public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/59644] [4.9 Regression] r206243 miscompiles Linux kernel
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-59644-4-CXKGPytNNt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-59644-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59644
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > If you have time, could you please try to bisect manually which of the 4
> > functions matters for the bootstrap failure?
> > Compile printk.s with both compilers and apply by hand only portions of the
> > diff that are for individual routines?
>
> Yes. I will try this later.
> In the meantime I've found out that drivers/acpi/acpica/utxferror.c also
> gets miscompiled. If I replace this two object files with good ones and
> relink the kernel, everything runs fine (under qemu)...
>
> utxferror shows the same pattern as seen in printk.
It is undestandable the patch changes how most/all stdarg functions are
compiled in the kernel, the question is why the kernel cares in certain cases.
Do you get some OOPS in the utxferror case or also silent hang without being
able to tell what is going on? In ACPI case, I'd guess if the routine calls
into BIOS that the BIOS (or whatever qemu uses instead of BIOS) might assume
16-byte stack alignment which is part of the ABI, but the kernel intentionally
only guarantees 8-byte stack alignment.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-06 9:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-30 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/59644] New: " trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-30 23:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/59644] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 8:17 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 8:18 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 8:19 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 8:20 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 8:26 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 11:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-31 13:03 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 8:21 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 8:48 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 9:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-01-06 9:17 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 9:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 9:36 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 10:00 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 10:04 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 10:09 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2014-01-06 10:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 10:21 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 11:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 11:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 13:39 ` [Bug target/59644] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 21:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-06 21:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-59644-4-CXKGPytNNt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).