* [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system
[not found] <bug-63344-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2014-09-23 15:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-23 15:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-23 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Dup of bug 61848.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 61848 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system
[not found] <bug-63344-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-09-23 15:18 ` [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-09-23 15:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-24 4:04 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-23 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Actually this is not a dup but a bug in the kernel in this case. The error
message is correct.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system
[not found] <bug-63344-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-09-23 15:18 ` [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-23 15:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-09-24 4:04 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2014-09-24 10:07 ` mliska at suse dot cz
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org @ 2014-09-24 4:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
Andi Kleen <andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen <andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org> ---
Yes it's a kernel bug. I hit it earlier too.
const always needs to go into separate sections.
const __read_mostly is also meaningless.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system
[not found] <bug-63344-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-24 4:04 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2014-09-24 10:07 ` mliska at suse dot cz
2014-09-24 16:22 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2014-09-25 20:44 ` mliska at suse dot cz
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mliska at suse dot cz @ 2014-09-24 10:07 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: 2550 bytes --]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz> ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #3)
> Yes it's a kernel bug. I hit it earlier too.
>
> const always needs to go into separate sections.
> const __read_mostly is also meaningless.
Is there any existing bug in Linux Kernel that can be linked to this thread?
>From gcc-bugs-return-462415-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Sep 24 10:10:00 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-462415-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8822 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2014 10:10:00 -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 8790 invoked by uid 48); 24 Sep 2014 10:09:56 -0000
From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/63356] Compilation failure where clang does not have problems
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:10:00 -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: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
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: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-63356-4-jOOFmPg0Az@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63356-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63356-4@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: 2014-09/txt/msg02249.txt.bz2
Content-length: 373
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc356
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 33545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id3545&actioníit
preprocessed testcase
Here's the unreduced testcase. I cannot reduce it, because
clang doesn't handle all the __builtin_ia32_bsrsi, etc. intrinsics.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system
[not found] <bug-63344-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-24 10:07 ` mliska at suse dot cz
@ 2014-09-24 16:22 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2014-09-25 20:44 ` mliska at suse dot cz
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org @ 2014-09-24 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen <andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org> ---
I posted a patch here
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1793662
BTW actually I don't agree that the bug is valid. We should probably relax the
LTO checking to match what the linker does (which does not error out for this
case).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c/63344] [5 Regression] Linux (makeallyes config) compilation error: error: apic_numachip causes a section type conflict with numachip_system
[not found] <bug-63344-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-24 16:22 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2014-09-25 20:44 ` mliska at suse dot cz
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mliska at suse dot cz @ 2014-09-25 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz> ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #5)
> I posted a patch here
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1793662
>
> BTW actually I don't agree that the bug is valid. We should probably relax
> the LTO checking to match what the linker does (which does not error out for
> this case).
I've just tested Andi's patch and works for me. To be more precise, the kernel
has been compiled without LTO.
>From gcc-bugs-return-462601-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Sep 25 21:06:01 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-462601-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6083 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2014 21:06:00 -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 6013 invoked by uid 48); 25 Sep 2014 21:05:56 -0000
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/61591] Undefined behavior sanitizer does not catch builtin_unreachable's from impossible devirtualization
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:06:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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 cf_reconfirmed_on cc everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-61591-4-8oO4TCItal@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61591-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61591-4@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: 2014-09/txt/msg02435.txt.bz2
Content-length: 661
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida591
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-09-25
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, it seems that undefined behaviour sanitizer needs to handle
unreachables that are introduced to code later.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread