* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 19:38 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:39 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 19:37:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 24765
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24765
asm source that compiles to good executable
This asm was produced by compiling gcc.dg/cleanup-10.c with -fexceptions
-fnon-call-exceptions -O2 compile flags.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:38 ` [Bug target/49688] " ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 19:39 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:44 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 19:39:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24766
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24766
asm source that compiles to good executable
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:38 ` [Bug target/49688] " ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:39 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 19:44 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011.07.14 19:44:03
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 19:44:03 UTC ---
Two attached sources were created with
GOOD: GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110708 (experimental) [trunk revision 176025]
BAD : GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110707 (experimental) [trunk revision 176014]
00:17 r176025 - /trunk/gcc/DATESTAMP gccadmin
00:17 r176024 - /branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/DATESTAMP gccadmin
00:17 r176023 - /branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/DATESTAMP gccadmin
00:16 r176022 - /branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/DATESTAMP gccadmin
00:14 r176021 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog config/alpha... rth
00:13 r176020 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog Makefile.in ... rth
00:05 r176019 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog ada/ChangeLo... rth
July 07, 2011
23:57 r176018 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog dwarf2cfi.c ... rth
23:51 r176017 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog dwarf2cfi.c ... rth
23:42 r176016 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog dwarf2cfi.c ... rth
23:35 r176015 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog Makefile.in ... rth
21:55 r176014 - in /branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc: cp/C... jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 19:44 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 19:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 19:58 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 19:56:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 24767
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24767
bad executable, contents of the .eh_frame section
bad: file format elf64-alpha
Contents of the .eh_frame section:
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 19:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 19:58 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 20:17 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 19:57:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 24768
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24768
good executable, contents of the .eh_frame section
good: file format elf64-alpha
Contents of the .eh_frame section:
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 19:58 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 20:17 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-14 20:32 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-14 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-14 20:16:38 UTC ---
Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is
using .cfi directives while the other isn't.
Could you post a .i file? cleanup-10.c needs headers...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 20:17 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-14 20:32 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 20:34 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 20:32:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 24769
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24769
Preprocessed source.
Gzipped cleanup-10.i preprocessed source.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 20:32 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 20:34 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 20:37 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 20:34:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is
> using .cfi directives while the other isn't.
Yes, compiler is configured and built the same way in both cases.
> Could you post a .i file? cleanup-10.c needs headers...
Done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 20:34 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 20:37 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-14 20:41 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-14 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-14 20:37:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is
> using .cfi directives while the other isn't.
Lack of .cfi was caused by that MIPS_DEBUGGING_INFO thing
leaking into alpha/elf.h that I fixed recently.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 20:37 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-14 20:41 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-14 21:13 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-14 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-14 20:40:40 UTC ---
Well, the new use of .cfi directives probably comes from this bit that was
committed in between the two revisions:
Index: gcc/config/alpha/elf.h
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/alpha/elf.h (revision 176014)
+++ gcc/config/alpha/elf.h (revision 176025)
@@ -25,8 +25,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
/* ??? Move all SDB stuff from alpha.h to osf.h. */
#undef SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO
+#undef MIPS_DEBUGGING_INFO
+#undef DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO
-#define DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO 1
#define DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO 1
#undef PREFERRED_DEBUGGING_TYPE
Can you revert that and try again?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 20:41 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-14 21:13 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 21:22 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 21:12:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 24771
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24771
asm source at r176020
Indeed, reverting the patch from Comment 10 fixed cleanup-10.c execution
failure!
I am bootstrapping and regtesting the compiler with the patch reverted.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 21:13 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 21:22 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-14 21:28 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-14 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-14 21:21:15 UTC ---
Just guessing now, but you might also want to try a different version of
binutils - maybe there's a problem with .cfi directive handling?
Or maybe this has just never been tested with an alpha gas due to the
MIPS_DEBUGGING_INFO?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 21:22 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-14 21:28 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-07-14 21:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-14 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-14 21:27:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Just guessing now, but you might also want to try a different version of
> binutils - maybe there's a problem with .cfi directive handling?
Due to some other ld problems, I am testing with LD_FOR_TARGET:
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.21.52.20110623
> Or maybe this has just never been tested with an alpha gas due to the
> MIPS_DEBUGGING_INFO?
rth will know this better than I ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 21:28 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-14 21:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-15 7:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-14 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-14 21:34:16 UTC ---
Well, .cfi handling in gas isn't totally untested because
there's plenty of glibc asm files that use it.
