* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 18:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 19:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 18:30 -------
Looks related to PR 30282.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 18:31 ` [Bug target/44199] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 19:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 19:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 19:09 -------
*** Bug 44200 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 18:31 ` [Bug target/44199] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 19:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 19:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 19:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 19:09 -------
*** Bug 44201 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-19 19:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 19:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 19:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 19:23 -------
Yes, it is related, but solving it in the scheduler in generic way isn't going
to be trivial.
E.g. x86_64 emits memory_blockage early in ix86_expand_epilogue:
/* See the comment about red zone and frame
pointer usage in ix86_expand_prologue. */
if (frame_pointer_needed && frame.red_zone_size)
emit_insn (gen_memory_blockage ());
Another testcase:
extern void *alloca (__SIZE_TYPE__);
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
long *bar (long *p)
{
asm volatile ("" : : "r" (p) : "memory");
return p;
}
long
foo (long x)
{
long *p = (long *) alloca (x * sizeof (long));
long *q = bar (p);
return q[0];
}
which shows that some blockage or preventing scheduling over the stack release
is needed even when the frame size is smaller than the red zone size and that
the memory address doesn't need to be obviously based on stack pointer (it
would be just safe to allow moving over stack accesses that are provably in the
red zone or above.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-19 19:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 19:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 20:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 19:27 -------
rs6000.c already has rs6000_emit_stack_tie and calls it in several places in
the epilogue generation, I guess we just should add another call to this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-19 19:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 20:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-19 21:53 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 20:31 -------
Created an attachment (id=20705)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20705&action=view)
gcc46-pr44199.patch
Untested patch. Unfortunately, rs6000_emit_stack_tie isn't good enough.
1) it uses frame alias set, but the stack block can have arbitrary alias sets
in
it and we need to avoid moving all of them over
2) for the frame_pointer_needed case using sp based BLK mem isn't sufficient,
as then fp based mem can still be scheduled over it. Using stack_tie insn
just with hard frame pointer based BLK mem doesn't work either, then the sp
restore insn can be moved over it.
Could anyone please test this on SPEC to see if it causes meassurable
differences?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-19 20:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-19 21:53 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-20 4:31 ` amodra at gmail dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-19 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-19 21:52 -------
Pat is going to SPEC test the patch and will report back here with his results.
--
bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-19 21:53 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-20 4:31 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2010-05-20 16:23 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2010-05-20 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from amodra at gmail dot com 2010-05-20 04:31 -------
FWIW, Jakub's patch looks a reasonable fix to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-20 4:31 ` amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2010-05-20 16:23 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-20 16:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-20 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 16:23 -------
Spec testing went fine, differences in the noise range.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-20 16:23 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-20 16:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-20 18:00 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-20 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 16:31 -------
Have you also bootstrapped/regtested the patch? I can do so (easily for 4.4
branch, with more effort for the trunk), but haven't done that yet.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-20 16:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-20 18:00 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-20 18:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-20 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 17:59 -------
No I didn't bootstrap/regtest. I can take care of trunk if you want to do 4.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-20 18:00 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-20 18:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-21 2:33 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-20 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 18:23 -------
If you could, it would be very much appreciated. Starting 4.4
bootstrap/regtest now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-20 18:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-21 2:33 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-21 8:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-21 2:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 02:32 -------
Bootstrap of trunk went fine. Regression test (contrib/test_summary) showed the
following difference between base/patched versions, but didn't have any
testcases show up in the diff, so not sure what to make of that. This is for
32-bit gcc testsuite.
< # of expected passes 59078
---
> # of expected passes 59075
98c98
< # of unsupported tests 872
---
> # of unsupported tests 875
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-21 2:33 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-21 8:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-21 19:14 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-21 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 08:08 -------
For me it bootstrapped/regtested on 4.4 branch without any testsuite changes
(both 32-bit and 64-bit).
To see the unsupported tests difference, you can
grep ^UNSUPPORTED gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log | sort
between the unpatched/patched builds and see what the differences are I guess.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-21 8:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-21 19:14 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-21 19:24 ` iains at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-21 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 19:14 -------
I also did a powerpc64-linux bootstrap and regtest (both 32-bit and 64-bit) and
I didn't see any new failures and I also did not see any extra UNSUPPORTED
tests. The only time UNSUPPORTED showed up in the test_summary output
(UNRESOLVED: one_time_plugin.c compilation,...) was due to different source
directory paths.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-21 19:14 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-21 19:24 ` iains at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 13:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (9 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-21 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 19:24 -------
is : http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44229
potentially a similar problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-21 19:24 ` iains at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-22 13:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2010-05-26 6:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2010-05-22 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-05-22 13:31 -------
> is : http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44229
> potentially a similar problem?
It does not look like: the patch in comment #6 does not fix pr44229.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-22 13:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2010-05-26 6:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 6:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 06:01 -------
Subject: Bug 44199
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 26 06:00:44 2010
New Revision: 159853
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159853
Log:
PR target/44199
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epilogue): If cfun->calls_alloca
or total_size is larger than red zone size for non-V4 ABI, emit a
stack_tie resp. frame_tie insn before stack pointer restore.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (frame_tie): New insn.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
trunk/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 6:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-26 6:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 6:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 06:02 -------
Subject: Bug 44199
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 26 06:02:30 2010
New Revision: 159854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159854
Log:
PR target/44199
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epilogue): If cfun->calls_alloca
or total_size is larger than red zone size for non-V4 ABI, emit a
stack_tie resp. frame_tie insn before stack pointer restore.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (frame_tie): New insn.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 6:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-26 6:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 6:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 6:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 06:05 -------
Subject: Bug 44199
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 26 06:05:29 2010
New Revision: 159855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159855
Log:
PR target/44199
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epilogue): If cfun->calls_alloca
or total_size is larger than red zone size for non-V4 ABI, emit a
stack_tie resp. frame_tie insn before stack pointer restore.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (frame_tie): New insn.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 6:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-26 6:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 15:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 06:07 -------
Should be fixed now.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 6:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-26 15:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 16:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 15:51 -------
The 4.4 patch isn't complete.
/home/gccbuild/gcc_4.4_anonsvn/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:17166: undefined
reference to `offset_below_red_zone_p'
/home/gccbuild/gcc_4.4_anonsvn/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:17188: undefined
reference to `offset_below_red_zone_p'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 15:52 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-26 16:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-26 16:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 16:09 -------
Subject: Bug 44199
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 26 16:09:25 2010
New Revision: 159878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159878
Log:
PR target/44199
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epilogue): Fix up a backport
glitch.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 16:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-26 16:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-27 16:31 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-02 15:41 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-26 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #24 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 16:10 -------
Oops sorry, forgot redhat/gcc-4_4-branch has this function backported.
Fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-26 16:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-27 16:31 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-02 15:41 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-27 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #25 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-27 16:31 -------
Subject: Bug 44199
Author: bergner
Date: Thu May 27 16:31:05 2010
New Revision: 159930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159930
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2010-05-26 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR target/44199
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epilogue): If cfun->calls_alloca
or total_size is larger than red zone size for non-V4 ABI, emit a
stack_tie resp. frame_tie insn before stack pointer restore.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (frame_tie): New insn.
Modified:
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.ibm
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/44199] ppc64 glibc miscompilation
2010-05-19 18:27 [Bug target/44199] New: ppc64 glibc miscompilation jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-27 16:31 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-02 15:41 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
25 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-02 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #26 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 15:40 -------
Subject: Bug 44199
Author: bergner
Date: Wed Jun 2 15:40:09 2010
New Revision: 160160
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160160
Log:
Backport from GCC 4.4:
2010-05-26 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR target/44199
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_emit_epilogue): Fix up a backport
glitch.
Modified:
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.ibm
branches/ibm/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44199
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread