https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||89560, 89503, 71071
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
--- Comment #41 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #40)
> Follown file fails at all opt levels at both x86_64 and i?86:
>
> -- testcase.cpp --
> namespace {
> bool bar(int i) { return i; }
> }
> int
--- Comment #40 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-02-27 14:06 ---
Follown file fails at all opt levels at both x86_64 and i?86:
-- testcase.cpp --
namespace {
bool bar(int i) { return i; }
}
int foo(int i) { return bar(i) ? i : 0; }
--
--- Comment #39 from rmansfield at qnx dot com 2009-08-12 14:22 ---
I came across a original-tree-changed-by-fold ICE building libsupc++ for a
arm-unknown-linux-gnu target with --enable-checking=fold.
gcc version 4.5.0 20090812 (experimental) [trunk revision 150681] (GCC)
--- Comment #38 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 05:11 ---
Update: mainline appears to pass fold checking albeit with a few extra timeouts
due to length compilation times. However the last fix for fold checking was
never backported to the branches. On 4.1/4.2 I still get
--- Comment #36 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-30 02:16 ---
I tried --enable-checking=yes,fold on sparc-sun-solaris2.10, bootstrap works
but I'm still getting a few extra failures. Here are two testresults from the
same checkout, one regular and one with fold checking turned
--- Comment #37 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-30 02:22 ---
Run this in a.17.1.i targetted to sparc-sun-solaris2.10 with
--enable-checking=yes,fold and:
cc1 -fpreprocessed a.17.1.i -quiet -dumpbase a.17.1.c -mcpu=v9 -auxbase-strip
a.17.1.s -version -fopenmp -fno-show-column
--- Comment #32 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-24 17:45 ---
Everyone: Don't forget df, it doesn't slow checking much.
Compile + check time 16 hours :) only:
--enable-stage1-checking=assert,df,fold,gc,misc,rtl,rtlflag,runtime,tree
Results for 4.3.0 20070623 (experimental)
--- Comment #33 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-24 18:40 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Everyone: Don't forget df, it doesn't slow checking much.
Compile + check time 16 hours :) only:
--enable-stage1-checking=assert,df,fold,gc,misc,rtl,rtlflag,runtime,tree
To avoid
--- Comment #34 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-25 05:06 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
(In reply to comment #32)
Everyone: Don't forget df, it doesn't slow checking much.
Compile + check time 16 hours :) only:
--- Comment #35 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-25 05:44 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
(In reply to comment #33)
(In reply to comment #32)
Everyone: Don't forget df, it doesn't slow checking much.
Compile + check time 16 hours :) only:
--- Comment #31 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-24 02:22 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
*** Bug 32024 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
32024 is fixed. I would add 4.3.0 to _this_ Known to work list if I was able.
--
rob1weld at aol dot com changed:
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-21 07:59 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed
by fold with --enable-checking=fold
On Thu, 20 Jun 2007, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #17 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-21 08:01 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed
by fold with --enable-checking=fold
On Thu, 20 Jun 2007, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #18 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20
--- Comment #22 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-21
08:16 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
On 6/21/07, Sebastian Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, here is the final fix for the remaining cases, closing this
--- Comment #23 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 08:21 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
On 6/21/07, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fold_binary change looks unnecessary.
ok.
The rest is ok.
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-21 08:48 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed
by fold with --enable-checking=fold
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #23 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21
--- Comment #25 from richard dot guenther at gmail dot com 2007-06-21
10:07 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
On 6/21/07, Sebastian Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 6/21/07, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
--- Comment #26 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 18:21 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
Just to sum it up, and for asking for advice,
attached is the patch that I'm bootstrapping and testing now.
Another thing
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-21 19:33 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed
by fold with --enable-checking=fold
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #26 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 18:21
--- Comment #29 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 20:55 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
So,
the last patch bootstrapped, and tests passed with exactly the same fails
as on trunk. I'm going to commit that patch to
--- Comment #30 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 21:25 ---
Subject: Bug 20623
Author: spop
Date: Thu Jun 21 21:25:27 2007
New Revision: 125929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125929
Log:
PR middle-end/20623
* tree.h (debug_fold_checksum):
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 12:28
---
*** Bug 32024 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 18:50 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
This depends on PR 22455 now as --enable-checking=fold is broken.
With
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-06-20 22:46 ---
Uros Bizjak seems to have tracked this problems down for 4.3.0 on target
i686-pc-cygwin and i686-pc-linux-gnu in the bug report that Richard just marked
as a dupe.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
--- Comment #17 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 22:58 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
Hi,
The following patch fixes a part of the reported testsuite fails.
With this patch we avoid folding the TREE_CHAIN of an
--- Comment #18 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 23:31 ---
Subject: Re: ICE: fold check: original tree changed by fold with
--enable-checking=fold
Hi, here is the final fix for the remaining cases, closing this PR.
Okay for trunk after bootntest on i686-linux with default
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 14:42 ---
4.1.x branch still has the fold checking errors with labels:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00699.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00700.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-16 04:52 ---
Same results one year later on sparc/sparc64 solaris2.10 with 4.0.x branch
using --enable-checking=yes,rtl,fold:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00592.html
--- Comment #11 from rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-06-02 20:11 ---
I recently ran into this on ppc/ppc64 when building a toolchain with gcc4.1 or
gcc4.2.
When the bootstrap gcc was built with --enable-checking=all (or =fold which we
just tested) the glibc 32bit build stage fails in
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-21 13:59 ---
4.0 results are now on par with 4.1, meaning AFAICS we only have the address of
labels problem to worry about on all 4.* branches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00986.html
--
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 02:51 ---
Still have the address of labels failure on 4.0, 4.1 and mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00383.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00431.html
--- Comment #7 from micis at gmx dot de 2005-10-26 14:17 ---
With the snapshot gcc-4.1-20051022 I get the following additional errors when I
use --enable-checking=fold and run make check
gcc.c-torture/compile/20021108-1.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/920501-7.c
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-26 16:54 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
With the snapshot gcc-4.1-20051022 I get the following additional errors when
I
use --enable-checking=fold and run make check
Thanks, that is only one bug now as they all have the
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-25 19:19 ---
Can you try this again, I think these are all fixed now?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
--
Bug 20623 depends on bug 22455, which changed state.
Bug 22455 Summary: [4.1 regression] ICE tree check: expected function_decl,
have type_decl in fold_checksum_tree, at fold-const.c:10282
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22455
What|Old Value
--
Bug 20623 depends on bug 16045, which changed state.
Bug 16045 Summary: ICE fold check: original tree changed by fold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16045
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-18
05:03 ---
This depends on PR 22455 now as --enable-checking=fold is broken.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2005-07-05 10:48 ---
With snapshot gcc-4.1-20050702 the following gcc tests fail:
gcc.c-torture/compile/20020701-1.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/20021108-1.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/920501-7.c
gcc.c-torture/compile/labels-1.c
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:16 ---
How many still fail today?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
--
Bug 20623 depends on bug 20931, which changed state.
Bug 20931 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] fold checking failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20931
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
16:38 ---
The C++ failures are most likely PR 20931.
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|
42 matches
Mail list logo
