http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #97 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-20 09:05:05 UTC ---
The patch in attachment 22787 fixes also a Stage 3 ada bootstrap error on
i686-apple-darwin9, see comment #3 of pr46950.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #98 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-20 10:01:07
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 20 10:01:02 2010
New Revision: 168083
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168083
Log:
PR c++/46904
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #99 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-20 10:14:39
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Dec 20 10:14:36 2010
New Revision: 168084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168084
Log:
PR middle-end/46916
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #100 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-20
11:28:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
The patch I had in mind
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
BTW: When the BB reordering is applied
(together
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #88 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-17
13:50:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
Created attachment 22787 [details]
updated #2 darwin candidate function sect. patch
o I think that the no debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #89 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-17 14:08:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #88)
Iain,
Do you think the no debug symbols warnings in the partition2.C test case
on darwin10 are the caused by the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #90 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17 14:21:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #89)
(In reply to comment #88)
Iain,
Do you think the no debug symbols warnings in the partition2.C test
case
on darwin10 are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #91 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-17 14:31:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #90)
... In any event the two remaining issues need resolution -- I suspect they
are
causing fallout elsewhere.
... I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #92 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-17
14:47:01 UTC ---
Don't forget about PR45646 where we used to fail
g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C with a linker error of...
ld: in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #93 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-17
14:59:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #90)
as far as whether Darwin10 supports -freorder-blocks-and-partition
- there should be no difference before/after the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #94 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17 15:03:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #93)
(In reply to comment #90)
as far as whether Darwin10 supports -freorder-blocks-and-partition
- there should be no difference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #95 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-17 22:07:55 UTC ---
For the reasons given below, I have reached the conclusion that the failures
for g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C are not caused by the above patches,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #96 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-17 23:56:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #95)
For the reasons given below, I have reached the conclusion that the failures
for g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C are not caused by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #79 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-16
16:12:23 UTC ---
With the patch from Comment 78, I don't see dsymutil failues (at least for a
simple c language bootstrap on x86_64-apple-darwin10). However at -m32, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #80 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-16 16:25:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
With the patch from Comment 78, I don't see dsymutil failues (at least for a
sorry about the typos ...
.. I have a new patch which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #81 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-16
17:07:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #80)
characteristic of running out of threads ..
... is it repeatable ?
Yes and it happens for a lot of tests in libgomp at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #82 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-16 17:33:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #80)
Yes and it happens for a lot of tests in libgomp at -m32...
Confirmed here!-(so far the best fix for this pr is to revert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #83 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-16 17:40:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #82)
(In reply to comment #80)
Yes and it happens for a lot of tests in libgomp at -m32...
Confirmed here!-(so far the best fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #84 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-16 18:04:30 UTC ---
.. if you want to try in advance I can copy it to you by email.
yes, please!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22760|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #86 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-16
20:41:20 UTC ---
What is the reasoning behind emitting eh labels again on darwin10? In theory,
this makes darwin 'less strange' if we can avoid emitting eh labels as no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #87 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-16 20:51:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #86)
What is the reasoning behind emitting eh labels again on darwin10? In theory,
this makes darwin 'less strange' if we can avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #54 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 10:22:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
As Dominique surmised, this is a different problem:
as per Comment #28/30:
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #55 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 12:36:00
UTC ---
this solves
FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr22003.C (test for excess errors)
but we have total failure with -O3 -g for gcc.
[all fails are warning: no debug symbols in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #56 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:10:15 UTC ---
Hi,
thanks for testing. I wonder why we need to add those +DEF_SECTION fields?
I think the infinite recursion problem should be fixed by dropping the whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #57 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 13:25:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #56)
I wonder why we need to add those +DEF_SECTION fields?
I think the infinite recursion problem should be fixed by dropping the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #58 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 13:33:15
UTC ---
[ the key change is that there need to be coalesced sections for the DECL_WEAK
() -- I am not strongly saying the sections need to be pre-declared - if you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22758|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #60 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 13:49:51
UTC ---
Hi,
yes please try with the darwin bits alone and the hunk in opts.c enabling
function reordering when partitioning is on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #61 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 13:56:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #59)
Created attachment 22764 [details]
Honza+Darwin mods
If you think I should test with just the darwin bits, OK I can do that.
with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #62 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 14:00:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #61)
(In reply to comment #59)
Created attachment 22764 [details] [details]
Honza+Darwin mods
If you think I should test with just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #63 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 14:07:16
UTC ---
OK,
if the darwin changes + opts.c change solves the problem, lets submit the patch
and I will try to re-review the bb-reorder patch and we can deal with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #64 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
14:34:03 UTC ---
Iain,
My old radar bug report numbered 7289379, linker warnings when no unwind
labels are emitted while targeting 10.6, my be have some useful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #65 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
15:15:42 UTC ---
Iain,
Can you try labeling the unlikely sections with the function names as Apple
suggested and see if that helps with the problems with -g using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #66 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 15:17:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #64)
Thanks Jack, I'll take a look at this info, if necessary.
a couple of points;
this below has subsequently been replaced with an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #67 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 17:11:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 22768
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22768
darwin-function-section-patch
OK - sorted out a couple of minor glitches...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #68 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-15 21:29:07 UTC ---
With the total patch [bb + darwin, comment #59]
...
[not tested yet - fortran/ObjC*/Java]
With this patch I see ~78 new failures with -m32 -O3 -g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22768|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #70 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
21:52:05 UTC ---
Has anyone tried running dwarfdump on the object files from one of these
failing -g testcases? If dwarfdump works, perhaps a comparison of the output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #71 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
22:02:39 UTC ---
Actually I would be surprised if the new patches don't have problems with eh
under darwin9. See...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #72 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 23:35:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #71)
Actually I would be surprised if the new patches don't have problems with eh
under darwin9. See...
Yeah, the symbol error is gone..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #73 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
23:44:30 UTC ---
RE:
+ /* FIXME: We should not be trying to output the same label for different
+ partitions of a function. */
Actually this may be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #74 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-16
00:17:20 UTC ---
Iain,
Why don't you see the errors...
../../gcc/gcc/config/darwin.c: In function 'darwin_emit_unwind_label':
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #75 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-16
04:58:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 22780
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22780
fixed version of updated darwin candidate function sect. patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #76 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-16
05:01:08 UTC ---
The fixed version of Iain's patch works around the errors in Comment 74 on
x86_64-apple-darwin10.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22780|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22781|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 08:54:08 UTC ---
I have regstrapped the patch in comment #7 on top of revision 167770. The
failures corresponding to this PR are gone. However I see the following for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 09:09:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
I have regstrapped the patch in comment #7 on top of revision 167770. The
failures corresponding to this PR are gone. However I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
10:09:53 UTC ---
Also it is clear who starts the infinite recursion? I find it odd, that
disabling the function partitioning lead to need to explicitely declare
unlikely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 10:39:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Also it is clear who starts the infinite recursion? I find it odd, that
disabling the function partitioning lead to need to
well the pre-existing implementation of :
static section *
darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
{
if (reloc)
return (weak
? darwin_sections[text_unlikely_coal_section]
: unlikely_text_section ()); +
else
return (weak
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 10:58:40
UTC ---
well the pre-existing implementation of :
static section *
darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
{
if (reloc)
return (weak
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 12:17:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
well the pre-existing implementation of :
static section *
darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
{
if (reloc)
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
already done in darwin_function_section.
In fact you might additionally consider putting
return (DECL_WEAK (decl)
? darwin_sections[text_coal_section]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 13:18:30
UTC ---
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
already done in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 14:02:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I think this is a different problem - those messages are characteristic of
dsymutil missing an input file. This might be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 14:04:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 14:17:53 UTC ---
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force it I get
=== g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 14:23:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force it I get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #24 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
14:30:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
14:35:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
like this?
(fixes the specific problem - but not reg-tested):
This is in addition to the patch from Comment 7, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
14:37:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
(In reply to comment #21)
like this?
