[Bug bootstrap/57125] Build not SMP safe; fails to build bconfig.h

["vcunat at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57125

Vladimír Čunát <vcunat at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vcunat at gmail dot com

--- Comment #2 from Vladimír Čunát <vcunat at gmail dot com> ---
In this matter I'm quite confused by the intentions of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg00273.html

It states that host object files depend on CONFIG_H, but these seem to get in
fact built with -DGENERATOR_FILE (according to build log), so through
gentype.c, they include bconfig.h instead of config.h. I don't see that
reflected in build dependencies, and more importantly, I'm not even sure this
consequence was intended/correct.
>From gcc-bugs-return-438964-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Jan 03 09:23:05 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-438964-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21947 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2014 09:23:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21894 invoked by uid 48); 3 Jan 2014 09:23:02 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/59519] [4.9 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in slpeel_update_phi_nodes_for_guard1, at tree-vect-loop-manip.c:486
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:23:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59519-4-mgtDRCvEU7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59519-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59519-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1007

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idY519

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 31562 [details]
> > gcc49-pr59519.patch
> >
> > I wonder if this isn't just a checking issue, the two PHI nodes created in
> > *new_exit_bb have the same argument, so I think it is just fine if the two
> > PHI results are used interchangeably, later optimization passes should
> > hopefully coalesce them into a single IV.
>
> I tested one similar patch before.  It passed x86_64 bootstrap and normal
> regression test.  It failed some ada (also one go) cases if I ran regression
> test with "-O3" option.  The failures look like noise to me, which I am not
> sure about.  What's your test results?

I admit I haven't performed -O3 bootstrap but normal, saw no bootstrap failures
nor testsuite regressions.
I'll try to run make check with RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/-O3'.