From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18843 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2012 17:30:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18785 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2012 17:30:40 -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, 07 Feb 2012 17:30:27 +0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/51921] [4.6/4.7 regression] EH unwinding support is broken Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:30:00 -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: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.3 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00744.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51921 --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-07 17:29:37 UTC --- > --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-07 17:12:26 UTC --- >> I'm quite upset about this because the only reason for that reversion >> he's given so far is a failure (I wouldn't call it regression) on a >> 7-year-old Solaris 10 beta release (or rather, one of many two-weekly >> builds). AFAICT, no released version is affected by my rewrite of >> sparc/sol2-unwind.h, which introduced Solaris 11 support before 4.6.0, >> which is now completely broken. > > If you give me a proof that no released version whatsoever, from the very first > Solaris 8 to the very latest Solaris 10, can be affected by a regression due to > the rewrite of the pattern matching code, then I'd (reluctantly) accept the > breakage for the Solaris 10 beta. You know perfectly well that such a proof is practically impossible: that would mean updating a machine through every single Solaris 8/9/10 kernel/libc/libthread patch ever released. The other way round, I'd claim that you cannot prove that the old code works for every since such combination either. >> * If some AdaCore customer couldn't be bothered to upgrade to a release >> (I'm talking about any release here, not supported or latest) version >> of Solaris in 7 years, but needs to run bleeding-edge versions of GCC, >> I declare that AdaCore's problem, not mine. If the only ill effect of >> a patch of mine is to break such ancient beta versions (not >> intentionally or lightly), so be it. I'm not jumping through hoops to >> fix that. > > Let's not misrepresent things, please. Enhancing the existing pattern matching > code is trivial: you find the first differing frame in the stack, and you add a > new 'else if' somewhere. You claimed that before, and that's what I tried at first to make Solaris 11 work, but failed completely. > Again, this pattern matching code is at least one decade old and went through > many Solaris versions, so rewriting it from scratch was a wrong decision. Why didn't you object then when it was submitted *and accepted*, has been in for almost a year, been shipped with a release, and revert it shortly before the next release? Rainer