https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bki at hacon dot de
--- Comment #92 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #91 from David Binderman ---
I confirm that the problem seems fixed to me in today's trunk.
Thanks to everyone for what has been an unusually difficult bug to find.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Bug 92860 depends on bug 103905, which changed state.
Bug 103905 Summary: [12 Regression] Miscompiled i386-expand.c with
-march=bdver1 and -O3 since r12-1789-g836328b2c99f5b8d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103905
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #90 from Martin Liška ---
Note that I can bootstrap with -O3 -march=native on bdver1 when I apply the fix
for PR103905.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #88 from Martin Liška ---
And the miscompiled file is i386-expand.o.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #87 from Martin Liška ---
Self-contained test-case:
$ cat options-save2.ii
char flags[16];
int one = 1, two = 2;
void
__attribute__ ((noipa))
save() {
flags[0] = one;
flags[1] = one;
flags[2] = one;
flags[3] = one;
flags[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #86 from Martin Liška ---
Optimized dump is equal:
void cl_optimization_save ()
{
vector(8) short int vect__2.20;
vector(16) char vect__2.19;
int val0.0_1;
int val1.15_3;
vector(4) int _22;
vector(4) int _25;
[local c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #85 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, so the options-save.c is really miscompiled. I reduced that down to:
$ cat options-save2.ii
struct cl_optimization {
/* All have value 0. */
char x_flag_keep_gc_roots_live;
char x_flag_lifetime_dse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #84 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks David for help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #83 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #82 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #79)
> OK, so can you - in a -march=bdver2 built tree (that then fails) - produce
> options-save.ii (preprocessed source) and attach that?
Done.
> Can you tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #81 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 52118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52118&action=edit
preprocessed source code
Bug seems to have moved to unwind-dw2.c. Preprocessed source code attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #80 from Martin Liška ---
I've got access to a bdver2 machine, so I should be able to reproduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
>
> --- Comment #77 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #78 from David Binderman ---
-mxop adds 124 functions. I am not sure how to find out which ones are broken.
Is there some way to add only some of the 124 into the machine description ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #77 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #76)
> Maybe the issue reproduces with only -mtune=bdver2 or with -march=bdver2
> -mno-xop (XOP is what's removed from znver2 for example, not 100% sure
> that'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #76 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
>
> --- Comment #75 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #75 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #74)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #72)
> > You will manage, it's not rocket science.
> >
> > So please, add break point at the place it triggers the ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #74 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #72)
> You will manage, it's not rocket science.
>
> So please, add break point at the place it triggers the ICE and do:
>
> (gdb) p &ptr1->x_help_flag
> (gdb) p &p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #73 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #67)
> (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #66)
> > Should I file my commend 38 as a separate PR, then?
>
> Yes, please.
Filed as PR103709.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #72 from Martin Liška ---
You will manage, it's not rocket science.
So please, add break point at the place it triggers the ICE and do:
(gdb) p &ptr1->x_help_flag
(gdb) p &ptr2->x_help_flag
and then watch for the addresses it print
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #71 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #57)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #56)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #55)
> > > >
> > > > with line numbers please :)
> > >
> > > cat -n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #70 from Martin Liška ---
I'm sorry, but I don't have an access to a bdver2 machine.
Anyway, can you please debug what I asked in #c57?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #69 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #68)
> > Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
>
> Ok, so please tell me exact steps how to reproduce it.
First of all, get a -march=bdver2 machin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #68 from Martin Liška ---
> Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
Ok, so please tell me exact steps how to reproduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #67 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #66)
> Should I file my commend 38 as a separate PR, then?
Yes, please.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #66 from Arseny Solokha ---
Should I file my commend 38 as a separate PR, then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #65 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #63)
> OR: I do a fishing trip for revisions some unknown time before
> 2020-06-11 (the known bad date), to find a known good date, then
> run git bisect from ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #64 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #63)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #62)
> > Can't reproduce with the current master:
>
> Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
>
> E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #63 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #62)
> Can't reproduce with the current master:
Righto. This is proving unexpectedly hard to reproduce.
EITHER: I search various values of march= to find out which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #62 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #61 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51964&action=edit
C source code
Command line used to compile file:
/home/dcb/gcc/working.2/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #60 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #59)
> Most of the issues were fixed in GCC 12 stage1.
> There are still corner cases, but the current situation should be much
> better.
Not for me, they aren't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
Bug 92860 depends on bug 99592, which changed state.
Bug 99592 Summary: arm: internal compiler error using arm_neon.h with -pg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99592
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #58 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #57)
> Can you please build options-save.c with -O0 and debug it:
Good idea, but I have run out of time on this issue.
Another 40 or so interesting commits have app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #57 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #56)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #55)
> > >
> > > with line numbers please :)
> >
> > cat -n can do that
>
> Sorry, I went a bit hard-of-thinking ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #56 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #55)
> >
> > with line numbers please :)
>
> cat -n can do that
Sorry, I went a bit hard-of-thinking there.
13029 void
13030 cl_optimization_compare (gcc_opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #55 from Martin Liška ---
>
> with line numbers please :)
cat -n can do that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #54 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #53)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #52)
> > > 2 | #pragma GCC pop_options
> > > | ^~~
> > > 0xe8f7c3 cl_optimization_compare(gcc_options*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #53 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #52)
> > 2 | #pragma GCC pop_options
> > | ^~~
> > 0xe8f7c3 cl_optimization_compare(gcc_options*, gcc_options*)
> > /home/dcb/gcc/working/gcc/op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #52 from Martin Liška ---
> 2 | #pragma GCC pop_options
> | ^~~
> 0xe8f7c3 cl_optimization_compare(gcc_options*, gcc_options*)
> /home/dcb/gcc/working/gcc/options-save.c:13033
> 0x9b0ebd handle_pragma_pop_optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #51 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #50)
> Thanks for it. For some reason, I can't still reproduce it. Please provide
> the output of -v option here.
Reading specs from /home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #50 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #49)
> Created attachment 51095 [details]
> C source code
>
> Command line is
>
> /home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/ -g -O3
> -march
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #49 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 51095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51095&action=edit
C source code
Command line is
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/ -g -O3 -mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #48 from Martin Liška ---
> -O3 fine. Looks like an march=bdver2 issue.
All right, so please attach me here the pre-processed source file. I tried
doing that myself (using -O3 -march=bdver2), but it was fine (for some reason).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #47 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #46)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #43)
> > Rebroken, this time during bootstrap, so much more serious.
>
> > I'll have a go at dropping the -O3 -ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #46 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #43)
> Rebroken, this time during bootstrap, so much more serious.
> I'll have a go at dropping the -O3 -march=native back downto
> -O2 and see what happens.
-O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #45 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #44)
> What CPU do you have?
AMD FX-8350.
> What -march=native expands to (-v argument).
bdver2
> Can you please attach the pre-processed source file.
I'll l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #44 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #43)
> Rebroken, this time during bootstrap, so much more serious.
>
> /home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
> -B/home/dcb/gcc/results.2021
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #43 from David Binderman ---
Rebroken, this time during bootstrap, so much more serious.
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results.20210701/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e
commit r12-1039-gebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
53 matches
Mail list logo
