On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On Jan 14, 2008 3:54 AM, Pavel Cahyna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm seeing mysterious testsuite failures when the entire binary is > > > compiled with -O2, and fewer, different mysterious testsuite failures > > > when the entire binary is compiled with -O1. See > > > > I had to disable optimizations; -O1 did not work, either. > > Just to be clear: you get *reproducible* testsuite failures when the > entire binary is compiled with -O1, and none when it is compiled with > -O0?
I haven't run any testsuite. The binary does not work when compiled with -O1. It works without optimizations and also with CXXFLAGS=-mcpu=21164a -g3 CFLAGS=-O2 -mcpu=21164a -g3 MTN_CXXFLAGS=-O2 which ensures that only C++ 3rd party libraries are built without optimizations and everything else is built with -O2. (I was not able to restrict the scope of disabling optimizations further to include only botan.) > If so, that is either a compiler bug indeed, or a place where gcc has > gotten cleverer with its optimizations and broken an improper > assumption in the source code. Either way, the next step, if you're > up for it, would be to find out which object file has the bad machine > code in it (start from an -O0 build, and one at a time, swap out .o > files for ones compiled at -O1, relink and retest; don't neglect > lib3rdparty.a). lib3rdparty.a is where the error must be. Unfortunately due to extreme slowness of monotone compilation I don't think I'll have the patience to investigate further in the near future. And unfortunately I've deleted the object files for the compilations to free disk space. Pavel _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
