* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
@ 2008-01-26 19:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-26 19:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-26 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 18:50 -------
We seem to use local calling conventions for emitting the body of something,
but
at the call site we pass arguments via the stack.
P1 until we know more about this.
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
static void something();
int main()
{
something(-1);
}
static void something(int i)
{
if (i != -1)
abort ();
}
The asm shows it:
something:
subl $12, %esp
cmpl $-1, %eax
je .L3
call abort
.L3:
addl $12, %esp
ret
but:
main:
leal 4(%esp), %ecx
andl $-16, %esp
pushl -4(%ecx)
pushl %ecx
subl $8, %esp
movl $-1, (%esp)
call something
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c |target
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-01-26 18:50:39
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
2008-01-26 19:05 ` [Bug target/34982] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-26 19:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-26 19:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-26 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:07 -------
The first time we ask, cgraph_local_info ()->local is zero, the second time it
is one.
Honza, Uros?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |uros at gcc dot gnu dot org,
| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
2008-01-26 19:05 ` [Bug target/34982] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-26 19:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-26 19:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-26 19:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-26 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:09 -------
Janis, can you hunt this? Thanks.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-26 19:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-26 19:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-26 21:56 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-26 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 19:23 -------
So we use the local info before it is available and thus the following will
ICE:
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 131861)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -3199,6 +3199,7 @@ ix86_function_regparm (const_tree type,
{
/* FIXME: remove this CONST_CAST when cgraph.[ch] is constified. */
struct cgraph_local_info *i = cgraph_local_info (CONST_CAST_TREE(decl));
+ gcc_assert (cgraph_node (CONST_CAST_TREE(decl))->analyzed);
if (i && i->local)
{
int local_regparm, globals = 0, regno;
and if it is just not available (i == NULL) might give inconsistent
answers.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-26 19:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-26 21:56 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-27 15:35 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-26 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-26 20:19 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> and if it is just not available (i == NULL) might give inconsistent
> answers.
I will look into this. cgraph_local_info used to trap when asked for
unavailable local info, looks like someone fixed the bug by removing the
assert.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-26 21:56 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-27 15:35 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-27 17:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-27 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-27 13:54 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
cgraph_local_info still behaves as expected returning NULL when info is
not computed yet. Unfortunately check to simply ignore it when not
available has been added to ix86_function_regparm that makes this bug
lead to wrong code. (revision 123146)
There are two occurences where we can ix86_function_regparm. First one
is for compatibility checking, I would just declare it invalid - we
don't want the type comatiblity to depend on backend decision and I
think it is perfectly sane to reject any types specifying different
REGPARM values or where one specify and other doesn't.
I am testing attached patch and will commit it if passes.
Other case is from gimplifier, I am looking into it. This definitly has
to go or we need to drop the feature :(
Honza
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 131882)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -3148,6 +3148,7 @@ ix86_comp_type_attributes (const_tree ty
{
/* Check for mismatch of non-default calling convention. */
const char *const rtdstr = TARGET_RTD ? "cdecl" : "stdcall";
+ tree attr1, attr2;
if (TREE_CODE (type1) != FUNCTION_TYPE
&& TREE_CODE (type1) != METHOD_TYPE)
@@ -3155,11 +3156,27 @@ ix86_comp_type_attributes (const_tree ty
/* Check for mismatched fastcall/regparm types. */
if ((!lookup_attribute ("fastcall", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type1))
- != !lookup_attribute ("fastcall", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type2)))
- || (ix86_function_regparm (type1, NULL)
- != ix86_function_regparm (type2, NULL)))
+ != !lookup_attribute ("fastcall", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type2))))
return 0;
+ /* We don't want to use ix86_function_regparm here: it's decision depends
+ on middle end information, like localness of functions. Here we only
want
+ to know if types are declared compatible. */
+ attr1 = lookup_attribute ("regparm", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type1));
+ attr2 = lookup_attribute ("regparm", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type2));
+
+ if ((attr1 != NULL_TREE) != (attr2 != NULL_TREE))
+ return 0;
+
+ if (attr1)
+ {
+ int val1 = TREE_INT_CST_LOW (TREE_VALUE (TREE_VALUE (attr1)));
+ int val2 = TREE_INT_CST_LOW (TREE_VALUE (TREE_VALUE (attr2)));
+
+ if (val1 != val2)
+ return 0;
+ }
+
/* Check for mismatched sseregparm types. */
if (!lookup_attribute ("sseregparm", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type1))
!= !lookup_attribute ("sseregparm", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (type2)))
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-27 15:35 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-27 17:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-27 18:20 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-27 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 14:19 -------
One more reason to gimplify unit-at-a-time...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-27 17:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-27 18:20 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-27 19:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-27 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-27 18:10 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> One more reason to gimplify unit-at-a-time...
Yep, on the other hand there is probably not much need to get that
amount of architectural detail so easy. I am looking into what makes
the compilation to diverge.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-27 18:20 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-27 19:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-27 19:57 ` bero at arklinux dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-27 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-27 19:24 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
However the failure here is not early calling of cgraph_local_info (it
is ugly, but harmless, we are just looking for target promoting rules
that we don't change).
The problem is good old type system broken scenario: the forward
declaration has no prorotype and thus might be vararg and thus it is not
regparmized, however the definition is correct. When expanding the call
we use type of the call, so the wrong type.
I am testing the attached patch. My type merging code fixes this too and
obvioiusly we should work harder on maybe_vaarg rule for local
functions, this should make lot of difference on K&R code (I wonder if
any is still around in usual distro)
Honza
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
*** config/i386/i386.c (revision 131882)
--- config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
*************** init_cumulative_args (CUMULATIVE_ARGS *c
*** 3432,3437 ****
--- 3449,3455 ----
rtx libname, /* SYMBOL_REF of library name or 0 */
tree fndecl)
{
+ struct cgraph_local_info *i = fndecl ? cgraph_local_info (fndecl) : NULL;
memset (cum, 0, sizeof (*cum));
/* Set up the number of registers to use for passing arguments. */
*************** init_cumulative_args (CUMULATIVE_ARGS *c
*** 3442,3447 ****
--- 3460,3474 ----
cum->mmx_nregs = MMX_REGPARM_MAX;
cum->warn_sse = true;
cum->warn_mmx = true;
+
+ /* Because type might mismatch in between caller and callee, we need to
+ use actual type of function for local calls.
+ FIXME: cgraph_analyze can be told to actually record if function uses
+ va_start so for local functions maybe_vaarg can be made aggressive
+ helping K&R code.
+ FIXME: once typesytem is fixed, we won't need this code anymore. */
+ if (i && i->local)
+ fntype = TREE_TYPE (fndecl);
cum->maybe_vaarg = (fntype
? (!prototype_p (fntype) || stdarg_p (fntype))
: !libname);
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-27 19:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-27 19:57 ` bero at arklinux dot org
2008-01-29 19:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: bero at arklinux dot org @ 2008-01-27 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from bero at arklinux dot org 2008-01-27 19:36 -------
> this should make lot of difference on K&R code (I wonder if
> any is still around in usual distro)
Some parts of xorg still follow K&R conventions, few parts of teTeX have K&R
code in them, cdrtools is fully K&R (I "fixed" that in the dvdrtools fork, not
sure if any of the other cdrtools forks in circulation copied that) -- other
than that, I'm not aware of any commonly used K&R bits and pieces in a modern
system.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-27 19:57 ` bero at arklinux dot org
@ 2008-01-29 19:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-29 23:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-29 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-29 17:51 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
Hi,
the patch seems to pass my local testing, but on Zdenek's tester I get
curious results on i686:
Tests that now fail, but worked before:
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 14) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 18) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 18) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 2) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 2) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 3) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 3) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 10) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 16) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 16) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 10) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 10) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 12) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 12) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 13) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 14) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 14) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 15) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 17) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 17) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 2) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 2) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 4) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 4) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 11) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 4) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 13) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 13) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 10) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 10) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 14) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 14) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 16) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 16) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 4) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 4) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 5) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 5) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 7) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 7) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 9) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 9) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 1) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 1) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 15) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 18) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 18) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 19) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 9) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 9) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c (-O2) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c (-O2) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c output pattern test
Tests that now work, but didn't before:
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 11) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 11) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 17) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 19) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 19) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 4) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 4) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 7) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 7) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 9) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 9) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 17) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 18) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 18) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 1) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 5) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 5) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 18) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 18) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 19) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 3) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (rerun 3) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 1) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 1) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 5) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 5) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O3) (rerun 9) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O3) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 17) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 17) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 19) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) (rerun 19) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-static -DSTATIC) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 11) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 11) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 12) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 12) output pattern test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 13) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 3) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 3) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 5) execution test
libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (rerun 5) output pattern test
Those are all timeouts that does not reproduce for me on local testing
(and the tests don't even seem that slow). I am inclined to think that
this is just random noise but will try to check before comitting.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-29 19:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-29 23:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-30 5:06 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-29 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-29 21:22 -------
These tests time out from time to time when the testing box is busy, that's
quite
normal. The problem is in the use of sched_yield (), which puts the calling
thread to the end of the runqueue. If there are many processes in the
runqueue,
one or more of the 10 threads might miss the 10 sec timeout in one or more of
the 20 repetitions in 100 sched_yield calls.
