progressions in the testsuite (all for -m32):
-FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/nestfunc-3.c execution, -Os
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_cshift_1.f90 -Os execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_cshift_2.f90 -Os execution test
-FAIL: gfortran.dg/char_eoshift_1.f90 -Os execution test
-FAIL:
This bug was fixed in the package gcc-4.4 - 4.4.1-4ubuntu4
---
gcc-4.4 (4.4.1-4ubuntu4) karmic; urgency=low
* Disable the build of neon optimized runtime libs on armel.
* libjava: Use atomic builtins For Linux ARM/EABI, backported from the
trunk.
* Proposed patch to fix
Found the problem. It's nothing to do with _FORTIFY_SOURCE, and those
intructions indexing off r2 are to do with -fstack-check so no problem
there either.
Fixed as follows. Incidentally this bug was triggered by fixing the
obvious bug in no_global_regs_above
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
running a test build
** Changed in: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
Status: New = In Progress
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
please reopen with a testcase if this turns out to be a problem in GCC
** Changed in: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Invalid
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
Is the test case attached in comment #8 insufficient?
According to the gcc documentation ( in particular,
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Nested-Functions.html ), the code
should be valid as long as the call to the nested function is executed
before the outer function exits. I take it this
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 00:13 +, davidh wrote:
Is the test case attached in comment #8 insufficient?
According to the gcc documentation ( in particular,
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Nested-Functions.html ), the code
should be valid as long as the call to the nested function is
I also couldn't reproduce the problem here with any of the compilers I
have lying around here. davidh, can you attach the .o for your testcase
to this bug report?
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are
.o as requested, produced by
gcc -c -fPIE -Os test.c
Linking and running:
gcc test.o -o gcc-test ./gcc-test
a in extern_func: 123456789
a in intern_func: -1074204592
** Attachment added: gcc -c -fPIE -Os test.c
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32340419/test.o
--
mountall fails, broken
A typical run of a slightly modified test case (extended printf) gives:
a (@0xbfc22160) in extern_func: 123456789
a (@0xbfc22150) in intern_func: -1077796448
where the address is off by the same nicely even amount every run.
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
Huh. You have what looks like ppc64 code in there.
4c: 80 02 8f f8 lwz r0,-28680(r2)
50: 90 01 00 3c stw r0,60(r1)
Where did that come from? It seems you have _FORTIFY_SOURCE defined for
you too, somehow. Maybe that is pulling in a bad printf define? Please
attach the
Attached file generated by gcc -E -fPIE -Os test.c test.i
Whatever the problem is, it should at the very least be shared by the
system building the powerpc packages. Either that, or my test case is
broken. :)
** Attachment added: test.i
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32342890/test.i
--
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 03:32:43AM -, Alan Modra wrote:
Huh. You have what looks like ppc64 code in there.
4c: 80 02 8f f8 lwz r0,-28680(r2)
50: 90 01 00 3c stw r0,60(r1)
Where did that come from? It seems you have _FORTIFY_SOURCE defined for
you too, somehow.
** Changed in: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = New
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Right, it's a gcc bug.
As I'm sure you're away, the PowerPC port is not a first-class port at
this point
** Changed in: mountall (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Won't Fix
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because
Scott, maybe if you use the default optimization settings, but if you do
choose to use anything else than -g -O2, please care about the reports.
** Changed in: mountall (Ubuntu)
Status: Won't Fix = Confirmed
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
Why? It's still clearly a gcc bug, no?
** Changed in: mountall (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed = Won't Fix
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
This bug was fixed in the package mountall - 0.1.7
---
mountall (0.1.7) karmic; urgency=low
* Build with -O2 on powerpc to work around wrong-code generation with -Os.
LP: #43.
-- Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:31:52 +0200
** Changed in: mountall
** Changed in: mountall (Ubuntu)
Status: Won't Fix = Fix Committed
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/karmic/mountall
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
** Branch linked: lp:~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/karmic/mountall/ubuntu
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Hrm, somebody is taking chances here.
Nested functions are evil and forbidden by ISO C standard.
I don't know what kind of black magic gcc is supposed to use to be able
to find the local variables of the declaration scope when the nested
function is called via a function pointer from outside. I
As this really seems to be a problem with gcc, I'm reassigning this.
** Package changed: mountall (Ubuntu) = gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: mountall
My system (ibook running karmic) is not booting since the general
breakage in the last couple of days. Installing the latest upgrades
does not help.
+
+ Edit: This seems to be due to a gcc bug, see comment #8
The boot seems to
As this really seems to be a problem with gcc, I'm reassigning this.
and keep the broken mountall binary? If standard optimisation options
(-O2), these should be used.
** Also affects: mountall (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
Don't use variable names starting with __ - those are reserved for the
language implementation, per the C standard.
--
mountall fails, broken (powerpc?) gcc?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/43
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
Thanks, I failed to figure out how to assign the bug to several
packages. :-)
Yes, I just confirmed that compiling mountall with -O2 fixes the issue
here, or I should say, produces a working binary. So that would be a
solution I guess, if it could be incorporated into the official package.
The
27 matches
Mail list logo
