public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
@ 2006-01-04 1:06 uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 1:23 ` [Bug middle-end/25657] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: uttamp at us dot ibm dot com @ 2006-01-04 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
Since 23rd Dec. this benchmark getting runtime error with "miscompare output".
I'm doing regression hunt to track the patch which most probably have caused
the failure.
Since similar problem is reported for fma3d benchmark (maybe the same patch has
caused the problem)
Has this seen on other platforms, too?
Uttam
--
Summary: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc64-linux
GCC host triplet: powerpc64-linux
GCC target triplet: powerpc64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
@ 2006-01-04 1:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-04 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 01:23 -------
Hmm, this seems to work on Diego's tester on powerpc64-linux-gnu:
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.ppc64/gcc/log/20060103/CFP2000.084.html
What options are you using?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 1:23 ` [Bug middle-end/25657] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-04 1:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:46 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-04 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 01:27 -------
And SuSE's tester:
http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SPEC/CFP/sb-vangelis-head-64/recent.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 1:23 ` [Bug middle-end/25657] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-04 1:46 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 1:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: uttamp at us dot ibm dot com @ 2006-01-04 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2006-01-04 01:46 -------
peak options are,
"-O3 -mcpu=power4 -ffast-math -ftree-loop-linear -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
-m32"
base options are,
"-O2 -mcpu=power4 -m32"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 1:46 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
@ 2006-01-04 1:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-04 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 01:46 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> And SuSE's tester:
> http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SPEC/CFP/sb-vangelis-head-64/recent.html
Oh, that is a x86_64, SuSE's ppc64 tester looks to be down.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 1:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-04 1:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-04 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 01:49 -------
I wonder if this is related at all to PR 25578 which was just fixed today:
2006-01-03 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
PR rtl-optimization/25578
* combine.c (combine_simplify_rtx, force_to_mode): Don't
pass a parameter to simplify_shift_const if changing ASHIFTRT
to LSHIFTRT.
As both sixtrack and fma3d are fortran programs. Can you try after that patch
and if it works, the please close this and fma3d's bug as a dup of PR 25578?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 1:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 2:02 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-04 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 01:52 -------
Oh, I forgot to mention that the patch which caused PR 25578 was:
2005-12-23 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-04 2:02 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 16:50 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 16:51 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: uttamp at us dot ibm dot com @ 2006-01-04 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2006-01-04 02:02 -------
Yes, I'll.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 2:02 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
@ 2006-01-04 16:50 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 16:51 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: uttamp at us dot ibm dot com @ 2006-01-04 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2006-01-04 16:50 -------
This has been fixed with todays mainline tree.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/25657] runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-04 16:50 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
@ 2006-01-04 16:51 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: uttamp at us dot ibm dot com @ 2006-01-04 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from uttamp at us dot ibm dot com 2006-01-04 16:51 -------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25578 ***
--
uttamp at us dot ibm dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25657
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-04 16:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-04 1:06 [Bug middle-end/25657] New: runtime error with 200.sixtrack benchmark uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 1:23 ` [Bug middle-end/25657] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:46 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 1:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-04 2:02 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 16:50 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
2006-01-04 16:51 ` uttamp at us dot ibm dot com
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).