This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug debug/48150] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c
- From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:39:47 +0000
- Subject: [Bug debug/48150] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-48150-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48150
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011-10-10
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-10 11:39:47 UTC ---
I only see
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O1 line 43 a.i == 4
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O1 line 43 a.j == 14
now with gdb 7.3.
43 bar (a.j); /* { dg-final { gdb-test 43 "a.j" "14" } } */^M
$1 = 0^M
$2 = 4^M
0 != 4
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O1 line 43 a.i == 4
43 bar (a.j); /* { dg-final { gdb-test 43 "a.j" "14" } } */^M
$1 = 0^M
$2 = 14^M
A debugging session is active.^M
^M
Inferior 1 [process 4603] will be killed.^M
^M
0 != 14
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O1 line 43 a.j == 14
manually debugging yields
(gdb) b 43
(gdb) run
(gdb) p a.j
$1 = 0
(gdb) p a.i
$2 = 0
(gdb) p a
$3 = <optimized out>
The location list looks like
000002ec 0000000000400581 0000000000400586 (DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 4
offset:
0 ; DW_OP_lit4; DW_OP_stack_value; DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ;
DW_OP_
breg5 (rdi): 6; DW_OP_stack_value; DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ;
DW_OP_b
it_piece: size: 4 offset: 0 )
000002ec 0000000000400586 000000000040058b (DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 4
offset:
0 ; DW_OP_reg0 (rax); DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; DW_OP_breg5 (rdi):
7; DW_OP_stack_value; DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; DW_OP_bit_piece:
siz
e: 4 offset: 0 )
000002ec 000000000040058b 000000000040058f (DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 4
offset:
0 ; DW_OP_reg0 (rax); DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; DW_OP_breg3 (rbx):
7; DW_OP_stack_value; DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; DW_OP_bit_piece:
siz
e: 4 offset: 0 )
000002ec 000000000040058f 0000000000400593 (DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 4
offset:
0 ; DW_OP_reg6 (rbp); DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; DW_OP_breg3 (rbx):
7; DW_OP_stack_value; DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; DW_OP_bit_piece:
siz
e: 4 offset: 0 )
000002ec 0000000000400593 00000000004005b1 (DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 4
offset:
0 ; DW_OP_reg6 (rbp); DW_OP_bit_piece: size: 12 offset: 0 ; (User defined
locat
ion op))
000002ec 00000000004005b1 00000000004005b6 (DW_OP_piece: 2; (User defined
lo
cation op))
000002ec <End of list>
which is weird because of the size: 12 entries(?)
Jakub?