[Bug bootstrap/64213] New: gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[Bug bootstrap/64213] New: gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

            Bug ID: 64213
           Summary: gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not
                    declared in this scope
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: bootstrap
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: ubizjak at gmail dot com

/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++
-B/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/prev-alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-B/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/prev-alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs

-I/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/prev-alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu

-I/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/prev-alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include
 -I/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++
-L/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/prev-alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-L/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build/prev-alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs
-c   -g -O2 -gtoggle -DIN_GCC    -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Werror -fno-common
-Wno-unused -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc
-I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/. -I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/../libcpp/include 
-I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/../libbacktrace   -o gimple-match.o -MT
gimple-match.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/gimple-match.TPo gimple-match.c
gimple-match.c: In function ‘bool gimple_simplify(code_helper*, tree_node**,
gimple_statement_base**, tree_node* (*)(tree), code_helper, tree, tree)’:
gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if ((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (captures[0]))) ||
(0 && type == TREE_TYPE (captures[0])))
      ^
gimple-match.c:1573:7: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if (((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, inside_type)) || (0 &&
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (inside_type))) && (((inter_int
|| inter_ptr) && final_int) || (inter_float && final_float)) && inter_prec >=
final_prec)
       ^
gimple-match.c:1821:7: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if (((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, inside_type)) || (0 &&
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (inside_type))) && (((inter_int
|| inter_ptr) && final_int) || (inter_float && final_float)) && inter_prec >=
final_prec)
       ^
gimple-match.c:2086:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if ((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (captures[0]))) ||
(0 && type == TREE_TYPE (captures[0])))
      ^
gimple-match.c:2190:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if ((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (captures[0]))) ||
(0 && type == TREE_TYPE (captures[0])))
      ^
gimple-match.c:2240:7: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if (((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, inside_type)) || (0 &&
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (inside_type))) && (((inter_int
|| inter_ptr) && final_int) || (inter_float && final_float)) && inter_prec >=
final_prec)
       ^
gimple-match.c:2488:7: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if (((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, inside_type)) || (0 &&
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (inside_type))) && (((inter_int
|| inter_ptr) && final_int) || (inter_float && final_float)) && inter_prec >=
final_prec)
       ^
gimple-match.c:2718:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if ((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (captures[0]))) ||
(0 && type == TREE_TYPE (captures[0])))
      ^
gimple-match.c:2768:7: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
 if (((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, inside_type)) || (0 &&
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (inside_type))) && (((inter_int
|| inter_ptr) && final_int) || (inter_float && final_float)) && inter_prec >=
final_prec)
       ^
gimple-match.c:3016:7: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope
>From gcc-bugs-return-469673-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Dec 07 18:40:20 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469673-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11945 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2014 18:40:20 -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 11920 invoked by uid 48); 7 Dec 2014 18:40:16 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error:=?UTF-8?Q? ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope?Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:40:00 -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: 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-64213-4-QfeLej1iy9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64213-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64213-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00680.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1054

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|                            |alphaev68-linux-gnu

--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
It looks that GIMPLE is not substituted with "1", leaving following in
generated gimple-match.c:

...
CASE_CONVERT:
{
{
/* #line 612 "../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/match.pd" */
tree captures[1] ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED = {};
captures[0] = op0;
/* #line 610 "../../gcc-svn/trunk/gcc/match.pd" */
if ((GIMPLE && useless_type_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (captures[0]))) || (0
&& type == TREE_TYPE (captures[0])))
{
if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS)) fprintf (dump_file, "Applying
pattern match.pd:612, %s:%d\n", __FILE__, __LINE__);
res_ops[0] = captures[0];
*res_code = TREE_CODE (res_ops[0]);
return true;
...

Pleae note the above "if ((GIMPLE && ...)) condition.
>From gcc-bugs-return-469674-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Dec 07 20:37:45 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469674-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19090 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2014 20:37:44 -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 19061 invoked by uid 48); 7 Dec 2014 20:37:40 -0000
From: "anlauf at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/62296] EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE not F2008 conforming
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:37:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: anlauf at gmx dot de
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:
Message-ID: <bug-62296-4-VdUITzSkl6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-62296-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-62296-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00681.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1459

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idb296

--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3)
> > > One might be able to do better on any reasonable Unix/Linux system.
> >
> > Replying to myself: Intel has changed/fixed their implementation of
> > EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE in version 15.1, and it appears to work
> > reasonably now.
>
> What does it mean for gfortran?

The remaining issue for cmdstat, reduced from comment #1, can be seen as
follows:

  integer :: stat, cstat
  character(len%5) :: cmdmsg
  stat = 0; cstat = 0; cmdmsg = ""
  call execute_command_line ("/nosuchfile",exitstat=stat, cmdstat=cstat,
cmdmsg=cmdmsg)
  print *, stat, cstat, "'", trim (cmdmsg), "'"
  stat = 0
  call execute_command_line ("/nosuchfile",exitstat=stat)
  print *, stat
end

produces with gfortran:

sh: /nosuchfile: No such file or directory
         127           0 ''
sh: /nosuchfile: No such file or directory
         127

and with ifort:

sh: /nosuchfile: No such file or directory
           0         124 'Invalid command supplied to EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE'
sh: /nosuchfile: No such file or directory
forrtl: severe (124): Invalid command supplied to EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE


cmdstat=0 is not a useful return value if the command cannot be executed.
The other cases from comment #0 appear correct.

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-12-08
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, it definitely works on x86_64-linux.  It is supposed to work via doing

  cpp_define (r, gimple ? "GIMPLE=1": "GENERIC=1");
  cpp_define (r, gimple ? "GENERIC=0": "GIMPLE=0");

in genmatch.c which should cause 'GIMPLE' to lex as '1'.  And indeed on
x86_64-linux I see in gimple-match.c:

/* #line 610 "/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/match.pd" */
if ((1 && useless_type_conversion_p (type, TREE_TYPE (captures[0]))) || (0 &&
type == TREE_TYPE (captures[0])))


which means libcpp is miscompiled...?  I notice that stage1 seems to work
for you?

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
                 CC|                            |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)

> which means libcpp is miscompiled...?  I notice that stage1 seems to work
> for you?

Yes, it is a miscompilation due to r218161.

Backing out r218161 with following patch allows bootstrap to proceed to stage3:

--cut here--
Index: combine.c
===================================================================
--- combine.c   (revision 218489)
+++ combine.c   (working copy)
@@ -1580,7 +1580,7 @@ setup_incoming_promotions (rtx_insn *first)

       /* The mode and signedness of the argument as it is actually passed,
          see assign_parm_setup_reg in function.c.  */
-      mode3 = promote_function_mode (TREE_TYPE (arg), mode1, &uns1,
+      mode3 = promote_function_mode (DECL_ARG_TYPE (arg), mode2, &uns3,
                                     TREE_TYPE (cfun->decl), 0);

       /* The mode of the register in which the argument is being passed.  */
--cut here--
>From gcc-bugs-return-469802-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Dec 08 20:29:03 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469802-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15682 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2014 20:29:02 -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 15642 invoked by uid 48); 8 Dec 2014 20:28:59 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/64037] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Miscompilation with -Os and enum class : char parameter
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:29:00 -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: 4.8.4
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64037-4-C6Wt9ilrZK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64037-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64037-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00809.txt.bz2
Content-length: 150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037

--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
This patch caused PR64213.
>From gcc-bugs-return-469803-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Dec 08 20:37:55 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469803-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19526 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2014 20:37:55 -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 19503 invoked by uid 48); 8 Dec 2014 20:37:51 -0000
From: "mathewc at nag dot co.uk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/64230] New: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference in a compiler-generated finalizer for a complicated type hierarchy when a polymorphic variable is allocated in an external procedure.
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:37:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mathewc at nag dot co.uk
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
Message-ID: <bug-64230-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00810.txt.bz2
Content-length: 2001

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd230

            Bug ID: 64230
           Summary: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference in a
                    compiler-generated finalizer for a complicated type
                    hierarchy when a polymorphic variable is allocated in
                    an external procedure.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: mathewc at nag dot co.uk

> uname -a
Linux whakarewarewa.nag.co.uk 3.17.4-301.fc21.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Nov 27 19:09:10
UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

> gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.9.2 20141101 (Red Hat 4.9.2-1)

> cat test.f90
Module m
  Implicit None
  Type, Public :: t1
    Integer, Allocatable :: i(:)
  End Type
  Type, Public :: t2
    Integer, Allocatable :: i(:)
  End Type
  Type, Public :: t3
    Type (t2) :: t
  End Type
  Type, Public :: t4
  End Type
  Type, Public, Extends (t4) :: t5
    Type (t1) :: t_c1
  End Type
  Type, Public, Extends (t4) :: t6
    Type (t5) :: t_c2
  End Type
  Type, Public, Extends (t6) :: t7
    Type (t3) :: t_c3
  End Type
End Module
Program main
  Use m
  Implicit None
  Interface
    Subroutine s(t)
      Use m
      Class (t4), Allocatable, Intent (Out) :: t
    End Subroutine
  End Interface
  Class (t4), Allocatable :: t
  Call s(t)
  Deallocate (t)
End Program
Subroutine s(t)
  Use m
  Class (t4), Allocatable, Intent (Out) :: t
  Allocate (t7 :: t)
End Subroutine

> gfortran test.f90 && ./a.out

Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.

Backtrace for this error:
#0  0x2B18DDE51517
#1  0x2B18DDE51B5E
#2  0x3E2B23494F
#3  0x401294 in __final_m_T6.2389 at test.f90:?
#4  0x400BEE in __final_m_T7.2378 at test.f90:?
#5  0x40159A in MAIN__ at test.f90:?
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

PS This works OK with 4.8.3.

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
One of several testsuite failures (with non-bootstrapped compiler) is:

FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020805-1.c   -Os  execution test

--cut here--
extern void abort (void);
extern void exit (int);

void check (unsigned int m)
{
  if (m != (unsigned int) -1)
    abort ();
}

unsigned int n = 1;

int main (void)
{
  unsigned int m;
  m = (1 | (2 - n)) | (-n);
  check (m);
  exit (0);
}
--cut here--

So, the difference between trunk (+) and trunk with reverted patch (-) starts
at _.214r.combine, where "check" function gets miscompiled:

     4: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
     2: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
     3: NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG
-    6: r71:DI=zero_extend($16:SI)
-      REG_DEAD $16:DI
+    6: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
     7: r73:DI=0xffffffffffffffff
     8: r72:DI=r73:DI 0>>0x20
       REG_DEAD r73:DI
       REG_EQUAL 0xffffffff
-    9: r74:DI=r71:DI==r72:DI
+    9: r74:DI=$16:DI==r72:DI
+      REG_DEAD $16:DI
       REG_DEAD r72:DI
-      REG_DEAD r71:DI
    10: pc={(r74:DI!=0)?L16:pc}
       REG_DEAD r74:DI
       REG_BR_PROB 9996

This results in an asm code difference, where needed SI->DI zero_extend is
missing:

@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
        lda $1,-1($31)
        lda $30,-16($30)
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
-       zapnot $16,15,$16
        srl $1,32,$1
        stq $26,0($30)
        .cfi_offset 26, -16

I propose to revert H.J.'s patch for PR64037.
>From gcc-bugs-return-469860-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Dec 09 11:32:59 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469860-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29026 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2014 11:32:58 -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 28975 invoked by uid 48); 9 Dec 2014 11:32:53 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/42108] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] 50% performance regression
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:32:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-42108-4-807hiznzXf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-42108-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-42108-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00867.txt.bz2
Content-length: 561

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idB108

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ok, so I have a patch that teaches LIM to move the division by using the
value-range information we now store.

