http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #102 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-11-22
16:20:26 UTC ---
Author: bonzini
Date: Mon Nov 22 16:20:16 2010
New Revision: 167038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167038
Log:
2010-11-22 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #101 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-11-17
23:44:28 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01832.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #98 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-11-14 22:35:54
UTC ---
Minimized testcase:
int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
{
int *p = (int *) arg;
int x = *cr;
long pu_err = 0;
if (x)
asm volatile (stw %2,0(%1): =r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #99 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-14 23:12:25 UTC ---
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
Minimized testcase:
int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
{
int *p = (int *) arg;
int x = *cr;
long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #100 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-11-14
23:34:28 UTC ---
Cool! The reduced code no longer makes any sense but it should compile.
I'm sure this was a fair bit of work.
Actually delta made all the work down to 31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #94 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-08
16:39:09 UTC ---
In doing a 2.6.36 kernel build with
d...@mx3210:~/opt/gnu/gcc64/bin$ ./hppa64-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./hppa64-linux-gnu-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #95 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-08 17:00:41 UTC ---
CC fs/ioctl.o
fs/ioctl.c: In function 'do_vfs_ioctl':
fs/ioctl.c:601:1: internal compiler error: in update_df, at fwprop.c:877
Please submit a full bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #96 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2010-11-08
17:24:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #88)
I also tested the patch on armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi. The ICE in
function '__popcountsi2' is still there, so this must be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #97 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-11-08 17:30:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #96)
(In reply to comment #88)
I also tested the patch on armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi. The ICE in
function '__popcountsi2' is still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #91 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-29 22:29:10
UTC ---
I just noticed that the latest patch is causing a failure of
gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 with -O1 on my ia64-hp-hpux11.23 platform.
Note that the original
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #92 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-10-29 22:33:04
UTC ---
See followup here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01636.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #93 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-29 22:39:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #92)
See followup here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01636.html
Ah yes, that's better.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #88 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
13:41:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
Created attachment 22079 [details]
patch
I haven't yet tested this on a cross-compiler, but it bootstrapped and
regtested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #89 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-10-20 14:09:33
UTC ---
The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation. Is it caused by Bernd's patch
too? Or by fwprop?
According to comment 22, previously it was not bootstrapping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #90 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-20 14:39:26 UTC ---
The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation. Is it caused by Bernd's patch
too? Or by fwprop?
Actually, the ICE I saw this morning was in stage3. This box is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #87 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-19 16:09:57
UTC ---
My testing on 32 bit and 64 bit PA boxes went fine. The patch looks good to
me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #21699|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #86 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-18 19:52:39
UTC ---
I was able to bootstrap the 32 bit PA compiler using the latest patch. I
haven't done a full test run yet but I will do that overnight.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #82 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-10-13 07:36:45
UTC ---
My patch is not finished and doesn't bootstrap, I'll look at it (promised) next
weekend. I suggest just using BOOT_CFLAGS=-O2 -fno-forward-propagate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #83 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-13 11:42:45 UTC ---
My patch is not finished and doesn't bootstrap, I'll look at it (promised)
next
weekend. I suggest just using BOOT_CFLAGS=-O2 -fno-forward-propagate.
I'll give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #84 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-13 17:36:15
UTC ---
My patch is not finished and doesn't bootstrap, I'll look at it (promised)
next
weekend. I suggest just using BOOT_CFLAGS=-O2 -fno-forward-propagate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #81 from Laurent GUERBY laurent at guerby dot net 2010-10-12
17:43:19 UTC ---
Now testing r165387 + Paolo patch as this seems to be the last PR preventing
bootstrap on arm-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
Laurent GUERBY laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-*-* |hppa64-*-*
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #79 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-09-04 16:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=21699)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21699action=view)
incomplete patch
This shows what I plan to do. It doesn't even compile stage2, so it is more or
less useless. Still
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||hppa64-*-*
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #76 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-24 06:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On 08/23/2010 10:49 PM, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
--- Comment #75 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-08-23 20:49 ---
Paolo, are you
--- Comment #77 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-24 13:13 ---
We might also want to throttle back the change in function.c so that it's only
enabled when extending from a memory location. But it still would be good to
know and fix what exactly is going wrong in fwprop.
--
--- Comment #78 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-24 13:44 ---
My plan for fwprop is to replace the whole update_df machinery with a call to
df_uses_record. The use-def links can be kept up to date by looking at the
original uses of both the propagated-from and propagated-into
--- Comment #75 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-08-23 20:49 ---
Paolo, are you looking at this? The hppa64-*-* bootstrap is still broken.
