* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-19 15:33 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-19 18:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-19 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-19 15:33 ` [Bug middle-end/40493] " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-19 18:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-19 18:24 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-19 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 18:09 -------
I will look into this next week. However, I have never compiled binutils
before, so unless it is obvious, please describe how to reproduce the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-19 15:33 ` [Bug middle-end/40493] " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-19 18:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-19 18:24 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-19 23:38 ` amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-19 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-19 18:24 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> I will look into this next week. However, I have never compiled binutils
> before, so unless it is obvious, please describe how to reproduce the problem.
>
Just download the current Linux binutils:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/binutils-2.19.51.0.10.tar.bz2
on Linux/x86-64 and do
1. Untar
2. mkdir build
3. cd build
4. ....../configure
5. make
6. make check
There should be no failures in testsuite.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-19 18:24 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-19 23:38 ` amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
2009-06-20 1:11 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: amodra at bigpond dot net dot au @ 2009-06-19 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2009-06-19 23:38 -------
With 148536 and current mainline cvs binutils I see no failures in the gas
testsuite. I do see a bunch of failures in the ld testsuite, which are all
because /usr/bin/ld is being run despite a -B option being passed to gcc that
should cause the newly built ld to be used.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-19 23:38 ` amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
@ 2009-06-20 1:11 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-20 3:26 ` amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-20 1:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]
------- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 01:11 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> With 148536 and current mainline cvs binutils I see no failures in the gas
> testsuite. I do see a bunch of failures in the ld testsuite, which are all
> because /usr/bin/ld is being run despite a -B option being passed to gcc that
> should cause the newly built ld to be used.
>
With revision 148536, I got
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c: In function
‘elf_link_add_object_symbols’:
/export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c:3552:6: error: jump skips
variable initialization
/export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c:3637:7: note: label
‘error_free_dyn’ defined here
/export/gnu/import/svn/binutils/src/bfd/elflink.c:3626:18: note: ‘tagv’
declared here
It won't even compile.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-20 1:11 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-20 3:26 ` amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
2009-06-20 4:11 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: amodra at bigpond dot net dot au @ 2009-06-20 3:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2009-06-20 03:26 -------
Oops, you're correct. I wan't using the compiler I thought I was. make CC=...
wasn't passing $CC down to the bfd dir for some reason.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-20 3:26 ` amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
@ 2009-06-20 4:11 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-20 13:21 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-20 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 04:11 -------
Revision 148512 failed to build binutils. You may need to remove -Werror
from CFLAGS in Makefile by hand when building binutils. See PR 40500.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |40500
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-20 4:11 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-20 13:21 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-22 10:06 ` d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-20 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-20 13:21 -------
Created an attachment (id=18032)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18032&action=view)
A patch to avoid warning from -Wall
You can apply this patch to binutils to avoid
warning from -Wall in gcc 4.5.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-20 13:21 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-22 10:06 ` d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com
2009-06-22 18:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-22 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com 2009-06-22 10:05 -------
This is probably the same bug: binutils 2.19.51.20090616 (build, host:
i686-pc-linux-gnu, target: i686-pc-mingw32), compiled with GCC 4.5.0 20090618.
GAS aborts when tries to assemble this instruction:
imull $-1431655765, %eax, %eax
Internal error, aborting at ../../binutils-2.19.51/gas/config/tc-i386.c line
4917 in build_modrm_byte
To avoid errors when compiling binutils, simply pass --disable-werror to
configure script.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-22 10:06 ` d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-22 18:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-23 13:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-22 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 18:57 -------
Right, now I can reproduce the problem and it indeed is introduced by the new
SRA commit. None of the fixes I have done so far deals with this one either. I
am investigating this further (but don't hold your breath, it is going to take
me a while).
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-06-22 18:57:00
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-22 18:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-23 13:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-23 13:40 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-23 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 13:21 -------
The miscompiled file seems to be gas/tc-i386.o. Early SRA is enough to trigger
the problem. Digging deeper...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-23 13:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-23 13:40 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-06-23 16:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2009-06-23 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-23 13:40 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> The miscompiled file seems to be gas/tc-i386.o. Early SRA is enough to trigger
> the problem. Digging deeper...
