https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #29 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
> Will report back.
From a current build log (5.3.1-4) [1]:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #27 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #26)
Please open a new PR if there is another boostrapping issue.
I'm afraid that might actually be the case even though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #28 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #27)
What happens is that g++ seems to get stuck in stage3 when compiling
src/gcc/c-family/c-common.c.
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:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #26 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #25)
Ok, this seems to have been fixed:
Although this PR could be marked as fixed, I'd like to keep it open. It will
remind me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #23 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Fri Aug 7 20:41:25 2015
New Revision: 226726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226726root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/67002
* config/sh/sh.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #24 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Fri Aug 7 08:11:45 2015
New Revision: 226715
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226715root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/67002
* config/sh/sh.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #21)
Yes, it works. I'm uncomfortable with it because the current use of
crtl-emit.x_cur_insn_uid aka cur_insn_uid is limitted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #20)
Yes, that looks OK. treg_set_expr-something recog matching is actually only
required during combine. The simpler forms like (reg:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #19)
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #18)
In the problematic situation, get_max_insn_count returns the false
value after
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #19 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #18)
In the problematic situation, get_max_insn_count returns the false
value after
if (MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_INSNS)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #16)
PR 61904 has been marked as a dup of PR 61801, which has been marked as fixed.
So this must be some other bug.
When compiling the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #18 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #15)
The first different line of diff of the .pre dumps of Michael's
test case with/without -g is:
Expression hash table (53 buckets,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #16 from Michael Karcher gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
The bug seems to be quite similar to the infamous sloth that was dropped on
the head as a baby-bug Linus discovered (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/24/584 ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36117
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36117action=edit
reduced test case
Michael Karcher, who previously helped smashing some bugs in gcc
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=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 #11 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
Looking at the build log, it's only gcc/real.o where the comparison fails,
all the others (except for the checksum files)
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=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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
And here is the diff from the disassembly:
A rare indeterminacy of the register choice. Both codes are valid.
It seems
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 #9 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8)
Maybe we can add gcc/real.o to the ignore list for the time being?
Not sure if this is a good idea.
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.
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
I'm testing gcc-5_5.2.1-12 (r226105) now as suggested by Matthias.
Unfortunately, my SH7785LCR board crashed earlier today, so I had to restart
the build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That came out of a GCC version with has a known wrong-code bug (PR 66930)
Please try again with the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930#c10
30 matches
Mail list logo