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #68 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 07:07 ---
fwprop.c doesn't handle it directly, but local_ref_killed_between_p should see
defs created by df-scan.c for each hard register in regs_invalidated_by_call
(see df_get_call_refs).
Also, since fwprop can lengthen lifetimes
--- Comment #69 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-06 09:29 ---
(In reply to comment #68)
Also, since fwprop can lengthen lifetimes arbitrarily (though this wouldn't
happen often) propagate_rtx actually forbids copy propagation of hard
registers:
if (REG_P (new_rtx)
--- Comment #70 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 09:54 ---
The real reason is the first: why is there no def for r25?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #71 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-08-06 09:57
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On 08/06/2010 11:54 AM, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #70 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 09:54 ---
The real
--- Comment #72 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 10:00 ---
No, why is there no def for r25 _where it is clobbered_?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #73 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-08-06 10:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On 08/06/2010 12:00 PM, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #72 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 10:00 ---
No, why is
--- Comment #74 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 13:38 ---
Thanks for the help. I'll look at it tomorrow/next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #56 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 11:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=21400)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21400action=view)
A patch to aid debugging
This patch should help pinpoint exactly what went wrong. It adds a dbg-cnt to
the code
--- Comment #57 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-05
19:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If you could experiment with passing -fdbg-cnt=bug:N to the compiler,
--- Comment #66 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 19:56 ---
(In reply to comment #57)
Failure occurs for N = 0. N = 1 compiles successfully. Attached files.
Argh. I seem to have swapped the logic of the dbg_cnt test. Still, this
result appears useful.
I think initial
--- Comment #67 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-05
20:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
I think initial RTL generation is fine, so it looks like my change has exposed
a latent bug. What seems to happen is that some pass
--- Comment #55 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-04
19:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
The exception is caused by get_bb_copy returning NULL. However, get_bb_copy
is not miscompiled.
The change to function.c
--- Comment #53 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-30
15:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29
--- Comment #54 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 15:12 ---
Yeah, that's what I did. I if (0)ed the newly added code block to produce
comparisons, but I haven't found anything yet that looks wrong in the dumps
(and I can't read PA assembly very well). So it would be useful
--- Comment #47 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-29
15:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
--- Comment #33 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc
--- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 19:46 ---
Thanks. I can more-or-less produce the same assembly with a cross compiler,
but just from looking at the assembly and the debugging dumps I can't quite
figure out which function is being miscompiled. Can you
--- Comment #52 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-30
02:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29
--- Comment #39 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 11:48 ---
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #40 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 14:07
---
(In reply to comment #39)
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
on ia64.
--
--- Comment #41 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
14:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Testing.
With the previous versions, hash table lookups were somehow broken,
resulting in NULL
--- Comment #42 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-22 16:47
---
(In reply to comment #40)
(In reply to comment #39)
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Mainline bootstrap is OK on ia32 and Intel64
as of revision 162408. Test is in progress
on ia64.
Revision
--- Comment #43 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
18:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Still same problem. I'm trying with function.c reverted to 162239.
Dave
--
--- Comment #44 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
22:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Still same problem. I'm trying with function.c reverted to 162239.
I had a success
--- Comment #45 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 22:54 ---
(In reply to comment #44)
I had a success bootstrap with revision 162414 and function.c reverted
to 162239.
Did the failing bootstrap include the function.c fix in r162391, or was it an
earlier revision?
--
--- Comment #46 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
22:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
Did the failing bootstrap include the function.c fix in r162391, or was it an
earlier revision?
I believe that it did. It was done
--- Comment #38 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 22:48 ---
Subject: Bug 44970
Author: bernds
Date: Wed Jul 21 22:48:14 2010
New Revision: 162390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162390
Log:
PR bootstrap/44970
PR middle-end/45009
--- Comment #34 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-20 06:46 ---
At revision 162313, bootstrap failed on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Configured with: ../gcc-4.6-work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc4.6w
--build=powerpc-apple-darwin9
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,java
--- Comment #35 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 14:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=21264)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21264action=view)
Another attempt to fix the pa64 problem
David, here's a new patch which might fix the PA problem. Please apply
--- Comment #36 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 15:35 ---
I've committed another fix for the (not only) powerpc problem as r162342.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #37 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-21
01:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
David, here's a new patch which might fix the PA problem. Please
--- Comment #31 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-19 07:53 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Created an attachment (id=21243)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243action=view) [edit]
Patch v4
This patch (with/without the patch in
--- Comment #32 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-07-19
13:25 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, the bootstrap failure at r162303 is exhibited as a
miscompiled build/genattrtab...