>
tc-i386.c uses union with bit fields. See opcodes/i386-opc.h
for details.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-23 13:40 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2009-06-23 16:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-24 16:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-23 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 16:45 -------
Reduced testcase:
extern void abort (void);
typedef union i386_operand_type
{
struct
{
unsigned int reg8:1;
unsigned int reg16:1;
unsigned int reg32:1;
unsigned int reg64:1;
unsigned int floatreg:1;
unsigned int regmmx:1;
unsigned int regxmm:1;
unsigned int regymm:1;
unsigned int control:1;
unsigned int debug:1;
unsigned int test:1;
unsigned int sreg2:1;
unsigned int sreg3:1;
unsigned int imm1:1;
unsigned int imm8:1;
unsigned int imm8s:1;
unsigned int imm16:1;
unsigned int imm32:1;
unsigned int imm32s:1;
unsigned int imm64:1;
unsigned int disp8:1;
unsigned int disp16:1;
unsigned int disp32:1;
unsigned int disp32s:1;
unsigned int disp64:1;
unsigned int acc:1;
unsigned int floatacc:1;
unsigned int baseindex:1;
unsigned int inoutportreg:1;
unsigned int shiftcount:1;
unsigned int jumpabsolute:1;
unsigned int esseg:1;
unsigned int regmem:1;
unsigned int mem:1;
unsigned int byte:1;
unsigned int word:1;
unsigned int dword:1;
unsigned int fword:1;
unsigned int qword:1;
unsigned int tbyte:1;
unsigned int xmmword:1;
unsigned int ymmword:1;
unsigned int unspecified:1;
unsigned int anysize:1;
} bitfield;
unsigned int array[2];
} i386_operand_type;
unsigned int x00, x01, y00, y01;
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
i386_operand_type a,b,c,d;
a.bitfield.reg16 = 1;
a.bitfield.imm16 = 0;
a.array[1] = 22;
b = a;
x00 = b.array[0];
x01 = b.array[1];
c = b;
y00 = c.array[0];
y01 = c.array[1];
d = c;
if (d.bitfield.reg16 != 1)
abort();
if (d.bitfield.imm16 != 0)
abort();
if (d.array[1] != 22)
abort();
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-23 16:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-24 16:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-25 10:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-24 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 16:38 -------
Fix submitted to the mailing list, pending maintainer approval:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01918.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-24 16:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-25 10:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-25 14:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-30 13:56 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-25 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 10:38 -------
Subject: Bug 40493
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 25 10:38:13 2009
New Revision: 148941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148941
Log:
2009-06-25 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/40493
* tree-sra.c (sra_modify_expr): Correct BIT_FIELD_REF argument numbers.
(enum unscalarized_data_handling): New type.
(handle_unscalarized_data_in_subtree): Return what has been done.
(load_assign_lhs_subreplacements): Handle left flushes differently.
(sra_modify_assign): Use unscalarized_data_handling, simplified
condition determining whether to remove the statement.
* testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-25 10:38 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-25 14:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-30 13:56 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-25 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 14:21 -------
I have checked out trunk 148941, compiled binutils with it (configured
with --disable-werror), ran the testsuite and there were no failures.
Thus I consider this fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils
2009-06-19 15:33 [Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-25 14:21 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-30 13:56 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-30 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 13:56 -------
Subject: Bug 40493
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jun 30 13:55:43 2009
New Revision: 149097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149097
Log:
2009-06-30 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
Backport from mainline:
2009-06-30 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/40582
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40582.c: New test.
2009-06-29 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
PR c++/40274
* g++.dg/template/debug1.C: New.
2009-06-25 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/40493
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c: New test.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/debug1.C
- copied unchanged from r149095,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/debug1.C
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40582.c
- copied unchanged from r149095,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr40582.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c
- copied unchanged from r149096,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr40493.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread