[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka --- > > My autotester picked up that commit, and this regression is gone, thanks! > I'm closing this PR. Great! I was starring in that patch and did not notice this quite obvious omision for at least 20 times :( Good it is gone. The consequences of not remapping the type were particularly confusing to deal with... Honza > > Specifically, this regression is gone with a commit in the range > (216146:216158], matching the commit in question. Incidentally, at r216158 > there's only gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c i.e. PR61548 (since I started tracking > regressions for cris-elf in 2007). > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6) > Since this testcase also involves VLA, can you, please, test if the patch > for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127 (now in mainline) > fixes the problem? My autotester picked up that commit, and this regression is gone, thanks! I'm closing this PR. Specifically, this regression is gone with a commit in the range (216146:216158], matching the commit in question. Incidentally, at r216158 there's only gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c i.e. PR61548 (since I started tracking regressions for cris-elf in 2007).
[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- Since this testcase also involves VLA, can you, please, test if the patch for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127 (now in mainline) fixes the problem?
[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- I think that would be rather symptomatic fix and I plan to push out the type verifier soon that will ICE without the patch on all targets. I failed to reproduce this on x86 (I thought originally I have reproducer but it was unrelated problem). I will try to find time to build binutils so I can reproduce it for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu next week. Sorry for the delays - the reproducibility of LTO bugs is somewhat annoying.
[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > +2014-06-28 Jan Hubicka > + > + * tree-inline.c (remap_type_1): Do not duplicate fields > + that are shared in between type and its main variant. > > maybe you can verify that reverting fixes the issue? That is r212111; I confirmed that reverting that indeed fixes the issue.
[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- -fno-early-inlining triggers segfaults on non-cris targets.
[Bug regression/62102] [5 Regression]: gcc.dg/torture/pr48953.c -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2014-08-13 CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- looking into it...
