https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54418
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43744
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54418
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
The full buildlog can be found here [1].
Forgot the actual link:
http://buildd.debian-ports.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43744
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hi Kazumoto!
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #13)
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #12)
I'm seeing this issue again when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43744
--- Comment #15 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hmm, so for whatever reason, the problem does not occur again anymore and
binutils just builds fine [1].
I did not upgrade the compiler, however it might
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Hello!
Recently we ran into linker issues on our SH4 buildds in Debian [1]. We
initially blamed the linker for the problem, but after some more investigation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
Adrian, maybe you can provide some comments regarding this issue?
Well, yes. gcc-4.8 builds fine on native sh4
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Hello!
Both imagemagick and graphicsmagick currently fail to build from source on
Debian sh4 with the current version of gcc, 4.9.2
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Created attachment 34602
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34602action=edit
gzipped build log of webkitgtk-2.4.8 on Debian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64832
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hi Oleg!
Yes, I will simply run a manual build in the following days and just make sure
nothing is thrown away. I finally have my very own SH4 board now and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Here's a tarball with the failed build:
http://userpage.physik.fu-berlin.de/~glaubitz/graphicsmagick-failed-build.tar.gz
You can reproduce the problem
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Target: sh*-*-*
Created attachment 34899
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34899action=edit
Preprocessed source file
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Target: sh*-*-*
Hello!
Here's another package that previously successfully built on Debian sh4 and now
fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 34898
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34898action=edit
Preprocessed source file for protobuf 2.6.1 (gzipped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
Ping. Precompiled source to reproduce the problem is still missing here.
I will try to provide it in the following
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Target: sh*-*-*
Hi!
I just ran into another regression with gcc on SuperH, this time while trying
to compile libav 11.2 on gcc-4.9.2
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Target: sh*-*-*
Hi!
Another regression in gcc-4.9.2, this time when trying to compile libmcrypt
2.5.8:
libtool: link: ( cd .libs rm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 34822
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34822action=edit
Pre-compiled source file for libav 11.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65153
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 34823
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34823action=edit
Pre-compiled source file for libmcrypt 2.5.8
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Target Milestone: ---
Host: sh4-linux-gnu
Target: sh*-*-*
Created attachment 35440
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35441
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35441action=edit
Preprocessed source files for gcc-5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Additional comment:
There seem to be multiple (unrelated?) errors which prevent the built but all
of them, including the one I reported seem to relate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
I can't see these failures on my cross builds of gcc-5, though.
It could be a problem of the build compiler too.
I am manually building the latest gcc-4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hi!
I did some more tests and it turns out, my current compiler can't even build
gcc-4.9 anymore. Inspecting the build log [1] closer hints at problems when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #8)
You can revert the above changes to see what happens. Looks safe
changes to me, but some changes could reveal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #9)
I haven't worked with the gcc code base before, so any suggestions on how to
work through the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
To be followed up.
Just built with gcc-4.9_4.9.2-7 which previously successfully built
gcc-4.9_4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
So, I have tried disabling some of the patches but it seems that these depend
on each other. Thus, I will probably have to checkout gcc from source via git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #17 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Thanks a lot guys for working on this! I'm really glad you're doing this :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66395
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #2)
Hmm, I thought 66358 was already fixed.
Oh, that's a different one. Sorry, my bad.
/status/fetch.php?pkg=gc
c-5arch=sh4ver=5.1.1-8stamp=1433309037
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66395
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
Dup of PR 66358.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 66358 ***
Hmm, I thought 66358 was already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #18 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #17)
Which version of mpfr/gmp is used for compilers? mpfr has self
test and you could run it with make check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #39)
Done. No new failures for the top level make -k check.
So, chances are gcc-5 would build now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #42 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #41)
Maybe. Trying it with Oleg's patch is a good idea.
Is it applied yet? Otherwise I really will have to look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #5)
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #0)
Created attachment 35792 [details]
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35810
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35810action=edit
Pre-processed source for wmfire.c test compile (run without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35809
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35809action=edit
Pre-processed source for wmfire.c test compile (run with strace)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35811
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35811action=edit
Same compiler invocation, but this time with strace -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Alright, I did some further tests. I downloaded the source package for wmfire
with apt-get source wmfire and installed its build dependencies with apt-get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35808
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35808action=edit
strace of gcc segfaulting when compiling wmfire.c on sh4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Alright:
glaubitz@tirpitz:~/debian/segfault-test/wmfire-1.2.4/src$ gcc -E wmfire.c -o
wmfire.i $(pkg-config --cflags gdk-2.0) $(pkg-config --cflags libgtop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
So, it seems Matthias is right, there is definitely a regression in gcc-4.9 in
the code generation. Packages that were recently build with gcc-4.9_4.9.2-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35807
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35807action=edit
strace of journalctl_220-6-sh4 during segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35812
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35812action=edit
Log for strace -i -f -o segfaultlog /usr/lib/gcc/sh4-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #27 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Alright, I have tracked it down now! It's definitely a bug in mpfr4 and *not*
gcc.
I rebuilt both mpfr4_3.1.2-1 and mpfr4_3.1.2-3 with the latest compiler we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #28 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Addendum: mpfr4_3.1.3-1 seems to be affected as well but I need to perform more
testing. But it's definitely the jump from 3.1.2-1 to 3.1.2-3 that caused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #22 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #20)
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #16)
...
763a3c: 03 61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #26 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #25)
I don't know the code of mpfr. It could use __builtin_strlen for stuff like
parsing numbers etc. However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #23 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
It seems that Kaz was right. Downgrading libmpfr fixes the issue for me:
glaubitz@tirpitz:~/debian/segfault-test/wmfire-1.2.4/src$ gcc wmfire.c -o
wmfire.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #24 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #23)
It seems that Kaz was right. Downgrading libmpfr fixes the issue for me:
In order to test whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
I included some more context:
glaubitz@tirpitz:~/debian/segfault-test$ objdump -d
/usr/lib/gcc/sh4-linux-gnu/4.9/cc1 |grep -C20 763a40
763a18: 10 38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66551
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
So this is a full 64-bit compiler and not the 32-bit sparc64 compiler
usually built on Debian? If so, what base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Any news on this issue? The sh4 buildds in Debian are currently building a
snapshot as of 2015-06-13 (r224454), let's see how far it gets.
Adrian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hello!
Just as a heads up: This particular problem did not occur with the snapshot as
of 2014-12-20 (r218987) and we actually always built gdc in Debian. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
Please try to find out which revision/patch caused the regression as
mentioned above. That would be really helpful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hi Matthias!
Thanks for the bug report but I think this might actually a problem with the
host compiler or its libraries. I have seen segfaults in multiple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Just as a heads up: Once the buildd has finished building the latest
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-21 package, I will update all buildds and reschedule all affected
packages
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sparc*-*-*
Created attachment 35787
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35787action=edit
Build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #33 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #32)
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
I should have been more clear about these comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #35 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #34)
If 4.8.something doesn't bootstrap, it would be a 4.8 Regression type of
bug. I'd move it to a new PR.
Already
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sh*-*-*
Hello
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
As Kaz mentioned in PR 65979 #c8, first revert all the SH specific patches.
The SVN revisions are r221686, r221305
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #43 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #42)
Cross your fingers ;).
Btw, could building the fixed gcc-4.9 with a compiler affected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #41 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #40)
with my 4.9 native compiler built with 4.9 cross compiler for svn
gcc-4_9-branch. I hope that miscompilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35870
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35870action=edit
Pre-processed source Magick.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Alright, know that I understand how to create pre-processed sources manually,
I'm attaching the requested pre-processed sources.
Here's how I obtained the pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 35871
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35871action=edit
Source file Magick.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #42 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #41)
So, please bear with me until I can give some feedback.
Matthias has uploaded the 4.9.3 release now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #45 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #44)
Not likely. The sane gmp/mpfr/mpc libraries are needed, though.
Hmm, so the gcc I built is still broken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #46 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Furthermore, gcc also built a version of grep that is broken and simply refuses
to read any options:
root@tirpitz:..grep-test2/bin ls
egrep fgrep grep
root
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #47 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Well, now I just compiled both procps and grep with the latest toolchain
(gcc-4.9_4.9.3 and binutils_2.25-9) from a pristine tarball with no Debian
patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #28 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
It doesn't bootstrap because the D compiler fails the compare test. This
happens both on gcc-4.8 and gcc-4.9, here's the excerpt from 4.8 [1]:
Comparing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #27 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #25)
So, if I understand correctly ...
- 4.9.something doesn't bootstrap because of something unknown
It doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #24 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #23)
Ouch. The peephole in problem was added at gcc-5 not at 4.9. The above
patch should fix the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #48 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Alright, I found it, -fstack-protector-strong is the culprit. Will file a new
bug report now.
Adrian
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
It turned out that the fix for PR65249 causes this problem.
The codes for stack protect can be inserted after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #25 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Ok, this seems to have been fixed:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 36225
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36225action=edit
Diff of the disassembly of the stripped versions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 36223
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36223action=edit
Stage 2 compiled version of ctfeexpr.dmd.o (unstripped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 36224
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36224action=edit
Stage 3 compiled version of ctfeexpr.dmd.o (unstripped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #59 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #58)
Oh, and according to the Debian changelog, it must be a regression that was
introduced somewhere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #15 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Oh, and according to the Debian changelog, it must be a regression that was
introduced somewhere between r218987 and r222750 of the gcc-4.9 branch.
Currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #58 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Oh, and according to the Debian changelog, it must be a regression that was
introduced somewhere between r218987 and r222750 of the gcc-4.9 branch.
Currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #15)
Oh, and according to the Debian changelog, it must be a regression that was
introduced somewhere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
The issue still reproduces with gcc_4.9_4.9.3-3 in Debian which corresponds to
SVN revision r226107 of the gcc-4.9 branch:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64833
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
I could reproduce the problem on trunk with '-DXS_VERSION=\6.89\ -fwrapv
-fno-strict-aliasing -fopenmp -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Would it be helpful to have a diff of the disassembly attached to this bug
report as in PR target/67002?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Some observations:
glaubitz@z6:~/gcc-5-files sh4-linux-gnu-strip real_stage2.o
glaubitz@z6:~/gcc-5-files ls -l
total 800
-rw-r--r-- 1 glaubitz glaubitz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
And here is the diff from the disassembly:
glaubitz@z6:~/gcc-5-files diff -u real*asm
--- real2.asm 2015-07-29 09:17:42.806123211 +0200
+++ real3.asm 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Here are the files, copied as follows:
root@tirpitz:/home/glaubitz cd gcc-5-test_5.2.1-12/
root@tirpitz:..glaubitz/gcc-5-test_5.2.1-12 find . -name real.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Created attachment 36085
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36085action=edit
gcc/real.o from different compiler stages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #7)
A rare indeterminacy of the register choice. Both codes are valid.
Ok, that's what I thought as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Update:
Michael Karcher, who previously helped smashing some bugs in gcc for the SH
target, had a go at this and he discovered that the difference between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
Yes, maybe. Please attach.
Ok, please give me a few days :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #12)
I'm collecting all the dumped output now and will upload. I will follow up
with a download link
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
Not sure if this is a good idea.
I actually think it is the best option as chances are dim otherwise that we
find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Thomas Petazzoni from comment #11)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
This problem still occurs
1 - 100 of 504 matches
Mail list logo
