[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #21 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 06:29:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html Works ok on native alpha [1]. There are two remaining problems, an assert

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 07:21:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) There are two remaining problems, an assert in as, as reported in [2] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C compilation, -Os

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 07:24:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #22) This is PR 49972, reportedly fixed in binutils [1]. Er, the ice in gas with invalid .gcc_except_table is fixed in binutis.

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #18 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-05 17:33:05 UTC --- Argh. The problem is that if we emit both .ent / .frame / .mask / .end notes and .cfi directives, the .cfi directives get ignored. Thus the

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #19 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-05 17:44:43 UTC --- Err, it's slightly more complicated than that. We're emitting *both* a frame from .ent/.end *and* a frame from .cfi. The later has the personality info,

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #20 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-05 19:04:20 UTC --- http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-02 06:16:21 UTC --- Still happens with unpatched compiler, gcc 4.7.0 20110801 [1]. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-08/msg00190.html

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-15 07:08:46 UTC --- Results with a patched compiler [1], no regressions. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg01678.html

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 19:37:30 UTC --- Created attachment 24765 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24765 asm source that compiles to good executable This asm was produced by compiling

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 19:39:17 UTC --- Created attachment 24766 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24766 asm source that compiles to good executable

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 19:56:17 UTC --- Created attachment 24767 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24767 bad executable, contents of the .eh_frame section bad: file format

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 19:57:21 UTC --- Created attachment 24768 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24768 good executable, contents of the .eh_frame section good: file format

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-14 20:16:38 UTC --- Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is using .cfi directives while the other isn't. Could you post a .i file?

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 20:32:01 UTC --- Created attachment 24769 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24769 Preprocessed source. Gzipped cleanup-10.i preprocessed source.

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 20:34:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is using .cfi directives while the other isn't. Yes,

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-14 20:37:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is using .cfi directives while the other isn't. Lack of

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-14 20:40:40 UTC --- Well, the new use of .cfi directives probably comes from this bit that was committed in between the two revisions: Index: gcc/config/alpha/elf.h

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 21:12:13 UTC --- Created attachment 24771 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24771 asm source at r176020 Indeed, reverting the patch from Comment 10 fixed

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-14 21:21:15 UTC --- Just guessing now, but you might also want to try a different version of binutils - maybe there's a problem with .cfi directive handling? Or maybe this has

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-07-14 21:27:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) Just guessing now, but you might also want to try a different version of binutils - maybe there's a problem with .cfi directive

[Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688 --- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-14 21:34:16 UTC --- Well, .cfi handling in gas isn't totally untested because there's plenty of glibc asm files that use it. But I have to concede that there might be a bug.