[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

-- 

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

[Bug middle-end/40493] New: [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

New SRA, revision 147980:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00959.html

miscompiled binutils in CVS on Linux/x86-64:

FAIL: CFI on x86-64
FAIL: CFI on i386
FAIL: i386 general
FAIL: i386 naked reg
FAIL: i386 opcodes
FAIL: i386 opcodes (Intel disassembly)
FAIL: i386 opcodes (w/ suffix)
FAIL: i386 intel
FAIL: i386 intel-ok
FAIL: i386 katmai
FAIL: i386 ssemmx2
FAIL: i386 sse2
FAIL: i386 sub
FAIL: i386 immed
FAIL: i386 equates
FAIL: i386 amdfam10
FAIL: i386 merom
FAIL: i386 SSE4.1
FAIL: i386 SSE4.1 (Intel disassembly)
FAIL: i386 SSE4.2
FAIL: i386 SSE4.2 (Intel disassembly)
FAIL: i386 SIMD
FAIL: i386 SIMD (Intel mode)
FAIL: i386 SIMD (with suffixes)
FAIL: i386 reg
FAIL: i386 reg (Intel mode)
FAIL: i386 arch 1
FAIL: i386 arch 2
FAIL: i386 arch 3
FAIL: i386 arch 10
FAIL: i386 AES
FAIL: i386 AES (Intel mode)
FAIL: i386 PCLMUL
FAIL: i386 PCLMUL (Intel mode)
FAIL: i386 AVX
FAIL: i386 AVX (Intel disassembly)
FAIL: i386 SSE with AVX encoding
FAIL: i386 SSE without AVX equivalent
FAIL: i386 arch avx 1
FAIL: i386 arch-avx-1-5
FAIL: i386 reloc
FAIL: i386 white
FAIL: i386 gotpc
FAIL: i386 dynamic tls
FAIL: i386 pic tls
FAIL: i386 non-pic tls
FAIL: i386 relocs
FAIL: i386 reloc32
FAIL: x86_64
FAIL: x86-64 opcode
FAIL: x86-64 pcrel
FAIL: x86-64 amdfam10
FAIL: x86-64 immed
FAIL: x86-64 merom
FAIL: x86-64 SSE4.1
FAIL: x86-64 SSE4.1 (Intel disassembly)
FAIL: Run with libdwarf1.so first
FAIL: x86-64 SSE4.2
FAIL: x86-64 SSE4.2 (Intel disassembly)
FAIL: Run with libdwarf1.so last
FAIL: x86-64 SIMD
FAIL: x86-64 SIMD (Intel mode)
FAIL: x86-64 SIMD (with suffixes)
FAIL: x86-64 reg
FAIL: x86-64 reg (Intel mode)
FAIL: 64bit illegal opcodes
FAIL: 64bit illegal opcodes (Intel mode)
FAIL: x86-64 REX.W optimization
FAIL: ld-elf/eh4
FAIL: x86-64 arch 1
FAIL: x86-64 arch 2
FAIL: x86-64 AES
FAIL: x86-64 AES (Intel mode)
FAIL: x86-64 PCLMUL
FAIL: x86-64 PCLMUL (Intel mode)
FAIL: x86-64 AVX
FAIL: x86-64 AVX (Intel mode)
FAIL: x86-64 SSE with AVX encoding
FAIL: x86-64 SSE without AVX equivalent
FAIL: x86-64 relocs
FAIL: i386 reloc64
FAIL: preinit array
FAIL: static preinit array
FAIL: init array
FAIL: static init array
FAIL: fini array
FAIL: static fini array
FAIL: Build libcomm1.o
FAIL: Run normal with libfoo.so
FAIL: Run protected with libfoo.so
FAIL: Run hidden with libfoo.so
FAIL: Run normal with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run warn with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run protected with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run hidden with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run normal libbar.so with libfoo.so
FAIL: Run protected libbar.so with libfoo.so
FAIL: Run hidden libbar.so with libfoo.so
FAIL: Run normal libbar.so with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run protected libbar.so with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run hidden libbar.so with versioned libfoo.so
FAIL: Run dl1a with --dynamic-list=dl1.list and dlopen on libdl1.so
FAIL: Run dl1b with --dynamic-list-data and dlopen on libdl1.so
FAIL: Run dl6a1 with --dynamic-list-data and dlopen on libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6a2 with -Bsymbolic-functions and dlopen on libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6a3 with -Bsymbolic and dlopen on libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6a4 with -Bsymbolic --dynamic-list-data and dlopen on libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6a5 with -Bsymbolic-functions --dynamic-list-cpp-new and dlopen on
libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6a6 with --dynamic-list-cpp-new -Bsymbolic-functions and dlopen on
libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6a7 with --dynamic-list-data -Bsymbolic and dlopen on libdl6a.so
FAIL: Run dl6b1 with --dynamic-list-data and dlopen on libdl6b.so
FAIL: Run dl6b2 with dlopen on libdl6b.so
FAIL: Run dl6c1 with --dynamic-list-data and dlopen on libdl6c.so
FAIL: Run dl6d1 with --dynamic-list-data and dlopen on libdl6d.so
FAIL: Run with libdata1.so
FAIL: Run with libfunc1.so comm1.o
FAIL: Run with comm1.o libfunc1.so
FAIL: Run with libdl3a.so
FAIL: Run with libdl3b.so
FAIL: Run with libdl3c.so
FAIL: Run with libwrap1a.so and libwrap1b.so
FAIL: Run with libwrap1b.so and libwrap1a.so
FAIL: visibility (hidden)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (PIC main)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_undef) (PIC main)
FAIL: visibility (protected)
FAIL: visibility (protected) (PIC main)
FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def)
FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (PIC main)
FAIL: visibility (normal)
FAIL: visibility (normal) (PIC main)
FAIL: TLS -fpic -shared transitions
FAIL: TLS descriptor -fpic -shared transitions
FAIL: TLS -fpic and -fno-pic exec transitions
FAIL: TLS descriptor -fpic and -fno-pic exec transitions
FAIL: TLS -fno-pic -shared
FAIL: TLS with global dynamic and descriptors
FAIL: Absolute non-overflowing relocs
FAIL: PCREL8 overflow
FAIL: PCREL16 overflow
FAIL: ld-ifunc/ifunc-2-i386
FAIL: ld-ifunc/ifunc-2-local-i386
FAIL: weak undefined
FAIL: weak undefined data
FAIL: shared
FAIL: shared -Bsymbolic
FAIL: shared (PIC main)
FAIL: TLS -fpic and -fno-pic exec transitions
FAIL: TLS descriptor -fpic and -fno-pic exec transitions
FAIL: Absolute non-overflowing relocs
FAIL: PCREL8 overflow
FAIL: PCREL16 overflow


-- 
           Summary: [4.5 Regression]  New SRA miscompiled binutils
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: blocker
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40493

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[amodra at bigpond dot net dot au]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

[-- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[amodra at bigpond dot net dot au]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[d dot g dot gorbachev at gmail dot com]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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

[Bug middle-end/40493] [4.5 Regression] New SRA miscompiled binutils

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- 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