https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61992
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61992
--- Comment #1 from Rafał Mużyło ---
...if there's any confusion, aclocal.m4 is just a random pick
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: galtgendo at o2 dot pl
I don't know, if this is a misconfiguration on your part or a bug in the web
frontend, but if I browse from gcc.gnu.org/git to
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=tree;f=libstdc%2B%2B
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: galtgendo at o2 dot pl
The problem is described here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505026
The code to trigger comes from a launchpad bug:
https://bugs.launchpa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58174
--- Comment #4 from Rafał Mużyło ---
How could I narrow it down then ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58174
--- Comment #2 from Rafał Mużyło ---
By "miscompiles", in this case I mean there's no error during compilation, but
the produced executable fails to work.
I'm not very familiar with the code of the project, that this file comes from,
but it's a q
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: galtgendo at o2 dot pl
Created attachment 30665
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30665&action=edit
preprocessed file that miscompiles
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.8.1
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #31 from Rafał Mużyło 2013-01-06 03:34:17
UTC ---
PS: the stripped down test case from PR33763 is quite alike attachment 25239,
yet something makes a difference.
extern void *bar (void);
extern int baz (void);
extern __inline __att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #30 from Rafał Mużyło 2013-01-06 02:20:08
UTC ---
While 4.7.2 still has the problem, I've just learnt about PR33763.
Now, while that particular patch doesn't help 4.7.2 - even it it sounds like it
should - removing ' __attribute__ (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #13 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-07-02 20:25:12
UTC ---
As I said, it might not be related, but it's a bit odd, that both gcc versions
agree *and* it's also about inlining.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #11 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-07-02 19:38:29
UTC ---
OK, I don't know if it's related, but
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424475
and its follow-up
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11845
This code:
int
find_stack_di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #10 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-18 11:13:20
UTC ---
Now, for an interesting note:
if instead of 'string test(n);' I put 'printf("%d\n", n);', not only the bug
*still* happens, but the result if funny:
first a '0' gets printed, but after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #9 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-18 10:43:50
UTC ---
The code is not mine and it's about as convoluted (if not more) as freeciv was
(that was the *initial* part of bug 39333 - the upstream workaround was
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #5 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-18 09:46:17
UTC ---
The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
(regarding freeciv, IIRC) of a similar case for an older gcc version.
As for gcc 4.6.4, when will it be rele
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #29 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-17 13:17:36
UTC ---
gcc 4.7.1 still shows inconsistent behavior with attachment 25239.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27643|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #2 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-17 13:05:20
UTC ---
Created attachment 27643
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27643
preprocessed sources triggering the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #1 from Rafał Mużyło 2012-06-17 13:03:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 27642
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27642
-Wall warnings
Attaching '-Wall' warnings for completeness.
Note, that gcc 4.7.1 generates good code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
Bug #: 53707
Summary: compiler generates wrong code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
--- Comment #12 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-25 18:02:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Does the WONTFIX resolution here mean that glibc will need a fix then ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
--- Comment #10 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-25 13:51:14
UTC ---
So, I ran one more test:
gcc-4.6.1 -O2 -Wall -c -o fprintf-mini-bug-4.6.o fprintf-mini-bug-4.6.i
-fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps -fno-align-labels -fno-align-loops
-fno-caller-sa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
--- Comment #9 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-25 13:33:42
UTC ---
What I'm trying to say is that gcc should either:
- accept the code even with -fno-ipa-cp
- reject the code even with -fipa-cp
- print better diagnostics, if -fipa-cp should be the magi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
--- Comment #6 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-24 16:05:20
UTC ---
So, whose bug is it then ? glibc ?
cause before reduction, the code was
(http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365015):
#include
static void w_i(void *fp, int (*outf)(void *, const c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
--- Comment #4 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-24 13:38:47
UTC ---
Well,...
The actual result was quite a bit more interesting, cause:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.5.3/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/i686-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
--- Comment #3 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-24 13:17:59
UTC ---
OK, that's a bit surprising, -fipa-cp does help for attachment from comment 1,
but not for my final reduction - removing the attribute still works there,
though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25355|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25354|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50506
Bug #: 50506
Summary: gcc fails at assembly with -O1 while inlining is
forced
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
Rafał Mużyło changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25238|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #27 from Rafał Mużyło 2011-09-11 03:40:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 25238
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25238
prepocessed code of possibly related failure in gcc 4.6.1
OK, I'm not sure if comments from 24 on ha
--- Comment #3 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2010-02-21 21:22 ---
There's new input in a different Gentoo bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305333
Apparently in certain conditions on ppc,
bool is both defined and undefined.
Unless you'll see that as bad code on ope
--- Comment #2 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2010-01-03 16:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=19452)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19452&action=view)
preprocessed sources
Finally I've got a response in the Gentoo bug.
Info:
Using built-in specs.
Tar
2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: galtgendo at o2 dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42199
--- Comment #8 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 20:42 ---
Though perhaps I didn't need to reopen.
Just making sure: could you reproduce it with one of
the mentioned versions ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40623
--- Comment #7 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 20:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=18128)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18128&action=view)
this is the incorrect one
...with 'printf' and 'x0*y1-x1*y0'
Both with '-O2'
--- Comment #6 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 20:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=18127)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18127&action=view)
this is correct assembly
...when 'printf' and '(x0*(y0+dy) - (x0+dx)*y0)'
--
--- Comment #5 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 20:33 ---
It definitely doesn't work in 4.3.3.
I'll attach generated assembly.
--
galtgendo at o2 dot pl changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 18:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=18125)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18125&action=view)
data for the test
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40623
--- Comment #2 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 18:05 ---
Due to that 'printf' thing, it seems vaguely similar
to bug 39333, however here neither of the switches mentioned there
has an effect.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40623
--- Comment #1 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-07-02 18:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=18124)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18124&action=view)
a testcase for the bug
As I said in the Gentoo bug,
one version of the 'area' line produces correct r
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: galtgendo at o2 dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40623
--- Comment #23 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-04-22 01:15 ---
comment 22 was of course about '-fno-guess-branch-probability',
not the other one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #22 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-04-22 01:08 ---
Well, gcc 4.4.0 works without '-fno-inline-small-functions' for
freeciv too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #21 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-04-22 00:23 ---
Well, with 4.4.0 id.c compiles correctly in both cases.
Let's check the harder part.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #20 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-04-22 00:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=17669)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17669&action=view)
prepocessed source of id.c
People, I've got a result, that's either very funny or very not fun
--- Comment #18 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-07 14:06 ---
Well, I've got bad news for you anyway:
it seems that the problem affects gcc-4.3.2 too:
it seems it's reproducible in another app,
however one potentially much harder to debug.
Please read http://bugs.
--- Comment #16 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-07 04:30 ---
OK, I've done a little test and I'd like to know,
if it's results actually mean anything:
I've compiled freeciv with CFLAGS="-O2 -finline-functions
-fno-guess-branch-probability" and it
--- Comment #15 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 21:13 ---
It's a runtime error and there's no real testcase,
as, for the time being, it's hard to say what exactly goes wrong.
The only real analysis is in the upstream bug, but it's nothing conclusive
(at l
--- Comment #13 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 16:22 ---
On a not really related note:
output of 'gcc -Q -O1 --help=optimizers' is quite inconsistent
with the manpage. Among others, -finline-small-functions according
to the manpage is turned on for -O1, -Q output
--- Comment #12 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 16:17 ---
OK, a (perhaps) interesting result:
'-fno-guess-branch-probability' works too, but
as first to work was '-fno-inline-small-functions',
this may simply be a case of this option making code
big enough t
--- Comment #11 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 15:15 ---
Changing those two to unsigned doesn't help (I have checked that
even before comment 8). Actually, I changed a few ints to unsigned
wherever it looked sane for this file and it still crashed.
What's more, '
--- Comment #9 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 03:43 ---
BTW, this is the workaround, that upstream created:
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv/trunk/common/aicore/cm.c?rev=15556&view=diff&r1=15556&r2=1&p1=trunk/common/aicore/cm.c&p2=/trunk/common/aico
--- Comment #8 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 03:23 ---
OK, we seem to misunderstand each other.
Anyway, as '-Wall -Wpointer-arith
-Wcast-align -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations'
was set for all files during build and there were no warnings,
the problem i
--- Comment #6 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-03 00:20 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> But that just enables more inlining. The problem is most likely somewhere
> else.
>
If so, why does '-O2' fail and '-O2 -fno-inline-small-functions' work ?
--
--- Comment #4 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-02 22:20 ---
Well, neither helps.
As a sidenote: 'gcc -Q -O2 --help=optimizers' fails to list
'-fstrict-overflow',
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #3 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-02 21:56 ---
I'll check, but, as summary suggests (indirectly),
'-O2 -fno-inline-small-functions' works just fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #1 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2009-03-01 18:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=17381)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17381&action=view)
preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
/utility'
'-I..' '-I../../common' '-I../../intl' '-DLOCALEDIR="/usr/share/locale"'
'-DDEFAULT_DATA_PATH=".:data:~/.freeciv:/usr/share/games/freeciv"' '-Wall'
'-Wpointer-arith' '-Wcast-align' '-Wmissing-prototypes'
'-Wmissing-declarations' '-O2' '-march=athlon' '-mtune=athlon' '-pipe' '-c'
'-save-temps' '-v'
Now, I'm not sure, whether this file is the correct one, as freeciv is quite
big, but http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40610 seems to suggest
that this is the correct one.
I'm not sure, whether or not upstream has opened a bug here already, as I'm not
sure,
what search terms should I use.
--
Summary: gcc 4.3.3 miscompiles when -finline-small-functions is
used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: galtgendo at o2 dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39333
--- Comment #10 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2008-03-17 18:34 ---
Well, gcc 4.3.0 seems to work fine. A clean compilation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
--- Comment #7 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2008-02-23 20:17 ---
Well, shortly after I reported this bug hardware got upgraded (it was
Christmas).
Now it's 512MB and gcc 4.2.3.
It still fails.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
--- Comment #6 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2008-01-03 01:05 ---
To make earlier comment clear: yes, I agree that it's most probably running out
of memory.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
--- Comment #5 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2007-12-24 23:22 ---
Correct, 192MB.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
--- Comment #2 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2007-12-24 18:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=14820)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14820&action=view)
preprocessed file (packed)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
--- Comment #1 from galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2007-12-24 18:34 ---
Sorry, it's much too big, where can I put it, so it can be seen here ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34572
; for instructions.
preprocessed file will follow but it's rather large.
--
Summary: program that built with 4.1.2 fails with 4.2.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
66 matches
Mail list logo
