public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2013-08-27  7:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2013-08-27  7:34 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
                   ` (7 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-27  7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.9.0
            Summary|wrong code at -O3 on        |[4.9 Regression] wrong code
                   |x86_64-linux-gnu            |at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I get ICE instead, starting with r199048 .


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2013-08-27  7:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-27  7:34 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  2013-08-27  7:39 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu @ 2013-08-27  7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su <su at cs dot ucdavis.edu> ---
Jakub, perhaps you used the testcase from 58247, not the one below?  

I double checked and still get wrong code on this one.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2013-08-27  7:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2013-08-27  7:34 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
@ 2013-08-27  7:39 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  2013-08-27  7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu @ 2013-08-27  7:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su <su at cs dot ucdavis.edu> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I get ICE instead, starting with r199048 .

This means that 58247 is probably indeed a dup of 57592, which also started
with r199048 (according to the comment on 57592).


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-08-27  7:39 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
@ 2013-08-27  7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2013-08-27  7:55 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-27  7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No, the only change I've made to this testcase was instead of using
printf use if (c != 1) __builtin_abort ();.
If you can, next time please try to adjust the testcases such that they abort
if miscompiled and exit with 0 exit status otherwise, gcc testsuite usually
doesn't check for output from the testcases.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-08-27  7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-27  7:55 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  2013-08-27  8:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu @ 2013-08-27  7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su <su at cs dot ucdavis.edu> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> No, the only change I've made to this testcase was instead of using
> printf use if (c != 1) __builtin_abort ();.

I checked the modified test case below: 

---------

struct S
{
  int u;
}; 

int a = 1, b, c = 1, e, *f, *g;

static struct S d = {6};

void foo (int *p)
{
  c &= a != *p;
}

int main ()
{
  struct S h = d;
  int **i = &f;
  *i = g = &b;
  for (; h.u; h.u--)
    {
      for (e = 0; e < 2; e++)
        {
      foo (*i);
      *g = 0 > **i;
        }
      *f = 0;
    }

  if (c != 1)
    __builtin_abort (); 

  return 0;
}

---------

The log: 

$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ a.out
Aborted (core dumped)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c
$ a.out
$ gcc-4.8 -O3 small.c
$ a.out
$ 

> If you can, next time please try to adjust the testcases such that they
> abort if miscompiled and exit with 0 exit status otherwise, gcc testsuite
> usually doesn't check for output from the testcases.

Got it; will do.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-08-27  7:55 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
@ 2013-08-27  8:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2013-08-27  9:09 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-27  8:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8", Size: 5992 bytes --]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Are you sure your gcc isn't configured with --enable-checking=release ?
I really get:
pr58248.c: In function ‘main’:
pr58248.c:14:1: error: definition in block 2 follows the use
 main ()
 ^
for SSA_NAME: _126 in statement:
c.2_78 = _16 & _126;
pr58248.c:14:1: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
>From gcc-bugs-return-428435-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Aug 27 08:26:52 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-428435-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20992 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2013 08:26:52 -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 20965 invoked by uid 48); 27 Aug 2013 08:26:49 -0000
From: "janvidar at extatic dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/58249] New: [C++11] internal compiler error with std::vector and deleted copy constructor
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: janvidar at extatic dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
Message-ID: <bug-58249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg01359.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1409

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58249

            Bug ID: 58249
           Summary: [C++11] internal compiler error with std::vector and
                    deleted copy constructor
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.3
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: janvidar at extatic dot org

Using a std::vector and adding a type where the copy constructor has been
deleted causes an internal compiler error.

Attached a simple source file that reproduces this on my system (Ubuntu 13.04,
amd64) g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3.


% g++ -c -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra bug.cpp 
‘
Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.7/README.Bugs> for instructions.
Preprocessed source stored into /tmp/cc9w4AfQ.out file, please attach this to
your bugreport.

If I remove the deleted copy constructor it works correctly as expected.

If I change std::vector to std::list I get the following output:

% g++ -c -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra bug.cpp
(...)
/usr/include/c++/4.7/bits/stl_list.h:115:71: error: use of deleted function
‘Element::Element(const Element&)’
bug.cpp:8:2: error: declared here
>From gcc-bugs-return-428436-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Aug 27 08:28:04 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-428436-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22415 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2013 08:28:04 -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 22072 invoked by uid 48); 27 Aug 2013 08:28:01 -0000
From: "janvidar at extatic dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/58249] [C++11] internal compiler error with std::vector and deleted copy constructor
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:28:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: janvidar at extatic dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-58249-4-F6OWwj8qDS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58249-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58249-4@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: 2013-08/txt/msg01360.txt.bz2
Content-length: 527

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idX249

Jan Vidar Krey <janvidar at extatic dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |janvidar at extatic dot org

--- Comment #1 from Jan Vidar Krey <janvidar at extatic dot org> ---
Created attachment 30704
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id0704&actioníit
A simple source file reproducing the problem.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-08-27  8:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-27  9:09 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
  2013-08-27 19:54 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  2013-08-27 20:05 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch @ 2013-08-27  9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz
                   |                            |.ch
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Are you sure your gcc isn't configured with --enable-checking=release ?
> I really get:
> pr58248.c: In function ‘main’:
> pr58248.c:14:1: error: definition in block 2 follows the use
>  main ()
>  ^
> for SSA_NAME: _126 in statement:
> c.2_78 = _16 & _126;
> pr58248.c:14:1: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed

which makes it very likely yet another dup of PR57393

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57393 ***
>From gcc-bugs-return-428444-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Aug 27 09:10:58 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-428444-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26542 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2013 09:10:57 -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 26499 invoked by uid 48); 27 Aug 2013 09:10:53 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/57875] wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:10:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-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: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cc component resolution
Message-ID: <bug-57875-4-sdNpuGa6cm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57875-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57875-4@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: 2013-08/txt/msg01368.txt.bz2
Content-length: 655

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW875

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
          Component|tree-optimization           |rtl-optimization
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can't reproduce this, but let's assume it was also introduced with r200723 and
got fixed in r200899.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-08-27  9:09 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
@ 2013-08-27 19:54 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  2013-08-27 20:05 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu @ 2013-08-27 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #8 from Zhendong Su <su at cs dot ucdavis.edu> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Are you sure your gcc isn't configured with --enable-checking=release ?

Jakub, below is my gcc configure: 

Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,lto --disable-checking
--with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk

Should I do "--enable-checking=release" instead of "--disable-checking"? 

> I really get:
> pr58248.c: In function ‘main’:
> pr58248.c:14:1: error: definition in block 2 follows the use
>  main ()
>  ^
> for SSA_NAME: _126 in statement:
> c.2_78 = _16 & _126;
> pr58248.c:14:1: internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed
>From gcc-bugs-return-428481-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Aug 27 20:01:49 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-428481-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4236 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2013 20:01:48 -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 4159 invoked by uid 48); 27 Aug 2013 20:01:44 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:01:00 -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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
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-58248-4-hKjAzDhxv9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58248-4@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: 2013-08/txt/msg01405.txt.bz2
Content-length: 410

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idX248

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For testing bugs against trunk it is better to omit both --disable-checking and
--enable-checking=release and just use the default.
Because otherwise the compiler doesn't perform various verifications and you
could see a miscompilation which would otherwise be caught already at compile
time.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
       [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (7 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-08-27 19:54 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
@ 2013-08-27 20:05 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu @ 2013-08-27 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58248

--- Comment #10 from Zhendong Su <su at cs dot ucdavis.edu> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> For testing bugs against trunk it is better to omit both --disable-checking
> and --enable-checking=release and just use the default.
> Because otherwise the compiler doesn't perform various verifications and you
> could see a miscompilation which would otherwise be caught already at
> compile time.

Okay, thanks Jakub.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-08-27 20:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <bug-58248-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-08-27  7:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/58248] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-27  7:34 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2013-08-27  7:39 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2013-08-27  7:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-27  7:55 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2013-08-27  8:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-27  9:09 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2013-08-27 19:54 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2013-08-27 20:05 ` su at cs dot ucdavis.edu

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).