From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15849 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2011 18:50:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 15839 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2011 18:50:52 -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; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:50:40 +0000 From: "Kyle.D.Moffett at boeing dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/50906] e500 exception unwinding under "-Os" causes SIGSEGV Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:57:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: Kyle.D.Moffett at boeing dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: amodra at gmail dot com 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 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: 2011-11/txt/msg02240.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50906 --- Comment #17 from Kyle Moffett 2011-11-22 18:50:20 UTC --- Ok, a new kernel based on 3.2-rc1 resolved my crashing issues entirely. I wasn't too worried about my DDR clocks since I have ECC memory and EDAC never reported any errors. Using the gcc-4.6 fix on top of 4.6.2, I get the following diffs in the testsuite summary between 4.6.2-unpatched and 4.6.2-patched. I'm in the process of running a second build with BOOT_CFLAGS="-Os", but I'll be out of the office for Thanksgiving until next Monday and probably won't be able to check on it during that time. These appear to be EH bugs fixed by your changes: -FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-vararg-1.C -Os execution test -FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-vararg-2.C -Os execution test -FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-vararg-1.C -Os execution test -FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-vararg-2.C -Os execution test These are tests that shouldn't be run on e500/SPE as they build with "-mcpu=power5". These tests fail with SIGILL while executing an "lfd" opcode; I'm not sure why they passed before: +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-fma-5.c execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O0 execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O1 execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O2 execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -O3 -g execution test +FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr47614.f -Os execution test There's no other delta in the testsuite summary, so I feel pretty confident that there were no regressions introduced by this patch for e500 at least. Thanks again for your help! Cheers, Kyle Moffett