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[rguenther at suse dot de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213
> 
> --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
> One of several testsuite failures (with non-bootstrapped compiler) is:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020805-1.c   -Os  execution test
> 
> --cut here--
> extern void abort (void);
> extern void exit (int);
> 
> void check (unsigned int m)
> {
>   if (m != (unsigned int) -1)
>     abort ();
> }
> 
> unsigned int n = 1;
> 
> int main (void)
> {
>   unsigned int m;
>   m = (1 | (2 - n)) | (-n);
>   check (m);
>   exit (0);
> }
> --cut here--
> 
> So, the difference between trunk (+) and trunk with reverted patch (-) starts
> at _.214r.combine, where "check" function gets miscompiled:
> 
>      4: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
>      2: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
>      3: NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG
> -    6: r71:DI=zero_extend($16:SI)
> -      REG_DEAD $16:DI
> +    6: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
>      7: r73:DI=0xffffffffffffffff
>      8: r72:DI=r73:DI 0>>0x20
>        REG_DEAD r73:DI
>        REG_EQUAL 0xffffffff
> -    9: r74:DI=r71:DI==r72:DI
> +    9: r74:DI=$16:DI==r72:DI
> +      REG_DEAD $16:DI
>        REG_DEAD r72:DI
> -      REG_DEAD r71:DI
>     10: pc={(r74:DI!=0)?L16:pc}
>        REG_DEAD r74:DI
>        REG_BR_PROB 9996
> 
> This results in an asm code difference, where needed SI->DI zero_extend is
> missing:
> 
> @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
>         lda $1,-1($31)
>         lda $30,-16($30)
>         .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
> -       zapnot $16,15,$16
>         srl $1,32,$1
>         stq $26,0($30)
>         .cfi_offset 26, -16
> 
> I propose to revert H.J.'s patch for PR64037.

Agreed and approved.  Please make sure to re-open bugs that were
fixed by the patch.
>From gcc-bugs-return-469862-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Dec 09 11:53:41 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469862-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9134 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2014 11:53:41 -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 8662 invoked by uid 55); 9 Dec 2014 11:53:35 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/64203] shared_mutex compile errors on bare-metal targets
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:53:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi 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:
Message-ID: <bug-64203-4-9qACU8nKnC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64203-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64203-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00869.txt.bz2
Content-length: 604

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd203

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec  9 11:53:03 2014
New Revision: 218512

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev!8512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR libstdc++/64203
    * include/std/shared_mutex: Fix preprocessor conditions.
    * testsuite/experimental/feat-cxx14.cc: Check conditions.

Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/std/shared_mutex
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/feat-cxx14.cc

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[uros at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Dec  9 14:34:32 2014
New Revision: 218516

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR bootstrap/64213
    Revert:
    2014-11-28  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

    PR rtl-optimization/64037
    * combine.c (setup_incoming_promotions): Pass the argument
    before any promotions happen to promote_function_mode.

testsuite/ChangeLog:

    PR bootstrap/64213
    Revert:
    2014-11-28  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

    PR rtl-optimization/64037
    * g++.dg/pr64037.C: New test.


Removed:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr64037.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/combine.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[uros at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Dec  9 14:40:40 2014
New Revision: 218517

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR bootstrap/64213
    Revert:
    2014-11-28  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

    PR rtl-optimization/64037
    * combine.c (setup_incoming_promotions): Pass the argument
    before any promotions happen to promote_function_mode.

testsuite/ChangeLog:

    PR bootstrap/64213
    Revert:
    2014-11-28  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

    PR rtl-optimization/64037
    * g++.dg/pr64037.C: New test.


Removed:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr64037.C
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/combine.c
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[uros at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Dec  9 14:44:06 2014
New Revision: 218518

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR bootstrap/64213
    Revert:
    2014-11-28  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

    PR rtl-optimization/64037
    * combine.c (setup_incoming_promotions): Pass the argument
    before any promotions happen to promote_function_mode.

testsuite/ChangeLog:

    PR bootstrap/64213
    Revert:
    2014-11-28  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

    PR rtl-optimization/64037
    * g++.dg/pr64037.C: New test.


Removed:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr64037.C
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/combine.c
    branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug bootstrap/64213] gimple-match.c:1523:6: error: ‘GIMPLE’ was not declared in this scope

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64213

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.4

--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed by reverting PR64037 patch everywhere.
>From gcc-bugs-return-469905-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Dec 09 14:53:22 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-469905-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16240 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2014 14:53:22 -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 15761 invoked by uid 48); 9 Dec 2014 14:53:16 -0000
From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/64237] [5 Regression] glibc build failure
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:53:00 -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: trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
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: <bug-64237-4-vNZwpZoyZz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64237-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64237-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2
Content-length: 252

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idd237

--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Adding -fuse-ld=gold to the crtn.o link command posted above, also fixes the
> issue.

It should read: "nscd link command"