[Bug lto/46629] New: [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[Bug lto/46629] New: [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

           Summary: [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC
                    CPU 2000
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: lto
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: hjl.tools@gmail.com


On Linux/ia32, revision 167092 failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000
with

-m32 -O3 -funroll-loops -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math -fwhole-program
-flto=jobserver -fuse-linker-plugin

I got

foxys.f:1658.17:

      CALL DAALL(IALL,1,'$$UNPACK$$',NOMAX,NVMAX)                       
                 1
Warning: Rank mismatch in argument 'ic' at (1) (rank-1 and scalar)
foxys.f:1664.17:

      CALL DAALL(IALL,1,AA,I,NVMAX)                                     
                 1
Warning: Rank mismatch in argument 'ic' at (1) (rank-1 and scalar)
foxys.f: In function 'dafunt_':
foxys.f:4119:0: internal compiler error: in maybe_cleanup_end_of_block, at
cfgexpand.c:1700
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
specmake[1]: *** [foxys.o] Error 1
specmake[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

[hjl@gnu-35 gcc-test-spec]$ ./usr/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./usr/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-spec/usr/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/configure --enable-clocale=gnu
--with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.6.0
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --with-fpmath=sse --with-plugin-ld=ld
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101123 (experimental) (GCC) 
[hjl@gnu-35 gcc-test-spec]$

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at redhat dot com

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-11-23 21:58:13 UTC ---
It is caused by revision 167082:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00971.html

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.6.0

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-23 23:22:43 UTC ---
Do you have a testcase?  Or can you find out where the unconditional jump has
been created and why no barrier has been emitted after it?

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-11-23 23:33:57 UTC ---
I can only reproduce it with LTO. I don't have a testcase without
LTO.

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-23 23:57:00 UTC ---
If so, can you please:
1) put a breakpoint in maybe_cleanup_end_of_block (after the first BARRIER_P
test), with a condition that current_function_decl is the one in which it
crashes, see on which one of those it crashes and p debug_rtx_list (last, 100)
ad that point
2) see where the jump_insn has been created (e.g. put a breakpoint into
make_jump_insn_raw, with condition that insn->u.fld[0].rt_int at the end has
the expected uid and current_function_decl is the expected one, print backtrace
at that spot?

Thanks.

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-11-24 00:48:30 UTC ---
(gdb) call debug_rtx (insn)
(insn 2359 2358 2360 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (compare:CCZ (reg:QI 2633)
            (const_int 0 [0]))) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (nil))

There are 2 jump insns:

(gdb) call debug_rtx_list (last, 100)
(insn 2356 2355 2357 (parallel [
            (set (reg:SI 1940 [ ratio_mult_vf.4917 ])
                (ashift:SI (reg:SI 1939 [ bnd.4916 ])
                    (const_int 2 [0x2])))
            (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
        ]) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (nil))

(insn 2357 2356 2358 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (compare:CCZ (reg:SI 1940 [ ratio_mult_vf.4917 ])
            (const_int 0 [0]))) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (nil))

(insn 2358 2357 2359 (set (reg:QI 2633)
        (eq:QI (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
            (const_int 0 [0]))) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (nil))

(insn 2359 2358 2360 (set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
        (compare:CCZ (reg:QI 2633)
            (const_int 0 [0]))) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (nil))

(jump_insn 2360 2359 2361 (set (pc)
        (if_then_else (ne (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
                (const_int 0 [0]))
            (label_ref 0)
            (pc))) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (expr_list:REG_BR_PROB (const_int 0 [0])
        (nil)))

(jump_insn 2361 2360 2362 (set (pc)
        (label_ref 0)) foxys.f:4119 -1
     (nil))

(barrier 2362 2361 0)

(gdb)

[Bug lto/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-11-24 01:09:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 22504
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22504
A testcase

[hjl@gnu-35 delta-fortran]$ /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-spec/usr/bin/gcc -S
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -msse2 -mfpmath=sse  -m32  -ffast-math 
-fwhole-program -flto=jobserver -fuse-linker-plugin testcase-min.f
testcase-min.f: In function ‘daexx_.part.0’:
testcase-min.f:1:0: internal compiler error: in maybe_cleanup_end_of_block, at
cfgexpand.c:1700
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
[hjl@gnu-35 delta-fortran]$

[Bug middle-end/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-24 08:57:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 24 08:57:37 2010
New Revision: 167108

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167108
Log:
    PR middle-end/46629
    * cfgexpand.c (maybe_cleanup_end_of_block): Test NEXT_INSN (insn)
    instead of insn with any_condjump_p.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c

[Bug middle-end/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-24 10:18:20 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 24 10:18:15 2010
New Revision: 167110

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167110
Log:
    PR middle-end/46629
    * gfortran.dg/lto/pr46629_0.f90: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/lto/pr46629_0.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug middle-end/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-24 10:40:29 UTC ---
Fixed.

[Bug middle-end/46629] [4.6 Regression] Failed to build 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46629

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-07 15:23:21 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec  7 15:23:15 2010
New Revision: 167545

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167545
Log:
    Backport from mainline
    2010-11-24  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

    PR middle-end/46629
    * cfgexpand.c (maybe_cleanup_end_of_block): Test NEXT_INSN (insn)
    instead of insn with any_condjump_p.

    2010-11-23  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

    PR middle-end/46499
    * cfgexpand.c (maybe_cleanup_end_of_block): Remove also BARRIERs
    following unconditional jumps.

    * gcc.dg/pr46499-1.c: New test.
    * gcc.dg/pr46499-2.c: New test.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr46499-1.c
    branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr46499-2.c
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/cfgexpand.c
    branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog