public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
@ 2011-11-12 12:35 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-14 18:29 ` [Bug lto/51105] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (6 more replies)
0 siblings, 7 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-11-12 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
Bug #: 51105
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2
-flto -flto-partition=none
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: dominiq@lps.ens.fr
CC: hjl.tools@gmail.com, rguenther@suse.de
Between revisions 181189 (OK) and 181208 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-11/msg00230.html : r181205?), the
test gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compiled with '-O2 -flto
-flto-partition=none' has started to give an ICE:
lto1: internal compiler error: in can_inline_edge_p, at ipa-inline.c:353
This corresponds to the gcc_checking_assert for
/* In -flto-partition=none mode we really keep things out of
sync because call_stmt_cannot_inline_p is set at cgraph
merging when function bodies are not there yet. */
|| (in_lto_p && !gimple_call_cannot_inline_p (e->call_stmt)));
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-11-14 18:29 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-11-14 18:36 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-14 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-11-14 18:25:23 UTC ---
*** Bug 51123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-14 18:29 ` [Bug lto/51105] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-14 18:36 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-15 8:57 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-11-14 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011-11-14
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-11-14 18:28:42 UTC ---
If this pr has a duplicate, I think it is confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-14 18:29 ` [Bug lto/51105] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-11-14 18:36 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-11-15 8:57 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-15 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-15 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-15 08:34:33 UTC ---
Please fill in (host and) target fields.
I can confirm a wider range for cris-elf cross from x86_64-*-linux*; same
behavior and log message (FWIW due to breakage in the tree my observed range is
wider, 181187:181254).
I have no doubt the regression occurred in 181189:181208 as per the archive
link; I'll bisect from that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-15 8:57 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-15 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-16 0:44 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-11-15 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-11-15 14:19:40 UTC ---
> Please fill in (host and) target fields.
What for? AFAICT the field should be *-*-* with lto enabled.
If I fill a bug report, it is because I see it on one of the machines I use:
x86_64-apple-darwin10 (181046:181258) or powerpc-apple-darwin9 (181105:181301).
Then I check the bots' results at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/ to see if the failure is
darwin/ppc specific. In the later case I fill the triplet, but I don't if the
failure appears generic as this one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-15 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-11-16 0:44 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-16 10:35 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-03 2:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-16 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-16 00:11:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Please fill in (host and) target fields.
> What for? AFAICT the field should be *-*-* with lto enabled.
A *-*-* would certainly be better than empty, which just says that someone
forgot or didn't know what to write, which is usually the case when that field
is empty.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-16 0:44 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-16 10:35 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-03 2:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-16 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-16 10:21:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have no doubt the regression occurred in 181189:181208 as per the archive
> link; I'll bisect from that.
It's r181205:181206 (r181205 was a build failure, the next was a partly
revert), but you knew that already didn't you Richi? ;-] (Being already
CC:ed.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug lto/51105] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-16 10:35 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-03 2:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-03 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51105
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-03 01:59:05 UTC ---
This was fixed for cris-elf in the revision range r181888:181895.
The reports http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-12/msg00098.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-12/msg00111.html narrow down the
range to r181892:181894 which according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00107.html was intended, so I'm
closing this PR.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-12-03 2:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-11-12 12:35 [Bug lto/51105] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-1.c compilation, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-14 18:29 ` [Bug lto/51105] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-11-14 18:36 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-15 8:57 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-15 14:55 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-11-16 0:44 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-16 10:35 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-03 2:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).