From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22270 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2014 11:02:03 -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 22226 invoked by uid 48); 20 Nov 2014 11:01:59 -0000 From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/63966] [5 regression] inconsistent operand constraints compiling build libcpp Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:02:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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/msg02176.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63966 --- Comment #10 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak --- Alternative patch: --cut here-- Index: lex.c =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --- lex.c (revision 217830) +++ lex.c (working copy) @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ search_line_acc_char (const uchar *s, const uchar extensions used, so SSE4.2 executables cannot run on machines that don't support that extension. */ -#if (GCC_VERSION >=3D 4005) && (defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)) = && !(defined(__sun__) && defined(__svr4__)) +#if (GCC_VERSION >=3D 4005) && (__GNUC__ >=3D 5 || !defined(__PIC__)) && (defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)) && !(defined(__sun__) && defined(__svr4__)) /* Replicated character data to be shared between implementations. Recall that outside of a context with vector support we can't --cut here-- >>From gcc-bugs-return-467706-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 20 11:03:40 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24360 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2014 11:03:40 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24291 invoked by uid 48); 20 Nov 2014 11:03:36 -0000 From: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/63939] [5 Regression] Massive asan failures (356) on darwin Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:03:00 -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: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 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: 2014-11/txt/msg02178.txt.bz2 Content-length: 847 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939 --- Comment #25 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to howarth from comment #22) > At r217817 on x86_64-apple-darwin14, without llvm-symbolizer in the path but > with https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534#c50 applied, I still > see failures for... > FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/null-deref-1.c -O1 output pattern test, is > ASAN:SIGSEGV I don't see that one (even at -m32, without llvm-symbolizer, and with the patch you mention), but then my tree is not uniform anymore (revision range 217694:217817M). So it probably appeared recently. It appears related to optimization, as apparently you don't see it at -O0. If so, please file a separate PR, as this appears to be a regression and may be a real issue (and not only a pattern adjustment).