Bug 37763 - bad interaction of -O3 -pg and -mcu=arm920t ??
Summary: bad interaction of -O3 -pg and -mcu=arm920t ??
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: target (show other bugs)
Version: 3.3.5
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-10-07 17:23 UTC by steven paul
Modified: 2009-10-15 08:30 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target: arm-linux-gnu
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description steven paul 2008-10-07 17:23:33 UTC
Are there known issues among the -pg and -O3 and -mcu=arm9020t options ?  

I am using Gcc 3.3.5 on Debian 1:3.3.5-13, running on a Technologic systems
TS-7200 board with an Arm920T processor.  

Compiling a medium size program (~ 1.5mb source code) with flags
    -O3 -mcu=arm920t -Wall
I get no errors/warnings, and the program runs to completion w/o error

Yet compiling with the flags
    -O3 -pg -mcu=arm920t -Wall
produces no errors/warnings, butproduces Segment errors at runtime -- the location of the error varies; which is unusual as the program is deterministic.

And compiling with the flags
    -O3 -g -mcu=arm920t -Wall
produces no errors/warnings, and runs to completion (either at command line or inside gdb) w/o error.


fiy ... compiling the program with these sets of flags
    -mcu-arm920t -Wall
and
    -03 -mcu=arm920t -Wall
compile with no errors/warnings, run to completion w/o error, and and produces identical large (~2gB) regression test output.


If there are no known issues among these flags, I'll work to get a smaller code base which will reproduce the bug.

thanks...
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2008-10-07 20:35:48 UTC
First 3.3.5 is so old that it is hard to reproduce the issue.  Also the ARM back-end has been improved and there has been a big ABI change (over to a standard ABI).

We also need the preprocessed source where the issue is.
Comment 2 Ramana Radhakrishnan 2009-04-29 17:30:33 UTC
Need more information on this bug as specified in comment #2
Comment 3 Ramana Radhakrishnan 2009-10-15 08:30:14 UTC
No response in more than 6 months. This is now marked as INVALID because we don't have enough information to go by.
Comment 4 Ramana Radhakrishnan 2009-10-15 08:30:58 UTC
Invalid