--- Comment #31 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-25 17:42
---
Yes this is a dup as the patch which honza added to that bug fixes this one
also. Plus there is a small testcase. So closing as a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30509 ***
--
pinskia at
--- Comment #30 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 00:07
---
I think this is really a duplicate of bug 30509 which has a nice short
testcase.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #28 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:28
---
I think this is honza's bug. The backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0xda66cc ../../gcc/dominance.c, line=374,
function=0xda66e4 calc_dfs_tree) at ../../gcc/diagnostic.c:642
#1 0x0077eba8 in calc_dfs_tree
--- Comment #29 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-18 23:30
---
Created an attachment (id=13068)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13068action=view)
Reduced testcase as far as I can reduce it
This is the most reduced testcase I can get it. it is down to 39k.
--- Comment #22 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-02-16 09:06 ---
Frankly, I think it would make sense to remove completely this XFAIL-ing mess
and just wait for Diego to fix the compiler issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
--- Comment #23 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 12:35
---
(In reply to comment #22)
Frankly, I think it would make sense to remove completely this XFAIL-ing mess
and just wait for Diego to fix the compiler issue.
Agreed. I don't understand why the rush to XFAIL a
--- Comment #24 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 14:26 ---
Subject: Bug 30768
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Feb 16 14:26:21 2007
New Revision: 122044
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=122044
Log:
2007-02-16 Paolo Carlini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Revert.
--- Comment #25 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-02-16 14:28 ---
Ok, just reverted the XFAILing. I think Andrew Pinski is already working on
reducing the testcase, in case we can also ask Janis to do a binary search.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #26 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 17:01 ---
Paolo Carlini, why did you revert the xfail? That's *not* according to
procedure.
I really resent that, but please discuss the issue on the gcc@ or gcc-patches@
lists, not here. If it was the extra FAIL lines for
--- Comment #27 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-02-16 17:04 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Paolo Carlini, why did you revert the xfail? That's *not* according to
procedure.
You can resent whatever you want, but I'm maintaining the library and both
Benjamin (another maintainer) and
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 12:41
---
It triggers on the c++tester (x86_64) for boost and tramp3d as well. Can we
please fix this asap? Thanks.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-02-15 16:06 ---
Also, I don't think the XFAIL-ing has been implemented in the correct way. We
are now seeing logs like:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00570.html
--
--- Comment #20 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 21:43 ---
In reply to comment #19, it's because the dg-bogus test trigs for that target;
it hits the ICE. As Mark didn't see the fail when testing, and noone else
complained, I originally thought only cris-*-* and perhaps one or
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 01:49
---
I am still reducing this source.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 20:15 ---
Subject: Bug 30768
Author: hp
Date: Wed Feb 14 20:15:29 2007
New Revision: 121959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121959
Log:
PR middle-end/30768
*
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 22:31 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
PR middle-end/30768
* testsuite/ext/pb_ds/regression/list_update_data_map_rand.cc:
Xfail ICE for cris-*-*.
You really should not have xfail'd an ICE that just
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:21
---
I have reproduced this with the attached .ii file and a cross-compiler to
cris-axis-elf. The problematic function is allocate_new_entry.
I believe that the problem is that the dom2 pass eliminates basic blocks,
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:54
---
(In reply to comment #10)
Diego, is this something that you might be able to help with?
Sure.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-14 23:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression]: ICE in
ext/pb_ds/regression/list_update_data_map_rand.cc
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 23:54
---
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:10 ---
I think just adding a bugzilla report about this, and not adding in an explicit
XFAIL, would have been sufficient. It's no biggie, however.
FYI it looks like solaris is also tripping over this.
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:13 ---
And HPUX
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00543.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 00:13 ---
And SH4
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00544.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
--- Comment #16 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 01:31 ---
Sorry I've forgotten to post test-results.
Applying contrib/test_summary -t to the result of Geoff's btest-gcc.sh yielded,
as of r121948,
URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00550.html
before the xfail
--- Comment #17 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 01:39 ---
My arguments so far for xfailing are at
URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01281.html.
People having concerns about xfailing tests, please vent them there or at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 05:08 ---
Identical failure also seen for native x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu since at least
r121846 (presumably the same cause), so I'm a bit worried that it wasn't
noticed when 121819 was committed. It seems best to xfail for cris-*
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 05:14
---
It's certainly my responsibility to fix it.
Personally, I don't think it's necessary to revert it, and I will try to get to
it soon, but if it's getting in other people's way, then we could potentially
revert.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-12 00:00 ---
/* This aborts e.g. when there is _no_ path from ENTRY to EXIT at all. */
gcc_assert (di-nodes == (unsigned int) n_basic_blocks - 1);
Sounds like inlining is messing up the CFG with slightly different
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-12 00:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=13037)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13037action=view)
Preprocessed and bzip2-compressed (3MeB uncompressed) code.
cc1plus -O2 is sufficient. Though -quit is recommended
--- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-12 00:23 ---
s/-quit/-quiet/ in last comment.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-12 00:54 ---
I can reproduce this on powerpc-darwin.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30768
30 matches
Mail list logo