/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/
--- Comment #33 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-19
14:31 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
This patch (with/without the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt) does not fix the
bootstrap failure on
--- Comment #14 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-18 09:57 ---
gcc-4.6 r162277 bootstrap failure on i686-linux:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
gcc/reg-stack.o differs
gcc/reload.o differs
--- Comment #15 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-18 11:55 ---
And on powerpc64-linux with gcc-4.6 r162277:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/tree-ssa.o differs
libiberty/regex.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1
--- Comment #16 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-18 12:31 ---
And on sparc64-linux with gcc-4.6 r162277:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
libdecnumber/decimal32.o differs
libdecnumber/decimal64.o differs
--- Comment #17 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 15:20
---
And on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 gcc-4.6 162277 in stage2:
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu64/gcc/g
cc-4.6.0/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 15:22
---
(In reply to comment #3)
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
HJ, any chance you could run make check on the stage1 compiler on ia64 to find
a testcase?
New
--- Comment #19 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 18:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view)
Another patch
I've managed to reproduce some differences with -g vs. no-debug builds. This
patch fixes them for
--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 18:52
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view) [edit]
Another patch
I am testing it now.
I've managed to reproduce some
--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 19:03
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view) [edit]
Another patch
This patch passed the last failure. I will report any
--- Comment #22 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-18 19:53 ---
And on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc-4.6 r162277:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/tree-ssa.o differs
gcc/sel-sched-ir.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare]
--- Comment #23 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 20:34
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=21242)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21242action=view) [edit]
Another patch
I've managed to reproduce some differences with -g vs.
--- Comment #24 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 20:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=21243)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243action=view)
Patch v4
I found another potential bug in the interaction between the existing code and
the new one. Fixing
--- Comment #25 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 20:40 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
And on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 gcc-4.6 162277 in stage2:
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:791:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentatio
n fault
If the latest patch does not fix this,
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-18
20:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
Doing a non bootstrap build, I see the following new fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950605-1.c execution, -O1
f:
.PROC
--- Comment #27 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 21:00 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
Doing a non bootstrap build, I see the following new fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950605-1.c execution, -O1
--- Comment #28 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-18 21:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=21247)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21247action=view)
Minimally tested patch for the hppa problem
Seems like we're extending from the wrong mode. Does this fix it?
--- Comment #29 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-18
21:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
David, this seems to be caused by a different revision. The postreload pass
we're discussing here makes no changes to RTL on that
--- Comment #30 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 22:22
---
(In reply to comment #24)
Created an attachment (id=21243)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21243action=view) [edit]
Patch v4
I found another potential bug in the interaction between the
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 15:28 ---
On Linux/ia64, I got
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/fortran/trans-openmp.o differs
gcc/dwarf2out.o differs
make[5]: *** [compare] Error 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-17 15:49 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10.4 bootstrap fails with
/bin/sh: line 1: 55341 Illegal instruction build/genattrtab
../../work/gcc/config/i386/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #3 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 15:53 ---
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
HJ, any chance you could run make check on the stage1 compiler on ia64 to find
a testcase?
--
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 16:12 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
On Linux/ia32, revision 162270:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00624.html
caused:
make[6]: Leaving directory `/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld'
Comparing stages 2 and
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-07-17 16:15 ---
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent today.
With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt
bootstrap fails at stage 1 with:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC
--- Comment #6 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 16:41 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
x86_64 failures are expected due to a backend bug, see the patch I sent
today.
With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt
bootstrap fails at stage 1
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 16:56 ---
It also miscompiled 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 on
Linux/i386 with
-m32 -O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math -funroll-loops
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:35 ---
The difference in recog.o is in peep2_find_free_register:
@@ -5271,8 +5271,8 @@ Disassembly of section .text:
4884: 74 5e je 48e4
peep2_find_free_register+0x
d4
4886: 8d 74
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:39 ---
The patch uses uid of the insn. Will DEBUG_INSN affect
uid processing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-17 17:42
---
With stage3 gcc, I got
[...@gnu-29 stage3-gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/
-isystem
--- Comment #11 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 22:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=21238)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21238action=view)
Potential fix
Yeah, I think it trips over DEBUG_INSNs. I'm testing this fix, does it help in
any way?
--
--- Comment #12 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 23:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=21239)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239action=view)
Better patch.
Here's something that's a little more likely to work.
--
bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-18 00:32
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Created an attachment (id=21239)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21239action=view) [edit]
Better patch.
Here's something that's a little more likely to work.
I
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
95 matches
Mail list logo
