public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/63891] [5 regression] Failure of darwin-weakimport-3.c Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:49:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-63891-4-aulEZ8UvFV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-63891-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891 Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|wrong-code | Priority|P1 |P4 CC| |law at redhat dot com --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- AFAICT, this is actually a false positive and mostly points to an inefficiency in our -O0 32-bit PIC code generation on x86. The test wants to make sure that _foo doesn't end up in textcoal_nt section, which is marked with the coalesced section attribute. The test (reasonably so) just blindly looks for the existence of the magic section declaration without any regard to what's in it. In this case we emit PIC setup. It's not strictly necessary as there aren't any uses of the PIC register, but since the optimizer isn't on, DCE is not run and thus the PIC setup remains. Once we have PIC setup, we have the get_pc_thunk routine which gets put into that magic section. Which then triggers the false positive. For darwin-weakimport-3.c, the right fix is probably to turn on -O1. Not sure what the best fix for builtin-self.c is (maybe an xfail), but in both cases this isn't worthy of a P1 regresion. I'd peg it more at a P4/P5 level since the inefficiencies only show up at -O0.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-18 20:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-11-15 15:36 [Bug target/63891] New: [5.0 " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-15 15:38 ` [Bug target/63891] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-15 15:49 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-15 15:59 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-11-15 16:28 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-15 16:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-11-17 9:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-12-10 15:27 ` [Bug target/63891] [5 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-12-10 15:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2015-02-18 20:49 ` law at redhat dot com [this message] 2015-04-22 12:00 ` [Bug target/63891] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-07-16 9:18 ` rguenth 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-63891-4-aulEZ8UvFV@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: linkBe 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).