Re: [tree-ssa] Bootstrap failure on i686-linux

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:38, Paul Brook wrote:
> I've been getting bootstrap failures for tree-ssa branch since about friday 
> last week.
> 
This one seems to have been caused by one of these changes:

+2003-08-29  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>
+
+        * function.c (allocate_struct_function): New, split out of ...
+        (prepare_function_start, init_function_start): ... here.
+        * expr.c (init_expr): Use ggc_alloc_cleared.
+        * stmt.c (init_stmt_for_function): Likewise.
+        * tree.h (allocate_struct_function): Declare.
+
+2003-08-29  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>
+
+        * function.h (struct function): Move function_frequency and
+        max_jumptable_ents before start of bit field members.
+
+2003-08-29  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>
+
+        * builtins.c (expand_builtin_constant_p): Check cse_not_expected here,
+        (fold_builtin_constant_p) ... not here.
+
+2003-08-29  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>
+
+        * c-tree.h (C_DECL_FILE_SCOPE): Move ...
+        * tree.h (DECL_FILE_SCOPE_P): ... here, and rename.
+        * c-decl.c, c-objc-common.c, c-typeck.c: Update to match.
+


After undoing those patches I ran into another failure that was caused
by:

+2003-09-01  Zdenek Dvorak  <rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
+           Jeff Law  <law@redhat.com>
+
+       * basic-block.h (BB_LOOP_CONTROL_EXPR): Remove.
+       * c-simplify.c (gimplify_c_loop): Create loops in a better shape.
+       * cfgloop.h (create_loop_notes): Declare.
+       * cfgloopmanip.c (create_loop_notes): New.
+       * explow.c (probe_stack_range): Don't produce loop notes when we
+       recreate them.
+       * expr.c (emit_block_move_via_loop): Ditto.
+       * gimplify.c (build_and_jump): Export.
+       (gimplify_loop_expr): Don't produce LOOP_EXPRs.
+       * toplev.c (rest_of_compilation): Recreate loop notes if needed.
+       * tree-cfg.c (make_loop_expr_edges, make_loop_expr_blocks): Removed.
+       (find_contained_blocks, make_ctrl_stmt_edges,
+       remove_useless_stmts_and_vars, stmt_ends_bb_p, bsi_insert_before,
+       find_insert_location, bsi_insert_on_edge_immediate,
+       merge_tree_blocks): Remove handling of LOOP_EXPRs.
+       (remove_stmt): Remove handling of BB_LOOP_CONTROL_EXPR.
+       (find_taken_edge): Remove comment on LOOP_EXPRs.
+       (dump_tree_bb): Don't dump loop-related information.
+       (is_loop_stmt, is_latch_block_for): Removed.
+       (find_insert_location): Handle TRY_CATCH and TRY_FINALLY.
+       * tree-flow.h (is_loop_stmt, loop_body, set_loop_body,
+       is_latch_block_for): Removed.
+       * tree-dfa.c (get_stmt_operands): Don't handle LOOP_EXPRs.
+       * tree-simple.c (is_gimple_stmt): Remove handling of LOOP_EXPRs.
+       * tree-simple.h: Remove LOOP_EXPRs from gimple grammar comment.
+       (build_and_jump): Declare.
+       * tree-ssa.c (remove_annotations_r): Don't handle LOOP_EXPRs.
+

This one fails when building libiberty after bootstrapping:

/home/dnovillo/clean-tree-ssa/src/libiberty/regex.c:7255: internal compiler erro
r: in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c:4062
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
make[2]: *** [regex.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/notnfs/dnovillo/BLD-clean-tree-ssa-native.tobiano/i
686-pc-linux-gnu/libiberty'
make[1]: *** [all-target-libiberty] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/notnfs/dnovillo/BLD-clean-tree-ssa-native.tobiano'
make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2

I took a look and it seems that we are losing track of the statement
chainining.  If you look at the .t17.optimized output, you'll see that
only a part of the function was renamed out of SSA.

I also haven't seen the final version of the LOOP_EXPR lowering patch in
gcc-patches.  Zdenek, could you send me a pointer to it (or post it if
it hasn't been posted)?

Paul, the other patch you sent me for the libgfortran failure on alpha
didn't seem to help, unfortunately.  We still get a SEGV on the same
spot.

I've got a few changes in the pipeline.  Could you folks fix or revert
these patches so that I can do a final test?


Thanks.  Diego.