* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!"
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
@ 2014-07-10 8:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-10 20:19 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-10 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can you check a recent 4.9.1 snapshot?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!"
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
2014-07-10 8:11 ` [Bug bootstrap/61763] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-07-10 20:19 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
2014-07-16 13:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dougmencken at gmail dot com @ 2014-07-10 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
--- Comment #2 from Douglas Mencken <dougmencken at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can you check a recent 4.9.1 snapshot?
Just did it. gcc-4.9-20140709 snapshot.
...
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Comparison successful.
...
So... Closing bug?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!"
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
2014-07-10 8:11 ` [Bug bootstrap/61763] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-10 20:19 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
@ 2014-07-16 13:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-07-19 9:56 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-16 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.9.1 |4.9.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.9.1 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!"
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-07-16 13:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-07-19 9:56 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
2014-10-06 5:00 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dougmencken at gmail dot com @ 2014-07-19 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
--- Comment #4 from Douglas Mencken <dougmencken at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> GCC 4.9.1 has been released.
With 4.9.1 release I got:
...
rm -f stage_current
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/gengtype.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1
make[1]: *** [stage3-bubble] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!"
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-07-19 9:56 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
@ 2014-10-06 5:00 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
2014-10-30 10:38 ` [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 4.9.1 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" when bootstrapping with -O3 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dougmencken at gmail dot com @ 2014-10-06 5:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
--- Comment #5 from Douglas Mencken <dougmencken at gmail dot com> ---
Re-tried without forcing -O3, and with default -O2 4.9.1 doesn't complain on
stages 2&3 comparison.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 4.9.1 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" when bootstrapping with -O3
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-06 5:00 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
@ 2014-10-30 10:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-09 19:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-10-30 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.9.2 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-30 10:38 ` [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 4.9.1 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" when bootstrapping with -O3 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-11-09 19:48 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-24 16:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-11-09 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-11-09
CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 |[4.9 Regression] bootstrap
|4.9.1 "Bootstrap comparison |with -O3 gives comparison
|failure!" when |failure
|bootstrapping with -O3 |
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I'm not sure what we want to do here… on one hand, bootstrapping with -O3 is
asking for trouble, but on the other hand I'm not sure it's explicitly
unsupported.
>From gcc-bugs-return-466164-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Nov 09 19:59:22 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-466164-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 31572 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2014 19:59:22 -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 31522 invoked by uid 48); 9 Nov 2014 19:59:19 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/63620] RELOAD lost SET_GOT dependency on Darwin
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:59:00 -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: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vmakarov at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63620-4-8Lfnp6Rr5s@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63620-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63620-4@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: 2014-11/txt/msg00636.txt.bz2
Content-length: 367
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #27)
> Author: vmakarov
> Date: Sun Nov 9 16:45:15 2014
> New Revision: 217265
Unfortunately, the patch does not fix the "Reproducer for linux" testcase when
the patch from comment 19 is reverted.
>From gcc-bugs-return-466165-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Nov 09 20:23:20 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-466165-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7861 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2014 20:23:20 -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 7833 invoked by uid 48); 9 Nov 2014 20:23:17 -0000
From: "schwab@linux-m68k.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/63798] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-fmadd-1.c scan-assembler-not f(add|sub|mul|neg)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 20:23:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: schwab@linux-m68k.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 cc cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-63798-4@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: 2014-11/txt/msg00637.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1265
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc798
Bug ID: 63798
Summary: [5.0 regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-fmadd-1.c scan-assembler-not
f(add|sub|mul|neg)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: schwab@linux-m68k.org
CC: rguenther at suse dot de
Target: powerpc*-*-*
$ gcc/xgcc -Bgcc/ ../gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-fmadd-1.c
-ffast-math -O2 -ffat-lto-objects -S -m32 -o ppc-fmadd-1.s && grep -Ec
"f(add|sub|mul|neg)" ppc-fmadd-1.s
4
f619ecaed41d1487091098a0f4fdf4d6ed1fa379 is the first bad commit
commit f619ecaed41d1487091098a0f4fdf4d6ed1fa379
Author: rguenth <rguenth@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Mon Oct 27 11:30:23 2014 +0000
2014-10-27 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c: Include tree-cfgcleanup.h and tree-into-ssa.h.
(lattice): New global.
(fwprop_ssa_val): New function.
(fold_all_stmts): Likewise.
(pass_forwprop::execute): Finally fold all stmts.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2014-11-09 19:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-11-24 16:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-30 14:55 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-11-24 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well, priority to fix this bug is certainly low unless you provide a smaller
testcase than "GCC bootstrap". Does --without-build-config work? Or do
you use --with-build-config=bootstrap-O3?
That is, how do you actually compile with -O3?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2014-11-24 16:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-11-30 14:55 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
2015-06-26 19:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dougmencken at gmail dot com @ 2014-11-30 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
--- Comment #9 from Douglas Mencken <dougmencken at gmail dot com> ---
>How do you actually compile with -O3?
../../flags_O2_to_O3.sh
sed -i '/ CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=/{n;N;N;N;N;N;N;N;d}' ./configure.ac
sed -i '/ CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=/{n;N;N;N;N;N;N;N;d}' ./configure.ac
sed -i 's/-c -g conftest/-c conftest/' ./configure.ac
sed -i 's/stage1_cflags="-g/stage1_cflags="/' ./configure.ac
Where flags_O2_to_O3.sh script is
http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/manulix/scripts/service-scripts/flags_O2_to_O3.sh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2014-11-30 14:55 ` dougmencken at gmail dot com
@ 2015-06-26 19:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-26 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/61763] [4.9 Regression] bootstrap with -O3 gives comparison failure
2014-07-09 19:35 [Bug bootstrap/61763] New: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 "Bootstrap comparison failure!" dougmencken at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-26 19:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-26 20:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-26 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread