Re: target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c

Re: target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

The following reply was made to PR target/6221; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
To: David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
        gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
        rth@gcc.gnu.org, rth@redhat.com
Cc:  
Subject: Re: target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:28:11 -0400 (EDT)

  > From: rth@gcc.gnu.org
  > 
  > Synopsis: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c
  > 
  > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6221
  > 
  > 
  >     It's a reload problem common to _all_ 64-bit targets.
 
 So what is the prognosis doctor?  Fixable by 3.1 release?
 
 
  >     Why all the separate PRs for failing test cases anyway?
 
 Well if they are from the same root cause, one can close them and set
 the "class" field to "duplicate" with an explanation and a pointer to
 the original report.  However if they're not, then they warrent a
 separate PR.  It probably wasn't readily apparent to the filer whether
 these were duplicates of some other filed problem report.  (Are they?)
 
 		--Kaveh
 --
 Kaveh R. Ghazi			Director of Systems Architecture
 ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Global Services

Re: target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c

[Richard Henderson]

The following reply was made to PR target/6221; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
Cc: David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
   gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
   rth@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:55:53 -0700

 On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 01:28:11PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 >  >     It's a reload problem common to _all_ 64-bit targets.
 > 
 > So what is the prognosis doctor?  Fixable by 3.1 release?
 
 No.  We could paper over it by having the rtl generator not generate
 the problematic case.  OTOH, unaligned complex numbers are not exactly
 a common occurrance, so it's nowhere near a priority.
 
 
 r~

Re: target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c

[rth]

Synopsis: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: rth
State-Changed-When: Fri Apr 12 17:16:55 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    It's a reload problem common to _all_ 64-bit targets.
    Why all the separate PRs for failing test cases anyway?

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6221

target/6221: mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c

[ghazi]

>Number:         6221
>Category:       target
>Synopsis:       mips-irix6 gcc-3.1 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          wrong-code
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Apr 07 21:16:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Kaveh Ghazi
>Release:        gcc version 3.1 20020407 (prerelease)
>Organization:
>Environment:
mips-sgi-irix6.2
mips-sgi-irix6.5
>Description:
The testcase gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c fails an assertion and calls abort.  If I run it under gdb-5.1.1, and print the variable tested in the assertion I get:

(gdb) p *y
$1 = {c = 42 '*', f = Invalid C/C++ type code 20 in symbol table.
>How-To-Repeat:
bootstrap on mips-irix6 and run gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c at any opt level.
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: