[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 10:59 --- PA-RISC GNU/Linux is not a primary platform, so I've marked this P5. However, PA-RISC HP-UX is a primary platform, so if this bug manifests there, please set this back to P3 with an explanatory comment. Present on SPARC/Solaris. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Priority|P5 |P3 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-14 10:59:32 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
-- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot| |org | AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED GCC build triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu | GCC host triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu | GCC target triplet|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |hppa-*-*, sparc-*-* Last reconfirmed|2006-10-14 10:59:32 |2006-10-14 11:00:23 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 02:03 --- PA-RISC GNU/Linux is not a primary platform, so I've marked this P5. However, PA-RISC HP-UX is a primary platform, so if this bug manifests there, please set this back to P3 with an explanatory comment. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 11:36 --- Hmmm, seems this is a known issue that never got fixed. See this thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01558.html And this one: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01569.html -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-09-18
13:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution
test
And this one: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01569.html
Actually, I was thinking that the library name should be set by
def_builtin_1 if fallback_p is set for the builtin.
Also, based on comments in the thread:
Index: builtins.c
===
--- builtins.c (revision 117005)
+++ builtins.c (working copy)
@@ -233,6 +233,11 @@
{
unsigned int align, inner;
+ /* TER is not run at -O0, so our representation of alignment
+ information and its propagation is non-existant. */
+ if (!optimize)
+return 0;
+
if (! POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (exp)))
return 0;
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 13:48 --- + /* TER is not run at -O0, so our representation of alignment + information and its propagation is non-existant. */ + if (!optimize) +return 0; Perhaps if (!flag_tree_ter) return 0; would be more accurate? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
Re: [Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:48 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 13:48
---
+ /* TER is not run at -O0, so our representation of alignment
+ information and its propagation is non-existant. */
+ if (!optimize)
+return 0;
Perhaps
if (!flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
would be more accurate?
Well -f{no-,}tree-ter can be still passed and you will get it wrong,
what about:
if (!optimize || !flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-18 17:19
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 13:48 +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 13:48
---
+ /* TER is not run at -O0, so our representation of alignment
+ information and its propagation is non-existant. */
+ if (!optimize)
+return 0;
Perhaps
if (!flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
would be more accurate?
Well -f{no-,}tree-ter can be still passed and you will get it wrong,
what about:
if (!optimize || !flag_tree_ter)
return 0;
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-17 20:05 --- There's a question in my mind as to whether we should always be emitting a library call: /* When not optimizing, generate calls to library functions for a certain set of builtins. */ if (!optimize !called_as_built_in (fndecl) DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_SET_P (fndecl) fcode != BUILT_IN_ALLOCA) return expand_call (exp, target, ignore); The setting of DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME doesn't seem to be entirely reliable. We have in builtin_function: if (library_name) SET_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (decl, get_identifier (library_name)); library_name is set for __builtin_memcpy but not for memcpy. The difference in behavior between the 32-bit hpux targets and the 32-bit linux target arises because the hpux target defines ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL. So, the assembler name for memcpy gets set indirectly by assemble_external_real and this causes expand_builtin to use the library routine. Is this the intended behavior? Ok, back to looking at the linux SEGV. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-17 20:21 --- Hmmm, seems this is a known issue that never got fixed. See this thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01558.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
[Bug middle-end/29111] [4.2 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c -O0 execution test
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end Known to work||3.4.0 Summary|FAIL: |[4.2 Regression] FAIL: |gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c - |gcc.dg/torture/pr26565.c - |O0 execution test |O0 execution test Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29111
