From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24653 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2010 14:21:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 24644 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2010 14:21:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:21:15 +0000 From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/46916] gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-[1,2].c ICEs compiler due to r167727 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:21:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg02102.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916 --- Comment #90 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-17 14:21:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #89) > (In reply to comment #88) > > Iain, > > Do you think the "no debug symbols" warnings in the partition2.C test case > > on darwin10 are the caused by the same issue (lack of pub symbols) as those > > additional instances caused by honza'a patch? Also, do we see any additional > > failures beyond those warnings when honza'a patch is added onto this current > > darwin patch? > > I think you should analyse comment #42. If I did not do any mistake, the > partition2.C test is unsupported with current trunk, but becomes supported with > any of the patches in this PR. If this is correct, it means that these patches > change something in the testsuite machinery (e.g., a failing test becomes > successful). well, this change is the likely difference: + if (opts->x_flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition + && !opts_set->x_flag_reorder_functions) + opts->x_flag_reorder_functions = 1; as far as whether Darwin10 supports -freorder-blocks-and-partition - there should be no difference before/after the patch (darwin < 10 should not support at present). It would be interesting to know why the test claims to be 'unsupported' for current trunk (except that it would fail because of this bug). // { dg-require-effective-target freorder } // { dg-options "-fnon-call-exceptions -freorder-blocks-and-partition" } you would have to back out of the patches and the change that causes the fault .. if the test still claims to be unsupported - that implies something different (again, not related to the current bug). In any event the two remaining issues need resolution -- I suspect they are causing fallout elsewhere. ... I just don't see the point in swelling this patch to solve those .. the intention of this patch is to get correct function section selection for Darwin.