAMIC_REGNUM). Since on Sparc the address is always 4 mod 8, we'd get an additional

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-25 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou --- > In emit-rtl.c:init_emit(), the alignment of the virtual_stack_dynamic > pointer is hard coded to STACK_BOUNDARY: > > REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (VIRTUAL_STACK_DYNAMIC_REGNUM) = STACK_BOUNDARY; > > The

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-25 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #16 from Dominik Vogt --- In emit-rtl.c:init_emit(), the alignment of the virtual_stack_dynamic pointer is hard coded to STACK_BOUNDARY: REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (VIRTUAL_STACK_DYNAMIC_REGNUM) = STACK_BOUNDARY; The backend must make

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-25 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-24 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt --- Is the dynamic variable stack area properly aligned? Since sparc.h does not define STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET it should be aligned to STACK_BONDARY, i.e. 64 bits.

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Yes, sure, there are 2 alloca uses in the parallel region, one is for y variable, which uses __builtin_alloca_with_align ((p4 - 1 + 1) * 4, 32) and the other is for a, which uses __builtin_alloca_with_align

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-24 Thread rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdapp at linux dot

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-24 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9) > > 2) Replace "p7" in foo with just "7". If it still fails we know the bug is > > not > > triggered by the dynamic allocation of a or b. > >

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-24 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 40141 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40141=edit reduced testcase and assembler output I've managed at least some reduction of the testcase: as you can see, one stack

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-24 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- > Some things to try with reduction-10.c: > > 1) Remove all OMP pragmas from the code. If it still fails it's not a > limbgomp > bug. The

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- Some things to try with reduction-10.c: 1) Remove all OMP pragmas from the code. If it still fails it's not a limbgomp bug. 2) Replace "p7" in foo with just "7". If it still fails we know the bug is not

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- The dumps show some differences I'd expect, but debugging libgomp testcases is awkward because they are so complicated. In the pre-patched era, Gcc's dynamic allocation on the stack was a bit too large most

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 40116 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40116=edit assembler output @ r242590 Assembler output with culprit patch applied.

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 40115 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40115=edit assembler output @ r242589

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- Could you provide assembly dumps of the function foo() in the testcase, both, with and without the "culprit" patch?

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- That very liekely means that libgomp has a buffer overflow in memory allocated dynamically on the stack.

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can you please bisect it? Not aware of any recent changes that could cause that.

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

2016-11-22 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0