(fixes the specific problem - but not reg-tested):
This is in addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 16:39:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
Running /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 16:41:02
UTC ---
more of a problem is:
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 16:44:09 UTC ---
Partial tests (x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0) with the patch in comment #21 (with
the one in comment #7 reverted) show that the pr is fixed, but it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 16:46:19
UTC ---
PASS: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g -I. (test for excess errors)
line #35
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
17:09:47 UTC ---
With the patch from comment 21 applied on x86_64-apple-darwin10, I am seeing...
FAIL: gcc.dg/darwin-weakimport-3.c scan-assembler-not coalesced
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 17:16:39
UTC ---
minor update (this removes a test for reorder partition + exceptions that is
carried out too early)
Tests for reorder + exceptions and reorder + unwind are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 17:32:16
UTC ---
minor update (this removes a test for reorder partition + exceptions that is
carried out too early)
This seem sane to me. I've also posted more fixed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 19:00:43 UTC ---
If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
the failures in comments #29 and #31.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #35 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 19:53:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
the failures in comments #29 and #31.
no, you are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 20:05:43 UTC ---
fails in 28, 29 and 31 are still present.
On which platform do you see the failures in 28? I don't see them on
x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0 when doing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
21:28:12 UTC ---
I posted the fixes, but it should not affect -fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition.
Any idea what is going wrong here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
21:32:15 UTC ---
The patch I had in mind
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
The hunk
Index: gcc/opts.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #40 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 21:37:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
I posted the fixes, but it should not affect
-fno-reorder-blocks-and-partition.
Any idea what is going wrong here?
well, unless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 22:46:09
UTC ---
well, unless some interaction from the typo.. (possible) .. AFAICT most of the
fallout is multiple definitions of .eh symbols...
Actually forcing hotcold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 22:55:06 UTC ---
I have reverted any of the above patches and updated to revision 167812. First,
I now see the failures in comment #28 (they are probably a different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #43 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
23:21:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
The patch I had in mind
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
The hunk
Index: gcc/opts.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 23:39:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 22758
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22758
merge between Honza's and Iain's patches
combined patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 23:43:04
UTC ---
the majority of fails are now:
warning: no debug symbols in executable (-arch x)
which is probably not good news ..
(but possibly a dsymutil issue)...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #46 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 23:44:20
UTC ---
a better prune
Index: gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
===
--- gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #47 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 23:51:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
The patch I had in mind
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html
With this patch applied on top of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #48 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
00:06:12 UTC ---
Uh, this is getting confusing. We are really tracking 3 problems iteracting
with each other (and prevosly hidding each other)
1) darwin_text_section returns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 00:28:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #48)
Uh, this is getting confusing. We are really tracking 3 problems iteracting
with each other (and prevosly hidding each other)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #50 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
01:18:18 UTC ---
I noticed that the proposed patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01129.html also seems to have an
error here...
***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #51 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 01:52:59
UTC ---
which I assume should have be a change to...
! base_section = darwin_text_section (weak);
Ah, yes. Sorry for the typo. Does it make any difference?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #52 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
03:14:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22760
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22760
reduced patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #53 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
03:19:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #51)
which I assume should have be a change to...
! base_section = darwin_text_section (weak);
Ah, yes. Sorry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-13
15:34:01 UTC ---
The offending change is...
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Dec 12 19:12:08 2010
New Revision: 167727
URL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2010-12-13
19:10:55 UTC ---
here is fix ... but I dunno if it's the Right fix --- so I'll let Mike |
Honza comment...
The patch fixed the failures. I am regstrapping. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-13 20:16:23
UTC ---
perhaps it would be safer to name the fallback section:
: darwin_sections[text_unlikely_fallback_section]);
DEF_SECTION
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #11 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net 2010-12-13
22:55:12 UTC ---
I don't think this should be necessary. One section should be enough. If you
have specific concerns, let me know, I could just be missing something.
98 matches
Mail list logo
