Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[Dara Hazeghi]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:05:13 -0700

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- 
 trail&database=gcc&pr=9711
 
 Hello,
 
 have you made any progress on this issue? Would it be possible for you  
 to compile glibc 2.3.1 with gcc 3.3 and -mcpu=athlon? IIRC, a number of  
 athlon related bugs are fixed in 3.3. Thanks,
 
 Dara
 

Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon,
 -fomit-frame-pointer)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:57:57 -0600 (CST)

 > > However, we would certainly be interested in having the piece of code
 > > that you say is miscompiled being identified. If you could try to
 > > track that down, and show us how it is miscompiled, that would be
 > > great!
 > 
 > Ok, I will try this but it may take some time.
 
 Kein Problem, lass Dir Zeit :-)
 
 Gruss
   W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[Ronald Wahl]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686,
 mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:35:15 +0100

 On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:45 -0600 (CST), Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 
 >> Maybe we can forget all about my bug report if one could tell me if
 >> it should matter if I specify march/mcpu options in cc1_options
 >> instead of cc1_cpu in the spec file. If this really matters then it
 >> should be documented somewhere I think. I had these options appended
 >> to cc1_options. If I move'em to cc1_cpu the problems go away.
 
 > I don't know anything about the spec files.
 
 Just to prevent a misunderstanding here: I mean the "specs" file
 (/usr/lib/gcc-lib/<arch>/<version>/specs).
 
 > However, we would certainly be interested in having the piece of code
 > that you say is miscompiled being identified. If you could try to
 > track that down, and show us how it is miscompiled, that would be
 > great!
 
 Ok, I will try this but it may take some time.
 
 - ron

Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon,
 -fomit-frame-pointer)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:45 -0600 (CST)

 > Maybe we can forget all about my bug report if one could tell me if
 > it should matter if I specify march/mcpu options in cc1_options
 > instead of cc1_cpu in the spec file. If this really matters then it
 > should be documented somewhere I think. I had these options appended
 > to cc1_options. If I move'em to cc1_cpu the problems go away.
 
 I don't know anything about the spec files. However, we would certainly be 
 interested in having the piece of code that you say is miscompiled being 
 identified. If you could try to track that down, and show us how it is 
 miscompiled, that would be great!
 
 Thanks
   W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[Ronald Wahl]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/9711; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Ronald Wahl <Ronald.Wahl@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
To: bangerth@dealii.org
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
   gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686,
 mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:36:38 +0100

 On 14 Feb 2003 22:15:53 -0000, bangerth  wrote:
 
 > Synopsis: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 > State-Changed-By: bangerth
 > State-Changed-When: Fri Feb 14 22:15:53 2003
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     We need more information to tackle this problem. Please
 >     review
 >       http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
 >     for what we need and provide this information.
 
 >     Thanks
 >       Wolfgang
 
 >
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9711
 
 Maybe we can forget all about my bug report if one could tell me if
 it should matter if I specify march/mcpu options in cc1_options
 instead of cc1_cpu in the spec file. If this really matters then it
 should be documented somewhere I think. I had these options appended
 to cc1_options. If I move'em to cc1_cpu the problems go away.
 
 The -fomit-frame-pointer issue was already reported and there is an
 patch floating around. (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-07/msg00367.html)
 which I haven't tried yet.
 
 regards,
 ron

Re: optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[bangerth]

Synopsis: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Fri Feb 14 22:15:53 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    We need more information to tackle this problem. Please
    review
      http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
    for what we need and provide this information.
    
    Thanks
      Wolfgang

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9711

optimization/9711: glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)

[rwahl]

>Number:         9711
>Category:       optimization
>Synopsis:       glibc 2.3.1 miscompiled (mcpu=i686, mcpu=athlon, -fomit-frame-pointer)
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Feb 14 22:06:00 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Ronald Wahl
>Release:        3.2.2
>Organization:
>Environment:
Athlon TBird 1200MHz
linux-2.4.20
binutils 2.13.90.0.18 (happens with CVS head too)
>Description:
I found a bug in the code scheduler for Athlon and i686.
If compile glibc-2.3.1 (and even the current CVS head) and
optimize with "-march=i586 -mcpu=athlon" or
"-march=i586 -mcpu=i686" I get a broken
glibc or the compile fails at "sunrpc/xbootparam.T"
(segfault of a program that is started via the newly
compiled linker). This depends on the fact if I
cross-compile the glibc (between different x86 architectures or not. Broken means that some
binaries (especially those linked against libpthread)
segfault at termination. There are no problems if I compile
with "-march=i586 -mcpu=i586" or "-march=i686 -mcpu=i686".
BTW, I tried different -O levels (-O1 ... -O3). This had no
effect. Other combinations I haven't tested.

Additionally there is a problem when glibc is compiled without frame-pointers. I can reproduce this too. See here:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2002-10/msg00072.html
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

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