--- Comment #24 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-01-31 08:21 ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 30 23:25:35 2008
New Revision: 131969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131969
Log:
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c: Add forgotten return 0.
Modified:
tru
--- Comment #23 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-30 23:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > but why does this happen only with -O1?
>
> Random value in eax registe
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 23:18
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> but why does this happen only with -O1?
Random value in eax register so we could put 0 in some cases but not others.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-30 23:15 ---
> Yes because main needs a "return 0;"
but why does this happen only with -O1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 23:08
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Any idea why the test is failing in the test suite?
Yes because main needs a "return 0;"
so the main function should look like:
int main()
{
something(-1);
return 0;
}
--
http
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-30 23:05 ---
Follow up to comment #18, the test pass if I run it directly or if I run
gcc/testsuite/gcc/pr34982.x1.
Any idea why the test is failing in the test suite?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
--- Comment #18 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-30 22:59 ---
On i686-apple-darwin9 (rev. 131968), the new test
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c fails:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c execution, -O1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
--- Comment #17 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-30 15:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> These tests time out from time to time when the testing box is busy, that's
> quite
> normal. The pro
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 15:55
---
Subject: Bug 34982
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 30 15:54:14 2008
New Revision: 131966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131966
Log:
PR target/34982
* i386.c (init_cumulative_
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 15:54
---
Fixed at mainline. I am really surprises this is 4.3 only regression since the
code didn't see much changes in last few releases.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 12:35 ---
Patch in comment #9 works for me.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 01:19 ---
> other
> than that, I'm not aware of any commonly used K&R bits and pieces in a modern
> system.
FWIW -- Emacs is mostly K&R.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-29 21:22 ---
These tests time out from time to time when the testing box is busy, that's
quite
normal. The problem is in the use of sched_yield (), which puts the calling
thread to the end of the runqueue. If there are many proc
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-29 17:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
Hi,
the patch seems to pass my local testing, but on Zdenek's tester I get
curious results on i686:
Tes
--- Comment #10 from bero at arklinux dot org 2008-01-27 19:36 ---
> this should make lot of difference on K&R code (I wonder if
> any is still around in usual distro)
Some parts of xorg still follow K&R conventions, few parts of teTeX have K&R
code in them, cdrtools is fully K&R (I "fi
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-27 19:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
However the failure here is not early calling of cgraph_local_info (it
is ugly, but harmless, we are just
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-27 18:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> One more reason to gimplify unit-at-a-time...
Yep, on the other hand there is probably not much need t
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 14:19 ---
One more reason to gimplify unit-at-a-time...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-27 13:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
cgraph_local_info still behaves as expected returning NULL when info is
not computed yet. Unfortunately c
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-26 20:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> and if it is just not available (i == NULL) might give inconsistent
> answers.
I will look into this.
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:23 ---
So we use the local info before it is available and thus the following will
ICE:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 131861
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:09 ---
Janis, can you hunt this? Thanks.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:07 ---
The first time we ask, cgraph_local_info ()->local is zero, the second time it
is one.
Honza, Uros?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:50 ---
We seem to use local calling conventions for emitting the body of something,
but
at the call site we pass arguments via the stack.
P1 until we know more about this.
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
sta
24 matches
Mail list logo
