[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED | Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2012-06-18 11:08:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > ?! You appear to have added the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with your patch. Yikes! > Since it isn't mentioned in the changelog perhaps it is a leftover from > something else in your tree? So the solution is to revert that change? Yes, it was an unintended change (it must have been in my dev tree quite long, I don't remember doing it). It seems I haven't reviewed the file list of my commit message :-/ Sorry about that breakage. --- Comment #9 from Michael Matz 2012-06-18 11:09:28 UTC --- .
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED | --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2012-06-18 11:08:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > ?! You appear to have added the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with your patch. Yikes! > Since it isn't mentioned in the changelog perhaps it is a leftover from > something else in your tree? So the solution is to revert that change? Yes, it was an unintended change (it must have been in my dev tree quite long, I don't remember doing it). It seems I haven't reviewed the file list of my commit message :-/ Sorry about that breakage.
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Andreas Krebbel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-18 11:06:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) Ok. I've reverted the s390.c bits of r187965.
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-06-18 08:24:51 UTC --- On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 > > --- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-18 > 07:09:04 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #4) > > I don't see how r187965 could cause this, but I do see the problem. > > mark_sym_for_renaming (called via the s390 va_arg_expr expander) is called > > during, well, gimplification from GENERIC. At that point SSA isn't > > initialized yet, so cfun->gimple_df is still NULL, and so SYMS_TO_RENAME > > gives a segfault. > > > > You either have to guard the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with > > gimple_in_ssa_p(), or get rid of the call alltogether. I don't see how > > new va_arg expressions would be generated during SSA optimizers, so the > > latter > > solution would be safe. No other backend calls mark_sym_for_renaming > > either, > > so just remove it. > > ?! You appear to have added the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with your patch. > Since it isn't mentioned in the changelog perhaps it is a leftover from > something else in your tree? So the solution is to revert that change? > > svn diff -r 187964:187965 gcc/config/s390/s390.c > Index: gcc/config/s390/s390.c > === > --- gcc/config/s390/s390.c (revision 187964) > +++ gcc/config/s390/s390.c (revision 187965) > @@ -9044,6 +9044,7 @@ >lab_false = create_artificial_label (UNKNOWN_LOCATION); >lab_over = create_artificial_label (UNKNOWN_LOCATION); >addr = create_tmp_var (ptr_type_node, "addr"); > + mark_sym_for_renaming (addr); I think that change is indeed bogus as-is, if you ever call this when we are in SSA form you'd need that call, but you need to guard it with if (gimple_in_ssa_p (cfun)). But I'm sure we never gimplify va-arg stuff when in SSA form. Richard.
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-18 07:09:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > I don't see how r187965 could cause this, but I do see the problem. > mark_sym_for_renaming (called via the s390 va_arg_expr expander) is called > during, well, gimplification from GENERIC. At that point SSA isn't > initialized yet, so cfun->gimple_df is still NULL, and so SYMS_TO_RENAME > gives a segfault. > > You either have to guard the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with > gimple_in_ssa_p(), or get rid of the call alltogether. I don't see how > new va_arg expressions would be generated during SSA optimizers, so the latter > solution would be safe. No other backend calls mark_sym_for_renaming either, > so just remove it. ?! You appear to have added the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with your patch. Since it isn't mentioned in the changelog perhaps it is a leftover from something else in your tree? So the solution is to revert that change? svn diff -r 187964:187965 gcc/config/s390/s390.c Index: gcc/config/s390/s390.c === --- gcc/config/s390/s390.c (revision 187964) +++ gcc/config/s390/s390.c (revision 187965) @@ -9044,6 +9044,7 @@ lab_false = create_artificial_label (UNKNOWN_LOCATION); lab_over = create_artificial_label (UNKNOWN_LOCATION); addr = create_tmp_var (ptr_type_node, "addr"); + mark_sym_for_renaming (addr); t = fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (reg), size_int (max_reg)); t = build2 (GT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, reg, t);
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Michael Matz 2012-06-15 14:21:05 UTC --- I don't see how r187965 could cause this, but I do see the problem. mark_sym_for_renaming (called via the s390 va_arg_expr expander) is called during, well, gimplification from GENERIC. At that point SSA isn't initialized yet, so cfun->gimple_df is still NULL, and so SYMS_TO_RENAME gives a segfault. You either have to guard the call to mark_sym_for_renaming with gimple_in_ssa_p(), or get rid of the call alltogether. I don't see how new va_arg expressions would be generated during SSA optimizers, so the latter solution would be safe. No other backend calls mark_sym_for_renaming either, so just remove it.
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-15 08:42:03 UTC --- When delta reducing ICE on valid, it is always better to add to a script second compilation (perhaps with -O0 for speed) using some compiler where it initially compiles fine to make sure delta doesn't turn ice-on-valid into ice-on-invalid.
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-06-15
08:30:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is an ice-on-invalid - how can that break bootstrap?
delta was a bit too eager. Same happens with:
int
__gcov_execle (const char *path, char *arg, ...)
{
int length = 0;
__builtin_va_list ap, aq;
while (__builtin_va_arg (ap, char *))
length++;
}
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-15 08:26:17 UTC --- This is an ice-on-invalid - how can that break bootstrap?
[Bug bootstrap/53681] s390 bootstrap failure since 187965
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 Andreas Krebbel changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org, ||matz at suse dot de
