This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Bug target/12371] [3.4 regression] [m68k-linux] bootstrap errorin make compare
- From: Matthias Klose <doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- To: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:20:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Bug target/12371] [3.4 regression] [m68k-linux] bootstrap errorin make compare
- References: <20030922212350.12371.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org><20031031212109.27938.qmail@sources.redhat.com><16291.32524.371417.139160@gargle.gargle.HOWL><3FA41F8A.2010102@develer.com>
Updated PR12371. I hope I identified two patches (one by Jan, the
other by Roger).
Bernardo Innocenti writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > bernie at develer dot com writes:
> >
> >>I've re-read both patches and they seem rather safe, but...
> >>is it possible that the objects produced during stage3 aren't
> >>really ELF files?
> >
> >
> > I attach two files. maybe you could get something out of it? I further
> > try to tighten the period, where I see the failure occur.
>
> The two objects actually _do_ contain different assembly
> code. Both have been generated by the very same version
> of GCC.
>
> The first few functions are identical, then a very long
> one (gt_pch_pa_reg_base_value) has very different
> register allocation.
>
> Is it possible that different optimization options were
> used in stage2?
rechecked. no.
> alias.s (GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20031030 (experimental))
> [...]
> 0000013a <gt_pch_pa_reg_base_value>:
> 13a: 4e56 0000 linkw %fp,#0
> 13e: 48e7 3c20 moveml %d2-%d5/%a2,%sp@-
> 142: 41ee 0008 lea %fp@(8),%a0 <-!!!
> 146: 2810 movel %a0@,%d4
> 148: 2468 0008 moveal %a0@(8),%a2
> 14c: 2a2e 0014 movel %fp@(20),%d5
> [...]
>
> stage2/alias.s (GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20031030 (experimental))
> [...]
> 0000013a <gt_pch_pa_reg_base_value>:
> 13a: 4e56 0000 linkw %fp,#0
> 13e: 48e7 3c20 moveml %d2-%d5/%a2,%sp@-
> 142: 282e 0008 movel %fp@(8),%d4 <-!!!
> 146: 246e 0010 moveal %fp@(16),%a2
> 14a: 2a2e 0014 movel %fp@(20),%d5
> [...]