From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10784 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2014 21:33:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10756 invoked by uid 55); 13 Oct 2014 21:33:31 -0000 From: "tejohnson at google dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/63432] [5 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure with bootstrap-lto Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:33:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tejohnson at google dot com 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2014-10/txt/msg01006.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432 --- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson --- On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432 > > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24) > >> Arg, looks very similar so maybe another instance of the duplicate >> threading is slipping through? My own lto profiled bootstrap succeeded >> with my patch. I will try updating to r216039 and redo it to see if I >> can provoke the same failure. >> > > I sent you another testcase against r216150. Thanks for the testcase, I reproduced it. It is a case of garbage in / garbage out. The fre2 pass is introducing some big profile count insanities, leading to the probability insanity being introduced when we try to use the counts to compute the new probability in recompute_probabilities. There is already handling for really large probabilities due to this issue, and we need to add the same thing for negative probabilities - essentially the patch you had originally suggested for the first problem which wasn't necessary for that one since that was an actually jump threading induced issue. Will test that and send for review. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.