* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2010-11-13 1:22 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 4:03 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: davek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-11-13 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |davek at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail| |4.6.0
--- Comment #10 from Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-13 00:58:39 UTC ---
Also failing on i686 cygwin and on i686 and x86_64 linux at the moment. See,
e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-11/msg01011.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-11/msg01008.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-11/msg01006.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-11-13 1:22 ` [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure davek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-02-01 4:03 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 17:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: davek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-02-01 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #12 from Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 04:03:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Recreated this on linux x86_64 with gcc 4.6-20110129. Running ulimit -a shows
> me that the default stack limit is 8192 and increasing this to 18000 allows the
> test to complete at all optimization levels that are tested by make check.
> Running at 17000 fails.
This has gotten worse over the past couple of months; I fixed it on cygwin a
while ago by turning up the stack size, finding that it needed somewhere
between 10MB and 12MB on that target; now it's just started failing again.
I don't know at what point we should consider this a compile-time performance
regression. Paolo, even a 30% reduction seems like a good idea to me; why not
submit that patch you developed?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-11-13 1:22 ` [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 4:03 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-02-01 17:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-02-01 18:21 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-02-01 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-02-01 17:00:26 UTC ---
Out of interest, does compiling GCC with -fsplit-stack help avoid this
problem? This obviously has limitations at present regarding supported
hosts, and the need for gold as host linker to avoid problems when calling
code built without that option, but it seems like something that option
ought to help with.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-02-01 17:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-02-01 18:21 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-07 19:55 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: davek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-02-01 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #14 from Dave Korn <davek at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 17:37:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> [ ... ] -fsplit-stack [ ... ] need for gold as host linker [ ... ]
One of the ELF guys will have to answer that one for you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-02-01 18:21 ` davek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-03-07 19:55 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
2011-03-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: gseanmcg at gmail dot com @ 2011-03-07 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Sean McGovern <gseanmcg at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Sean McGovern <gseanmcg at gmail dot com> 2011-03-07 19:54:39 UTC ---
Cc'ing Rainer as this is also happening on Solaris 10 x86 and SPARC.
As indicated in comment 3, this can be remedied by bumping stack size from
defaults. Is there any way to instrument the test to bump it automatically, and
if so, what is an agreeable value?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-03-07 19:55 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
@ 2011-03-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-07 21:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-03-07 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-07 20:41:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 23576
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23576
hack
The c_parser_binary_expression stack impact could be decreased, either through
a hack like this (forcefully split the function, so that when calling the first
cast expression it will use smaller amount of stack, unfortunately the call
isn't then tail callable and thus for an actual binary expression needs more
stack), or stack/sp perhaps could be handled separately (global stack vector).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-03-07 20:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-03-07 21:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-22 15:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-03-07 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-07 21:35:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 23578
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23578
Implement stack in c_parser_binary_operation as VEC
And here is the alternative to use global VEC as c_parser_binary_expression
stack. The stack size in my case for c_parser_binary_expression decreases from
sub $0x218, %rsp to sub $0x78, %rsp.
Paolo's patch is clearly better than my first patch, sorry for not reading it
first.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-03-07 21:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-22 15:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-11-25 16:28 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
2011-11-25 17:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-22 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #18 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-22 15:50:58 UTC ---
The patch that increased RLIMIT_STACK in the driver as well as compiler (PR
c++/49756) [1] fixed this on linux targets.
Jakub, you have a patch pending in Comment #17. Do you plan to commit it?
Can we close this PR?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01766.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-22 15:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-25 16:28 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
2011-11-25 17:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: gseanmcg at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-25 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
--- Comment #19 from Sean McGovern <gseanmcg at gmail dot com> 2011-11-25 16:17:03 UTC ---
Was this patch ever committed? If so, can this PR be closed now?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/31827] limits-exprparen.c: Pid 2297 received a SIGSEGV for stack growth failure
[not found] <bug-31827-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-25 16:28 ` gseanmcg at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-25 17:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
9 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-25 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31827
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
| |atches/2011-07/msg01766.htm
| |l
Host|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #20 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-11-25 16:34:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Was this patch ever committed? If so, can this PR be closed now?
Yes and yes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread