[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Bug 67239 depends on bug 60336, which changed state. Bug 60336 Summary: empty struct value is passed differently in C and C++ https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #31 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Nov 22 16:06:18 2017 New Revision: 255066 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255066=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/60336 PR middle-end/67239 PR target/68355

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.4 |6.5 --- Comment #30 from Richard

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.3 |6.4 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #28 from Richard Biener --- GCC 6.2 is being released, adjusting target milestone.

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.2 |6.3 --- Comment #27 from Richard

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Known to work|

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20) > The empty class passing ABI changes were reverted and are going to be > resolved only for GCC7+. > I've tried your testcase (and latest preprocessed hash_policy.ii

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 38281 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38281=edit A testcase Compile it with -O2 -S -mx32.

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20) > From gcc-testresults, it seems it only fails with -mx32 -fpic, and not with > plain -mx32, but that is all I can find out. See:

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Bug 67239 depends on bug 68355, which changed state. Bug 68355 Summary: C++ constexpr is passed on stack https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68355 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu --- It is related to PR 68355. With -finline-small-functions, we call std::_Hashtable

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||60336 --- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu --- I

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz --- Comment #16 from

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- Can you attach preprocessed source for x32?

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11) > Can you attach preprocessed source for x32? Ah, it's in the tar file.

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > + /* If that didn't simplify to a constant see if we have recorded > + temporary expressions from taken edges. */ > + if (!val || TREE_CODE

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > > Can you check whether disabling PRE fixes the runtime failure? > -O1: OK. -O1 -finline-small-functions: Bad. -O1 -fno-tree-fre -finline-small-functions: Bad.

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On November 14, 2015 12:09:28 AM GMT+01:00, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 > >--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > Does this patch > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c > index 2ac3828..8b57875 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c > +++

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 36699 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36699=edit tree dump It is compiled with -O2 -mx32.

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > No, even for the false edge we can record proper expressions, see > record_conds and how it handles the cases if the condition was true or false. > record_conds

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > Can you please attach -details dumps of the pass instance that does this? It is done in fre pass. > Note that the large number '5368709811' (0x1fff) might point

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- It came from enum tree_code code = gimple_cond_code (stmt); tree lhs = gimple_cond_lhs (stmt); tree rhs = gimple_cond_rhs (stmt); record_conds (bb, code,

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- Does this patch diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c index 2ac3828..8b57875 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c @@ -4372,17 +4372,16 @@

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- + /* If that didn't simplify to a constant see if we have recorded + temporary expressions from taken edges. */ + if (!val || TREE_CODE (val) != INTEGER_CST) + { + tree

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Still fails with r230191 at -O2: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0xf7571e97 in _Unwind_RaiseException (exc=) at /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/libgcc/unwind.inc:136 136 } (gdb) bt

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- *** Bug 67241 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/67239] [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|