But I have to concede that there might be a bug. We'll
have to examine the actual generated unwind info with and
without the change.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 21:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-15 7:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 6:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-15 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-15 07:08:46 UTC ---
Results with a patched compiler [1], no regressions.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg01678.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-15 7:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-08-02 6:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-08-02 23:40 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-08-02 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-08-02 06:16:21 UTC ---
Still happens with unpatched compiler, gcc 4.7.0 20110801 [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-08/msg00190.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-02 6:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-08-02 23:40 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-05 17:33 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-08-02 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rth at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #17 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-02 23:40:22 UTC ---
Mine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-02 23:40 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-05 17:33 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-05 17:45 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-08-05 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #18 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-05 17:33:05 UTC ---
Argh. The problem is that if we emit both
.ent / .frame / .mask / .end
notes and .cfi directives, the .cfi directives get ignored.
Thus the .cfi_personality directive did not in fact register
a personality, so no exceptions ever get caught.
I'll see if I can make the assembler DTRT, or at minimum
generate some sort of error message and then change the
compiler to match.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-05 17:33 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-05 17:45 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-05 19:04 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-08-05 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #19 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-05 17:44:43 UTC ---
Err, it's slightly more complicated than that.
We're emitting *both* a frame from .ent/.end *and* a frame from .cfi.
The later has the personality info, and the former does not. And of
course it's going to be more or less random which one the binary search
picks up at runtime.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-05 17:45 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-05 19:04 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-06 6:30 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-08-05 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #20 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-05 19:04:20 UTC ---
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-05 19:04 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-06 6:30 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-08-06 7:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-08-06 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #21 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-08-06 06:29:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html
Works ok on native alpha [1].
There are two remaining problems, an assert in "as", as reported in [2]
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C compilation, -Os -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C execution, -Os -fprofile-use
/tmp/cccx2jTq.s: Assembler messages:^M
/tmp/cccx2jTq.s:122: Error: invalid operands (.text.unlikely and .text.startup
sections) for `-'^M
/home/uros/bin/as: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.21.52.20110623 assertion fail
elf.c:2826^M
g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program as)^M
Please submit a full bug report,^M
with preprocessed source if appropriate.^M
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.^M
compiler exited with status 1
and
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -g -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -g -fprofile-use
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O0 -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O0 -fprofile-use
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O1 -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O1 -fprofile-use
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O2 -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O2 -fprofile-use
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O3 -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O3 -fprofile-use
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O3 -g -fprofile-use
(internal compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O3 -g -fprofile-use
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -Os -fprofile-use (internal
compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -Os -fprofile-use
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C: In
function 'void foo()':^M
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C:46:1:
internal compiler error: in reload_combine_note_use, at postreload.c:1538^M
Please submit a full bug report,^M
with preprocessed source if appropriate.^M
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.^M
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-08/msg00614.html
[2] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00056.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-06 6:30 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-08-06 7:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-08-06 7:25 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-08-06 18:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-08-06 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-08-06 07:21:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> There are two remaining problems, an assert in "as", as reported in [2]
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C compilation, -Os -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C execution, -Os -fprofile-use
This is PR 49972, reportedly fixed in binutils [1].
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -g -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -g -fprofile-use
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O0 -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O0 -fprofile-use
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O1 -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O1 -fprofile-use
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O2 -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O2 -fprofile-use
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O3 -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O3 -fprofile-use
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -O3 -g -fprofile-use
> (internal compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -O3 -g -fprofile-use
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C compilation, -Os -fprofile-use (internal
> compiler error)
> UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C execution, -Os -fprofile-use
This is now reported as PR 50001.
[1] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00057.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-06 7:21 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-08-06 7:25 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2011-08-06 18:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-08-06 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-08-06 07:24:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> This is PR 49972, reportedly fixed in binutils [1].
Er, the ice in gas with invalid .gcc_except_table is fixed in binutis.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/49688] [alpha]: Many execution test failures
2011-07-09 9:57 [Bug target/49688] New: [alpha]: Many execution test failures ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-06 7:25 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2011-08-06 18:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2011-08-06 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #24 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-08-06 18:58:49 UTC ---
Testsuite results are clean with patched gas.
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread