* [Bug c/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-01-18 18:31 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 18:38 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: malitzke at metronets dot com @ 2007-01-18 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:31 -------
Created an attachment (id=12919)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12919&action=view)
Detailed out using different optimization levels
I also have similar output using Phase 1 cc1 (also at different otimization
levels).
In another attachment I am submitting tree.i.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 18:31 ` [Bug c/30503] " malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-01-18 18:38 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 18:53 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: malitzke at metronets dot com @ 2007-01-18 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:38 -------
Created an attachment (id=12920)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12920&action=view)
Standard preprocessed file
This file was created using the xgcc resulting from phase 2. I have another
file tree.i using the phase 1 xgcc this differs on in the includes referenced.
The includes diff equal for phase 1 and 2 (spot checks only)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 18:31 ` [Bug c/30503] " malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 18:38 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-01-18 18:53 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 23:40 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: malitzke at metronets dot com @ 2007-01-18 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:52 -------
Prior to patclevel 12900 (about 12880) bootstrap failed even with O1 with
segment error.
For those dismissive folks who either say "It works for me" or claim that it is
the submitters harware fault I can only aver the following:
The work was done on a four processor server with 3G error correcting memory
and over the last three weeks similar Segmentation errors occured; I have
tried different binutils and different versions of glibc.
I realize GCC-main is undergoing drastic changes right now.
day before yesterday cc1 (from phse 1) worked with O1 and bombed out with O2.
I doubt this cand be reduced to a simple test case as it occurs when trying to
optimize across procedures.
Glad to cooperate further.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-18 18:53 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-01-18 23:40 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-18 23:45 ` [Bug middle-end/30503] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: malitzke at metronets dot com @ 2007-01-18 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 23:40 -------
Well , the mistery continues.
First when I referred to patchlevels I left out a 0 (zero); 12900 should read
120900.
Second I repeated the bootstrap because a number of patches from Daniel Berlin
looked promising to me. Now instead o just hanging at "checking for
i686-pc-linux-gnu-pcc" in gearing up for pass 3 in "i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgcc"
it allocated itself 2.7G of memory before going on to "checking for suffix of
object files ..." it grabbed 2.8 G memory of my 3+G and issued "configure:
error: cannot compute suffix of objectfiles: cannot compile.
The memory grabbing was checked with the utility "top".
Checking cc1 with tree.i gave essentially the same results as before. I could
send in the details if wanted.
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-18 23:40 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-01-18 23:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-19 0:20 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-18 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 23:45 -------
Are you sure you don't have bad memory?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-18 23:45 ` [Bug middle-end/30503] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-19 0:20 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-01-19 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: malitzke at metronets dot com @ 2007-01-19 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-19 00:20 -------
Mr Pinski
I do not appreciate your comment. My comment 3 was really addressed to people
like you who want to garner points as beiong the big killers of problem reports
by using cheap tactics. With four processors and 3 Gigabytes of error
correcting menory it is highly unlikely that the test cases I ran started
each time at the same location to cause consistently repeatable failures.
Remember what a fellow gcc.gnu.org mantainer recently said about your attitude.
I can only aver that he was right. I was hoping you would have learned a
lesson. You actually used a PR I filed about glibc to make a point like this
one to the glibc people. If you want a flame war let me say that have collected
a number of cases concerning your behaviour.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-19 0:20 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-01-19 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-19 3:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-19 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 00:24 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Mr Pinski
> I do not appreciate your comment.
But my point was I know if you having hardware issues you will have some issues
with segfaults and other random internal compiler errors. In fact my machine
overheats all the time and I get a random segfault.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-19 0:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-19 3:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 8:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-19 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 03:55 -------
Okay, well, this is pretty simple.
If we can't reproduce the bug (and i can't, and andrew can't), we can't fix it.
So this bug is just going to stay open forever until then, regardless of
whether it's a hardware failure, a kernel bug, or a gcc bug.
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot |
|org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-19 3:55 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-21 8:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-04-02 19:39 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-04-02 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-21 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |normal
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Keywords| |build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-21 8:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-04-02 19:39 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
2007-04-02 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: malitzke at metronets dot com @ 2007-04-02 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-04-02 20:39 -------
I believe this report can be closed. I was able to find the start date
(2061125)
or a day later when I could no longer bootstrap. It disappeared towards the end
of January 2007. It prevented bootstrapping on x86 but not on powerpc. It has
not reappeared and was consistent on three x86 machines.
It seems that many maintainers ar not doing the complete (and quite time
consuming bootstrapping) during the non-regression period.
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/30503] ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
2007-01-18 18:24 [Bug c/30503] New: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c malitzke at metronets dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-04-02 19:39 ` malitzke at metronets dot com
@ 2007-04-02 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-04-02 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-02 22:13 -------
> It seems that many maintainers ar not doing the complete (and quite time
> consuming bootstrapping) during the non-regression period.
I think that is wrong as most are, just some forgot to double check. Like at
one point -fkeep-inline-functions were broken so if someone bootstrapped their
patch before that and posted it and then applied after that was fixed, you
would get a bootstrap failure.
Also I and many others actually bootstrap on many different targets all the
time. I do powerpc64-linux-gnu and i686-linux-gnu as those are the two
machines I have access to (well and a cross to spu-elf).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30503
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread