From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0E8543858D20; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 09:23:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0E8543858D20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1698830603; bh=xPfxXO7hAH2T70Zc7JcuSi9eJ9xsapqH5kG+ITwSQJo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=i9yaC2sOhdemmRY1bcJuYvcZ8SUitUQiTT8DhfSEc8IHAGPyGul8rMQWMrhCpbeib bWAnCXZnOgbvBcPkZ0GzdOZBifrp65yCCz/iAhyDOYBybX5A0zOMivuFGh0a3SyVHV YZP+bmB7Avjv5VKsnB4hLp6ndSkhOyGpiEGDJd7Y= From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/112330] [14 Regression] LoongArch: LTO bootstrap failure with GAS 2.41 Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 09:23:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112330 --- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #5) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #3) > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #0) > > > >=20 > > > > > I guess the easiest solution is raising the minimal GAS requireme= nt of > > > > > bootstrapping GCC 14 on LoongArch to 2.42. > > > >=20 > > > > Another solution might be default to -mno-relax if GAS is 2.41, but= I'm not > > > > sure if it's enough. > > >=20 > > > This issue really doesn't happen after adding -mno-relax, but is it r= eally > > > necessary to judge the version of binutils because of this? > >=20 > > I'm not sure if -mno-relax is the proper fix. For now I've reduced the= test > > case to: > >=20 > > a: > > .rept 100000 > > nop > > .endr > > beq $r12, $r13, a > >=20 > > but this still does not work with GAS 2.41 even if -mno-relax. >=20 > If this is the assembly code compiled by gcc, then I think it's a gcc bug, > although AS shouldn't be an internal error. The internal error issue is fixed by Binutils commit f87cf663af71e5d78c8d647fa48562102f3b0615. I think I've over-simplified the test case. GCC does not generate something like this.=