[Bug target/16130] New: [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[Bug target/16130] New: [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[hjl at lucon dot org]

A testcase is at

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6598&action=view

[hjl@gnu-4 linux-2.6.7]$ /usr/gcc-3.4/bin/gcc -O2 -mtune=merced foo.c -S
foo.c: In function `ia64_mmu_init':
foo.c:55: internal compiler error: in bundling, at config/ia64/ia64.c:7112
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.

BTW, gcc 3.4 has many Itanium 1 regressions. I think we should either remove
Itanium 1 support or fix all regressions.

-- 
           Summary: [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[hjl at lucon dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vmakarov at redhat dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[hjl at lucon dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |wilson at specifixinc dot
                   |                            |com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[hjl at lucon dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|                            |ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
   GCC host triplet|                            |ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
 GCC target triplet|                            |ia64-unknown-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |ice-on-valid-code
   Target Milestone|---                         |3.4.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[wilson at specifixinc dot com]

------- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com  2004-06-23 23:54 -------
Subject: Re:  New: [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid
 code

hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> BTW, gcc 3.4 has many Itanium 1 regressions. I think we should either remove
> Itanium 1 support or fix all regressions.

I tried to respond to this in bug #15653, but since that was closed 
already, and this one is still open, I will repeat some of it here.

As far as I know, we can't remove the Itanium 1 support because you are 
using it.  If you really aren't using it, then you should either stop 
reporting bugs against it, or else you should indicate so in your bug 
reports, so we know that they are not problems that need to be fixed.

Reporting lots of problems will not encourage people to fix Itanium1 
bugs.  All it does is add to my workload.  There are already more IA-64 
bugs than I have time to fix, so this just makes things worse.  If these 
problems are really not important, then I would like to know.  There are 
other things I could be doing, such as fixing the SPEC benchmark 
miscompilation problem, or the profilebootstrap failure.

Removing the Itanium1 support is an awefully big hammer.  If we remove 
it, it will probably never come back.  There are other less radical 
things that can be done, such as disabling the Itanium1 DFA, or adding 
an error() call to indicate that it is known to be broken.

If we are removing Itanium1 support, then are we also removing it from 
other packages too?  The linux kernel?  Binutils?  You explicitly added 
Itanium1 support to binutils a few months ago after I tried to remove 
it, so my understanding was we still needed Itanium1 support everywhere.

I don't mind getting meta-bugs when other major GNU/Linux packages are 
involved.  I suspect all of your testcases are coming from the linux 
kernel, in which case a single bug reporting that is probably much more 
useful than the 6 or so separate bugs you have reported so far.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[hjl at lucon dot org]

------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org  2004-06-25 07:44 -------
I noticed those regressions while compiling 2.6.7 kernel for Itantium 1. I
agree that a single bug report is better than many separate ones in this
case. But I was told that I should open separate ones.

I doubt there are many Itanium 1 machines left in production use. If people
want to use Itanium 1, they can stick with the older gccs. Or they should
upgrade their machines. I don't think many people will mind if the new gcc 
stops supporting Itanium 1. I think disable Itanium 1 DFA is a good idea for
gcc 3.4. We can remove it from mainline.

Binutils is different. People with Itanium 1 machines still need improved
assembler and linker. But they don't necessarily need to upgrade gcc.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-06-29 03:31 -------
What you could do is file a meta bug with reference to all of the Itanium 1 bugs.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[hjl at lucon dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |16278
              nThis|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[wilson at specifixinc dot com]

------- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com  2004-06-29 17:14 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 00:44, hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> I noticed those regressions while compiling 2.6.7 kernel for Itantium 1. I
> agree that a single bug report is better than many separate ones in this
> case. But I was told that I should open separate ones.

You were asked to file separate bug reports because you never clearly
stated that all of the bug reports were linux kernel compilation
problems.  It was obvious to me, but it wasn't obvious to others.  So it
looked like you were filing unrelated bugs together which is bad.  You
also made the mistake of adding new testcases to a bug that was already
closed, without explaining why.

I see you have filed a new meta-bug 16278 for this.  Thanks.  It would
have been better if you mentioned how to configure the linux kernel to
reproduce the error though.  You have to explicitly enable the Itanium1
support when configuring the linux kernel, and then that automatically
adds the -mtune=merced option to CFLAGS.

> Binutils is different. People with Itanium 1 machines still need improved
> assembler and linker. But they don't necessarily need to upgrade gcc.

If you are assuming that a new binutils will work with an old gcc, then
I think you are wrong.  The interfaces between binutils and gcc change
occasionally, and we can not support using mismatched versions.  If we
are telling people to use old gcc releases, then we must also tell them
to use old binutils releases that worked with that old gcc release.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-07-07 15:11 -------
Subject: Bug 16130

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	vmakarov@gcc.gnu.org	2004-07-07 15:11:44

Modified files:
	gcc            : ChangeLog 
	gcc/config/ia64: ia64.c 

Log message:
	2004-07-07  Vladimir Makarov  <vmakarov@redhat.com>
	
	PR target/16130
	PR target/16142
	PR target/16143
	* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_dfa_new_cycle): Reset DFA state for asm
	insn.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.4338&r2=2.4339
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/ia64/ia64.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.297&r2=1.298



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-07-07 15:16 -------
Subject: Bug 16130

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Branch: 	gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by:	vmakarov@gcc.gnu.org	2004-07-07 15:15:57

Modified files:
	gcc            : ChangeLog 
	gcc/config/ia64: ia64.c 

Log message:
	2004-07-07  Vladimir Makarov  <vmakarov@redhat.com>
	
	PR target/16130
	PR target/16142
	PR target/16143
	* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_dfa_new_cycle): Reset DFA state for asm
	insn.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_4-branch&r1=2.2326.2.536&r2=2.2326.2.537
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/ia64/ia64.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_4-branch&r1=1.265.2.9&r2=1.265.2.10



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130

[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-07-07 15:30 -------
Fixed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130