public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
@ 2004-03-23 12:43 rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 13:57 ` [Bug optimization/14690] " bangerth at dealii dot org
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de @ 2004-03-23 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
g++-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.0 20040319 (prerelease) miscompiles the
src/Layout/tests/ugl_test2.cpp
src/Functions/tests/rngArray.cpp
test with -g -fno-exceptions in an unoptimized build.
This is a regression to g++-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.4 20040301 (prerelease)
which does fine with this testcases (and flags).
It is also a regression from g++ (GCC) 3.4.0 20040302 (prerelease)
which does fine with this testcases too.
POOMA is current CVS, configured with --serial --debug.
In an optimized build using -g -O2 -fno-exceptions, the
src/Functions/tests/rngArray.cpp
testcase is miscompiled which is a regression to
This is a regression to g++-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.4 20040301 (prerelease)
which does fine with this testcases (and flags).
It does not work with g++ (GCC) 3.4.0 20040302 (prerelease).
It does work with -O instead of -O2 though.
Note that g++ (GCC) 3.4.0 20040302 is the newest g++ I have available before the
failing release.
I'm not so worried about the rngArray failure, but about the ugl_test2 failure
which indicates a C++ correctness problem probably related to Marks massive C++
fixes. (pls. assign this PR to him)
Please ping me, if you like me to provide a preprocessed testcase as this will
be huge and probably not suitable for debugging this kind of problems.
Richard.
--
Summary: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14690
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/14690] [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
2004-03-23 12:43 [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
@ 2004-03-23 13:57 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-23 14:09 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-03-23 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-23 13:57 -------
Some kind of testcase will be necessary, but it would be a great help
if you could already try to sizzle it down a little bit. POOMA testcases
are not really our favorites due to their size and complexity, and as
you are well aware of, have frequently been sitting around a while until
someone felt an urge to reduce them :-(
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14690
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/14690] [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
2004-03-23 12:43 [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 13:57 ` [Bug optimization/14690] " bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-03-23 14:09 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 14:44 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de @ 2004-03-23 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-03-23 14:09 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA
tests
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
>
> ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-23 13:57 -------
> Some kind of testcase will be necessary, but it would be a great help
> if you could already try to sizzle it down a little bit. POOMA testcases
> are not really our favorites due to their size and complexity, and as
> you are well aware of, have frequently been sitting around a while until
> someone felt an urge to reduce them :-(
>
> W.
Ok, I thought I just build and verify g++-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.0 20040323
(prerelease), and the failure still occours. It doesn't occour
on ia64-linux though (same compiler).
I'll try to spend some time reducing the failure myself.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14690
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/14690] [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
2004-03-23 12:43 [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 13:57 ` [Bug optimization/14690] " bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-23 14:09 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
@ 2004-03-23 14:44 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-31 20:57 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de @ 2004-03-23 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-03-23 14:44 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA
tests
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
>
> ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-23 13:57 -------
> Some kind of testcase will be necessary, but it would be a great help
> if you could already try to sizzle it down a little bit. POOMA testcases
> are not really our favorites due to their size and complexity, and as
> you are well aware of, have frequently been sitting around a while until
> someone felt an urge to reduce them :-(
The ugl_test2 failure looks artificial, it's a likely broken testcase that
happened to work with earlier compilers. It's a complicated inheritance
hierarchy and asserting on some default constructed data - maybe the
right/wrong method is selected. I'm going to try to reduce this
somewhat.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14690
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/14690] [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
2004-03-23 12:43 [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-03-23 14:44 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
@ 2004-03-23 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-31 20:57 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-03-23 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14690
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/14690] [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests
2004-03-23 12:43 [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-03-23 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-03-31 20:57 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de @ 2004-03-31 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-03-31 20:57 -------
The rngArray failure is gone with g++-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.0 20040331 (prerelease).
The "fixed" ugl_test2 testcase works, too (but it is still unresolved wether the
original testcase regression is a regression or just undefined behavior - I was
unable to reduce the testcase and still get repeatable success/failure with
different compilers).
So I think this is sufficiently fixed now.
Richard.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14690
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-31 20:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-23 12:43 [Bug optimization/14690] New: [3.4 regression] Miscompiled POOMA tests rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 13:57 ` [Bug optimization/14690] " bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-23 14:09 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 14:44 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
2004-03-23 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-31 20:57 ` rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).