From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <HBBroeker@t-online.de>
Received: from mailout07.t-online.de (mailout07.t-online.de [194.25.134.83])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D25963858039
 for <cygwin@cygwin.com>; Thu, 13 May 2021 19:33:33 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D25963858039
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=t-online.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=none smtp.mailfrom=HBBroeker@t-online.de
Received: from fwd40.aul.t-online.de (fwd40.aul.t-online.de [172.20.26.139])
 by mailout07.t-online.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 53B1D3F562
 for <cygwin@cygwin.com>; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:33:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.178.26]
 (VygkvGZ18h1x+de31X2GcjRV2FkUR7mPBIEa2MRzFLTZljNWzZNArx5t7zzM789ZhS@[79.228.82.98])
 by fwd40.t-online.de
 with (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted)
 esmtp id 1lhH5H-0lZSa00; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:33:23 +0200
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Test: {mingw64-{i686,x86_64}-,}gcc-11.1.0-0.1
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <announce.871raewgfm.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
 <f3f9f296-cde2-1549-e7e9-38c1c855d5df@towo.net>
 <87mtszzsvd.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
 <29a53ee2-cac3-6815-792d-36f96be47bd1@towo.net>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hans-Bernhard_Br=c3=b6ker?= <HBBroeker@t-online.de>
Message-ID: <5d911b7f-70c6-01f5-a353-d8735be46ecd@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 21:33:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <29a53ee2-cac3-6815-792d-36f96be47bd1@towo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ID: VygkvGZ18h1x+de31X2GcjRV2FkUR7mPBIEa2MRzFLTZljNWzZNArx5t7zzM789ZhS
X-TOI-EXPURGATEID: 150726::1620934403-0000B3FF-6F030DF4/0/0 CLEAN NORMAL
X-TOI-MSGID: 1cb3ba82-841b-4142-9d3b-4a3c7bbc5f8a
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, NICE_REPLY_A,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin@cygwin.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request@cygwin.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request@cygwin.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request@cygwin.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 19:33:36 -0000

Am 13.05.2021 um 10:57 schrieb Thomas Wolff:

> The crash vanishes after removing a few lines from a conditional (if 
> block) where the condition is false.

A conditions that's always false, or one that's false during the 
execution of a particular test case?

> This smells like wrong calculation of a relative jump (Intel "short 
> jump") by the optimizer.

If it were that simple, the problematic change should stand out like the 
proverbial sore thumb when comparing assembly listings of the two cases. 
  Does it?