public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 13:56 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2003-05-20 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with
-O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:47:58 -0500 (CDT)
> It does not fail for me though on i686-pc-linux-gnu with GCC: 3.4
> 20030517 (experimental).
> Or on i686-unkown-openbsd3.1 with gcc version 3.4 20030519
> (experimental).
That's pretty weird. I can reproduce this with most a 3.4 snapshot from
2003-05-15 as well as a 3.3 snapshot from 2003-05-16. I compared the
assembler output, and instructionwise they are equal, but there are some
additional linkonce things in your output. I don't know enough about this
stuff to tell whether that's relevant.
I'll update now to present HEAD and check+report again once the bootstrap
is done.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-21 12:46 Christian Ehrhardt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Christian Ehrhardt @ 2003-05-21 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>, ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
lloyd@acm.jhu.edu, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 14:39:38 +0200
[ Added Eric to cc because his patch might have triggered this gas bug. ]
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> > Feeding this assembler file into gcc 3.2 on an Intel box works for me
> > and the program doesn't crash! This might mean that we have an
> > assembler/binutils problem here.
>
> Whereas if I do the same, it crashes. So you seem to have a point :-)
This is definitely a gas Bug! The problem is the following instruction:
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %eax
This tells the assembler that we want the difference between the adress
of this addl instruction and the start of the global offset table to be
added to %eax. When translating this request into relocation records an
R_386_GOTPC relocation is used.
However, this relocation calculates the difference between the place where
the relocation takes place and the start of the global offset table.
Hence the assembler must add an addend to fix up the difference between
the address of the addl instruction and the address of its immediate
operand (the latter is the place of the relocation).
Now in the %eax case gas emmits the 0x05 opcode for addl imm32,%eax
with a length of 1 byte. If the register isn't %eax the assembler
has to use the longer 0x81 0xc3 opcode. Both opcodes are followed by
the immediate 32bit Operand.
I.e. if %eax is used the addend for the R_386_GOTPC relocation must be 1
but for all other registers it must be 2 due to the different length of
the opcode. This is what some gas versions seem to get wrong.
So what should we do with this report? Do we want to work around
this bug in gcc or should we close it and tell people to upgrade
binutils. The bug is fixed at least since 2.12.90.0.15 20020717 (SuSE).
regards Christian
--
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-21 11:28 Christian Ehrhardt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Christian Ehrhardt @ 2003-05-21 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
Cc: janis187@us.ibm.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,
lloyd@acm.jhu.edu
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:15:13 +0200
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:42:30AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Is it illegal for the pc_thunk to go into %eax instead of %ecx in that case?
I don't know but there are apparently some gas/ld versions that make
a mess of it (see the rest of this thread). Even if it is a gas Bug we
may want to work around it.
regards Christian
--
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-21 8:46 Christian Ehrhardt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Christian Ehrhardt @ 2003-05-21 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
lloyd@acm.jhu.edu, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:30:33 +0200
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
> > Feeding this assembler file into gcc 3.2 on an Intel box works for me
> > and the program doesn't crash! This might mean that we have an
> > assembler/binutils problem here.
>
> Whereas if I do the same, it crashes. So you seem to have a point :-)
>
> My binutils are
> 2.11.92.0.10 20011021 (SuSE)
> (this is what SuSE shipped with 8.0). What do you have?
Mine is
2.12.90.0.15 20020717 (SuSE)
and it works with this version.
regards Christian
--
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 22:46 Janis Johnson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Janis Johnson @ 2003-05-20 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>
To: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,
lloyd@acm.jhu.edu, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr
Cc:
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3
-fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:32:32 -0700
The pc_thunk started going into %eax with this patch:
> 2003-03-12 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
>
> PR optimization/9888
> * config/i386/i386.md (jcc_1): Fix range.
> (jcc_2): Likewise.
> (jump): LIkewise.
> (doloop_end_internal): Likewise.
>
> 2003-03-12 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
>
> PR optimization/9888
> * config/i386/i386.md (movsi_1): Remove special alternatives
> for %eax register.
> (movsi_1_nointernunit): Likewise.
> (movhi_1): Likewise.
> * config/i386/i386.c (memory_address_length): Do not use
> short displacement when there is no base.
> (ix86_attr_length_address_default): Handle LEA instructions.
This was tested using Wolfgang's smaller testcase and
searching for '_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %eax' in the .s file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10877
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 19:36 Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2003-05-20 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
<lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:28:18 -0400
The differences in the rtl shows up in testpic.cc.30.rnreg.
The work around in this case is to run with -fno-rename-registers, but
this might not work in all cases.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 19:27 Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2003-05-20 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
<lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:19:43 -0400
Here is the differences between -O2 (works ---) and -O3 (does not work
+++):
--- testpic.O2.s Tue May 20 15:12:01 2003
+++ testpic.s Tue May 20 15:12:16 2003
@@ -12,13 +12,13 @@
.globl _Z5get_xv
.type _Z5get_xv, @function
_Z5get_xv:
- call __i686.get_pc_thunk.cx
- addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %ecx
+ call __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax
+ addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %eax
pushl %ebp
- movl i@GOT(%ecx), %eax
+ movl i@GOT(%eax), %edx
movl %esp, %ebp
popl %ebp
- movl (%eax), %eax
+ movl (%edx), %eax
ret
.size _Z5get_xv, .-_Z5get_xv
.align 2
@@ -28,26 +28,26 @@
main:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
- leal -8(%ebp), %edx
+ leal -8(%ebp), %eax
pushl %ebx
subl $4, %esp
andl $-16, %esp
call __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %ebx
- movl i@GOT(%ebx), %eax
- movl %edx, (%eax)
+ movl i@GOT(%ebx), %ecx
+ movl %eax, (%ecx)
call _Z5get_xv@PLT
movl -4(%ebp), %ebx
xorl %eax, %eax
leave
ret
.size main, .-main
- .section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.cx,"ax",@progbits
-.globl __i686.get_pc_thunk.cx
- .hidden __i686.get_pc_thunk.cx
- .type __i686.get_pc_thunk.cx, @function
-__i686.get_pc_thunk.cx:
- movl (%esp), %ecx
+ .section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.ax,"ax",@progbits
+.globl __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax
+ .hidden __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax
+ .type __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax, @function
+__i686.get_pc_thunk.ax:
+ movl (%esp), %eax
ret
.section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx,"ax",@progbits
.globl __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx
looks like putting the pc_thunk into eax is the problem.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 15:10 US/Eastern, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
>> I can reproduce it with `GNU assembler 2.11.93.0.2 20020207' tough so
>> it looks like it binutils fault but it has already been fixed.
>
> So what do we do with this, then? Since we silently generate
> non-working
> code, I'd prefer gcc work around the problem, but then I'm not in a
> position to contribute anything reasonable to this aim...
>
> W.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Wolfgang Bangerth email:
> bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
> www:
> http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 19:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2003-05-20 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>,
<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with
-O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:10:17 -0500 (CDT)
> I can reproduce it with `GNU assembler 2.11.93.0.2 20020207' tough so
> it looks like it binutils fault but it has already been fixed.
So what do we do with this, then? Since we silently generate non-working
code, I'd prefer gcc work around the problem, but then I'm not in a
position to contribute anything reasonable to this aim...
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 17:16 Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2003-05-20 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
<lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:14:22 -0400
I can reproduce it with `GNU assembler 2.11.93.0.2 20020207' tough so
it looks like it binutils fault but it has already been fixed.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 13:08 US/Eastern, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Mine is the top of the tree from the fsf's tree:
> GNU assembler 2.14.90 20030520
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
> On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 13:05 US/Eastern, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
>>
>>> Feeding this assembler file into gcc 3.2 on an Intel box works for me
>>> and the program doesn't crash! This might mean that we have an
>>> assembler/binutils problem here.
>>
>> Whereas if I do the same, it crashes. So you seem to have a point :-)
>>
>> My binutils are
>> 2.11.92.0.10 20011021 (SuSE)
>> (this is what SuSE shipped with 8.0). What do you have?
>>
>> W.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> Wolfgang Bangerth email:
>> bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
>> www:
>> http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 17:06 Christian Ehrhardt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Christian Ehrhardt @ 2003-05-20 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
lloyd@acm.jhu.edu, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:00:33 +0200
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 10:26:37AM -0500, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> OK, I made the experiment -- and my small snippet still segfaults with
> both 3.3 and 3.4 checked out an hour or so ago. This is the assembler
> output I get on my system with present 3.4. I think I'm at a loss for
> further explanations, but feel free to ask me if you think you have a
> theory...
Feeding this assembler file into gcc 3.2 on an Intel box works for me
and the program doesn't crash! This might mean that we have an
assembler/binutils problem here.
Gruesse Christian
--
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 17:06 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2003-05-20 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
<lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with
-O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:05:35 -0500 (CDT)
> Feeding this assembler file into gcc 3.2 on an Intel box works for me
> and the program doesn't crash! This might mean that we have an
> assembler/binutils problem here.
Whereas if I do the same, it crashes. So you seem to have a point :-)
My binutils are
2.11.92.0.10 20011021 (SuSE)
(this is what SuSE shipped with 8.0). What do you have?
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 16:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2003-05-20 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with
-O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:26:37 -0500 (CDT)
> It does not fail for me though on i686-pc-linux-gnu with GCC: 3.4
> 20030517 (experimental).
> Or on i686-unkown-openbsd3.1 with gcc version 3.4 20030519
> (experimental).
OK, I made the experiment -- and my small snippet still segfaults with
both 3.3 and 3.4 checked out an hour or so ago. This is the assembler
output I get on my system with present 3.4. I think I'm at a loss for
further explanations, but feel free to ask me if you think you have a
theory...
W.
.file "y.cc"
.globl i
.bss
.align 4
.type i, @object
.size i, 4
i:
.zero 4
.text
.align 2
.p2align 4,,15
.globl _Z5get_xv
.type _Z5get_xv, @function
_Z5get_xv:
.LFB4:
call .LPR0
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %eax
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl i@GOT(%eax), %edx
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI1:
popl %ebp
movl (%edx), %eax
ret
.LFE4:
.size _Z5get_xv, .-_Z5get_xv
.align 2
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB5:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI2:
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI3:
leal -8(%ebp), %eax
pushl %ebx
.LCFI4:
subl $4, %esp
.LCFI5:
andl $-16, %esp
call .LPR3
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %ebx
movl i@GOT(%ebx), %ecx
movl %eax, (%ecx)
call _Z5get_xv@PLT
movl -4(%ebp), %ebx
xorl %eax, %eax
leave
ret
.LFE5:
.size main, .-main
.LPR0:
movl (%esp), %eax
ret
.LPR3:
movl (%esp), %ebx
ret
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20030520 (experimental)"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 2:06 Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2003-05-20 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
lloyd@acm.jhu.edu, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Subject: Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:58:26 -0400
It does not fail for me though on i686-pc-linux-gnu with GCC: 3.4
20030517 (experimental).
Or on i686-unkown-openbsd3.1 with gcc version 3.4 20030519
(experimental).
tin:~/src/gnu/gcc>g++ -O3 -fPIC ../gcctest/testpic.cc
tin:~/src/gnu/gcc>./a.out
tin:~/src/gnu/gcc>more ../gcctest/testpic.cc
int* i;
int& get_x() {
return *i;
}
int main() {
int j;
i = &j;
get_x();
}
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
PS here is the asm from a working version:
.file "testpic.cc"
.globl i
.bss
.align 4
.type i, @object
.size i, 4
i:
.zero 4
.text
.align 2
.p2align 4,,15
.globl _Z5get_xv
.type _Z5get_xv, @function
_Z5get_xv:
.LFB4:
call __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %eax
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl i@GOT(%eax), %edx
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI1:
popl %ebp
movl (%edx), %eax
ret
.LFE4:
.size _Z5get_xv, .-_Z5get_xv
.align 2
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB5:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI2:
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI3:
leal -8(%ebp), %eax
pushl %ebx
.LCFI4:
subl $4, %esp
.LCFI5:
andl $-16, %esp
call __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %ebx
movl i@GOT(%ebx), %ecx
movl %eax, (%ecx)
call _Z5get_xv@PLT
movl -4(%ebp), %ebx
xorl %eax, %eax
leave
ret
.LFE5:
.size main, .-main
.section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.ax,"ax",@progbits
.globl __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax
.hidden __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax
.type __i686.get_pc_thunk.ax, @function
__i686.get_pc_thunk.ax:
movl (%esp), %eax
ret
.section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx,"ax",@progbits
.globl __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx
.hidden __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx
.type __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx, @function
__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx:
movl (%esp), %ebx
ret
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20030517 (experimental)"
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-
trail&database=gcc&pr=10877
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
@ 2003-05-20 1:16 bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bangerth @ 2003-05-20 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, lloyd, nobody
Old Synopsis: GCC 3.3 miscompiles code with -O3 -fPIC on x86
New Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Tue May 20 01:16:37 2003
State-Changed-Why:
Confirmed. This is a smaller snippet (it has nothing to
do with namespaces):
----------------------------
int* i;
int& get_x() {
return *i;
}
int main() {
int j;
i = &j;
get_x();
}
--------------------------
It crashed in get_x:
g/x> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.3-pre/bin/c++ -O3 -fPIC x.cc
g/x> ./a.out
Segmentation fault
Note that we really need both -fPIC and -O3.
This crashes with both 3.3 and present mainline. It
doesn't with 2.95 and 3.2.3, so it's definitely a
regression worth fixing!
W.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10877
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-21 12:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-20 13:56 optimization/10877: [3.3/3.4 regression] miscompilation with -O3 -fPIC on x86 Wolfgang Bangerth
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-05-21 12:46 Christian Ehrhardt
2003-05-21 11:28 Christian Ehrhardt
2003-05-21 8:46 Christian Ehrhardt
2003-05-20 22:46 Janis Johnson
2003-05-20 19:36 Andrew Pinski
2003-05-20 19:27 Andrew Pinski
2003-05-20 19:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-05-20 17:16 Andrew Pinski
2003-05-20 17:06 Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-05-20 17:06 Christian Ehrhardt
2003-05-20 16:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-05-20 2:06 Andrew Pinski
2003-05-20 1:16 bangerth
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).