* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-18 15:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-19 16:35 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-18 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-18 15:47 ` [Bug target/65109] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-19 16:35 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-19 17:28 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-19 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2015-02-19
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rth at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Mine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-18 15:47 ` [Bug target/65109] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-19 16:35 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-19 17:28 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-19 18:16 ` msebor at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: trippels at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-19 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hpenner at de dot ibm.com
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
CCing author.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-19 17:28 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-19 18:16 ` msebor at gmail dot com
2015-02-19 18:17 ` msebor at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gmail dot com @ 2015-02-19 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com> ---
There's the following comment in the test:
/* Testcase could break on future gcc's, if parameter regs
are changed before this asm. */
Moving the locals out of the function lets the test pass. The attached patch
eliminates the local copy of the volatile reg_parms_t struct as well as the sp
pointer and moves the remaining locals out of all the test functions to
minimize the risk of the volatile registers getting clobbered before they are
saved.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-19 18:16 ` msebor at gmail dot com
@ 2015-02-19 18:17 ` msebor at gmail dot com
2015-02-20 18:59 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gmail dot com @ 2015-02-19 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 34809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34809&action=edit
Test patch to let it pass.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-19 18:17 ` msebor at gmail dot com
@ 2015-02-20 18:59 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-20 20:20 ` law at redhat dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-20 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
> Does the test pass if the schedulers are turned off?
No. That was the first thing I tried when investigating it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-20 18:59 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-20 20:20 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-20 20:29 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-20 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Yea, I should have realized you'd try that.
The other thought that comes to mind is __builtin_saveregs, but that doesn't
seem to be implemented on PPC, and even if it was implemented we'd need some
way to find the address of the save area.
My inclination is to go with Martin's patch. At first glance it doesn't appear
to compromise the intent of the test. I'll look at it more deeply when I get
back after a short errand.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-20 20:20 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2015-02-20 20:29 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-20 22:50 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-20 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The test failure can be avoided by using -fstore-float.
The failure is caused by comparing f4 and f9 after f9 has been read from a
stack location that hasn't been written to
0x0000000010000bac <+92>: stfd f4,88(r11)
...
0x0000000010000bc0 <+112>: stfd f9,128(r11)
...
0x0000000010000c1c <+204>: lfd f9,-32544(r2)
...
0x0000000010000cac <+348>: fcmpu cr7,f4,f9
0x0000000010000cb0 <+352>: bne- cr7,0x10000ccc <fididisdsid+380>
...
0x0000000010000ccc <+380>: bl 0x10000414
<0000003b.plt_call.abort@@GLIB
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-20 20:29 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-20 22:50 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-20 22:56 ` law at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-20 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 34821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34821&action=edit
Patch to make the test less subject to register clobbering.
FWIW, I agree with Richard that the test is overly fragile. I have attached
another patch that attempts to make the test more reliable by splitting up each
test function into two, one that does nothing but save the volatile registers
(thus reducing the risk of them getting clobbered by other code), and another
that then verifies their values.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-20 22:50 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-20 22:56 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-20 23:19 ` law at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-20 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Martin,
Looks good to me. Can you write a quick ChangeLog for the patch, then post it
to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Something like
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-20 22:56 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2015-02-20 23:19 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-21 21:55 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-20 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Martin,
Looks good to me. Can you write a quick ChangeLog for the patch, then post it
to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Something like
PR target/65109
* gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c: Split test functions into two
parts. One to save registers, the other to verify the registers
have the right values. Save register state into static data rather
than on the stack.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-20 23:19 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2015-02-21 21:55 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-23 22:46 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-23 22:58 ` law at redhat dot com
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-21 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The patch has been posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01324.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-21 21:55 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-23 22:46 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-23 22:58 ` law at redhat dot com
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: law at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-23 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 23 21:46:18 2015
New Revision: 220920
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220920&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65109
* gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c: Split test functions into
two parts. One to save registers, the other to verify the
registers have the right values. Save register state into
static data rather than on the stack.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/65109] [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
2015-02-18 14:32 [Bug target/65109] New: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-23 22:46 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-23 22:58 ` law at redhat dot com
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-23 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Fixed on trunk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread