From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7025 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2003 14:19:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7005 invoked by uid 48); 14 Oct 2003 14:19:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031014141953.7004.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "tst at worldonline dot ch" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030604081727.11087.marcus@jet.franken.de> References: <20030604081727.11087.marcus@jet.franken.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/11087] gcc miscompiles raid1.c from linux kernel X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00964.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11087 ------- Additional Comments From tst at worldonline dot ch 2003-10-14 14:19 ------- Ok, what does this mean? "I've commited this so that it's in before Mark starts rolling tarballs. I have not commited the test case from the rhl branches since it doesn't fail without the patch." In which version/release the patch is included *and* the tarball is verified, that the patch is in? The RH raid1.c workaround was for RH 7.1 kernel 2.4.20 gcc 2.96 and the current kernel 2.6.0-test7 runs tests with gcc-3.2.2. So i tested gcc 2.95-3, 2.96, 3.3 and the new sources form cvs from yesterday (still open). And everyone crashs in raid1.c. I checked out the raid1.c standalone program, and it *never* crashs. So i thinks it´s not usefull for the testsuite. However i try to found out, what´s wrong with the alpha assembly code, but i doesn´t found anything wrong here ( i can´t singlestep the kernel code for read_balance and the standalone program seems to be fine.) Code; fffffc000050dd38 0000000000000000 <_PC>: Code; fffffc000050dd38 0: 10 00 a6 a0 ldl t4,16(t5) Code; fffffc000050dd3c 4: 1f 04 ff 47 nop Code; fffffc000050dd40 8: 24 15 82 40 subq t3,0x10,t3 Code; fffffc000050dd44 c: 25 31 a0 40 subl t4,0x1,t4 Code; fffffc000050dd48 10: 00 00 44 a4 ldq t1,0(t3) Code; fffffc000050dd4c 14: 0e 00 40 e4 beq t1,50 <_PC+0x50> fffffc000050dd88 Code; fffffc000050dd50 <===== 18: 58 00 22 a0 ldl t0,88(t1) <===== Code; fffffc000050dd54 1c: 0c 00 20 e4 beq t0,50 <_PC+0x50> fffffc000050dd88 Can anyone tell me, why this code is wrong? $t3 seems to be a valid pointer, but $t1 got 1 and that fails. OK - what gcc release i can test with the patch included? Thanks Thomas http://alpha.steudten.com