So just ignore this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-29 23:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-30 5:06 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-30 15:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-30 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 01:19 -------
> other
> than that, I'm not aware of any commonly used K&R bits and pieces in a modern
> system.
FWIW -- Emacs is mostly K&R.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 5:06 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-30 15:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-30 16:05 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-30 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 12:35 -------
Patch in comment #9 works for me.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 15:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-30 16:05 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-30 16:12 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-30 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 15:54 -------
Fixed at mainline. I am really surprises this is 4.3 only regression since the
code didn't see much changes in last few releases.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 16:05 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-30 16:12 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-30 16:22 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-30 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 15:55 -------
Subject: Bug 34982
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 30 15:54:14 2008
New Revision: 131966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131966
Log:
PR target/34982
* i386.c (init_cumulative_args): Use real function declaration when
calling locally.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 16:12 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-30 16:22 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-30 23:19 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-30 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-30 15:56 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> These tests time out from time to time when the testing box is busy, that's
> quite
> normal. The problem is in the use of sched_yield (), which puts the calling
> thread to the end of the runqueue. If there are many processes in the
> runqueue,
> one or more of the 10 threads might miss the 10 sec timeout in one or more of
> the 20 repetitions in 100 sched_yield calls.
> So just ignore this.
Thanks for explanation. It happent few time in past to me that I
ignored mudflap failures incorrectly claiming random noise. Now at least
I know how to look for test that is supposed to have this problem.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 16:22 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-30 23:19 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-01-30 23:20 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-01-30 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-30 22:59 -------
On i686-apple-darwin9 (rev. 131968), the new test
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c fails:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c execution, -O1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 23:19 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-01-30 23:20 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-01-30 23:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-01-30 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-30 23:05 -------
Follow up to comment #18, the test pass if I run it directly or if I run
gcc/testsuite/gcc/pr34982.x1.
Any idea why the test is failing in the test suite?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 23:20 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-01-30 23:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-31 0:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-30 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 23:08 -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> Any idea why the test is failing in the test suite?
Yes because main needs a "return 0;"
so the main function should look like:
int main()
{
something(-1);
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-30 23:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-31 0:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2008-01-31 0:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2008-01-31 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-01-30 23:15 -------
> Yes because main needs a "return 0;"
but why does this happen only with -O1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-31 0:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2008-01-31 0:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-31 1:30 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-31 9:39 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-31 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-30 23:18 -------
(In reply to comment #21)
> but why does this happen only with -O1?
Random value in eax register so we could put 0 in some cases but not others.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-31 0:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-31 1:30 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-01-31 9:39 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2008-01-31 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #23 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-30 23:20 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters
causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > but why does this happen only with -O1?
>
> Random value in eax register so we could put 0 in some cases but not others.
Oops, I am going to commit obvious fix for that. Looks like my tester
got lucky.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/34982] [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher
2008-01-26 17:41 [Bug c/34982] New: [4.3 regression] calling a function with undefined parameters causes segmentation fault at -O1 or higher bero at arklinux dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-31 1:30 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2008-01-31 9:39 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2008-01-31 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #24 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-01-31 08:21 -------
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 30 23:25:35 2008
New Revision: 131969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131969
Log:
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c: Add forgotten return 0.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34982.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34982
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread