From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 86695 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2015 17:10:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 86671 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jul 2015 17:10:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-HELO: mail-yk0-f178.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D+xG9UB15bU0FeFBll0VMiQMES/yDkoIFp6oCS28AjA=; b=O/I092kvz9fACGvvdhXTuoljvsLP44ltMGRixuMiZJLNVl0FGg3Wz48HiNs5TWl1B6 itDGa27/c9fZ/xJGWDiyzY5pJaFv4lleIf8+HUHE2qkyBSnzzxC1YQm6YSDL+TOpMDIX 9+oZvyfAhVgM4+hpKuk8DjhzERV0lMd7WVRsJBoSKISTgMSAyKvTQocRLPRCPaIADfI/ RldPEh3/IO2iPucPUcwmZkyCi4P8l4u4DjXc4KO8MfhQ8yzN7M3DaIW9xePEPNcQvstL /xBRU8YxdYS6Q7xzY27MFhWQIegkJxRcO1YB2YOGtQcCXEGANvMksGZohSmsiLlLCm4r df8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgouKOPs2oMquDtpm0ilM18osIBf+RHkaJ0CEQNdkiwcjUwopKV1jZFeDqNJFoGEJpBXUo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.208.81 with SMTP id z78mr12605833yke.106.1436375400172; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:10:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1436369443.24803.75.camel@surprise> References: <1436365266.24803.65.camel@surprise> <1436367926.24803.71.camel@surprise> <1436369443.24803.75.camel@surprise> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Filed PR jit/66812 for the code generation issue From: Dibyendu Majumdar To: David Malcolm Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On 8 July 2015 at 16:30, David Malcolm wrote: >> Upon applying the equivalent of the fix from: >> https://github.com/dibyendumajumdar/ravi/commit/d65d2e68fbdcf211ed36deea05727f996ede8296 >> to the generator you provided, gcc_jit_context_compile completes. >> >> I don't know if it's generating bad code (given that I don't have Ravi >> itself running, just the reproducer). However, I tried comparing the >> bug_rdump.txt and bug_rdump_ok.txt reproducers, and tried adding >> -fno-strict-aliasing to the former. >> Hi Dave, thanks for investigating this. I did test the fixed version - it failed the same way as before (apologies should have mentioned this). BTW I could not see anything obviously wrong with the code that is being compiled - i.e. nothing that stood out as undefined behaviour. Regards Dibyendu