Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

["Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
>
> and its mirrors.
>
> The changes relative to RC1 are fixes for:
>
> 1. PR 29683: a wrong-code issue on Darwin
> 2. PR 30370: a build problem for certain PowerPC configurations
> 3. PR 29487: a build problem for HP-UX 10.10 a code-quality problem for
> C++ on all platforms
>
> If you find problems in RC2, please file them in Bugzilla.  For any
> issues which are regressions relative to 4.1.1 or 4.1.0, please alert me
> by email, referencing the Bugzilla PR number.  Please do not send me
> email before filing a PR in Bugzilla.
>
> Based on the absence of issues reported for GCC 4.1.2 RC1, I expect GCC
> 4.1.2 to be identical to these sources, other than version numbers, and
> so forth.  I intend to spin the final release early next week.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Mitchell

Test results for sparc/sparc64 on solaris2.10 are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00422.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00423.html

Comparing this to previous 4.1.x there are a few new failures:

1.  g++.dg/debug/debug9.C fails as described in PR 30649.  I believe this
is simply a mistaken testcase checkin.  If confirmed by someone, no big
deal I can remove it.

2.  g++.dg/tree-ssa/nothrow-1.C fails with -fpic/-fPIC.  This seems to be
a regression and started sometime between Oct 8 and Nov 2, 2006.  I don't
have historical test results any finer grained than that and I don't think
other solaris2 testers use -fpic/-fPIC.  Here are my posts from that time:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg00509.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-11/msg00076.html

If I had to guess, I'd say it started with this checkin:

 > 2006-10-14  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>
 >
 >         PR rtl-optimization/29323
 >         * decl.c (finish_function): Set TREE_NOTHROW only for
 >         functions that bind local.

And as with some -fpic/-fPIC failures, there's a chance it's simply a
problem with the testcase that's incompatible with pic, not a problem with
the compiler.  If so we can adjust the testcase code or simply skip it
when using pic.

3.  gcc.c-torture/execute/20061101-1.c is a new failure at -O2 and at more
opt levels with -fpic/-fPIC, but that testcase is from November so it's
probably not a regression.

4.  gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030714-1.c fails with -fpic/-fPIC and this one
appears to have regressed since the case is from 2003.  It started failing
between June 18 and June 22, 2006 in the 4.1.x branch:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01003.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01167.html

5.  gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90 fails with -fPIC (not -fpic).  The
error message is:

ld: fatal: too many symbols require `small' PIC references:
        have 4604, maximum 2048 -- recompile some modules -K PIC.
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

This one appears to be a regression from previous 4.1.x and 4.0 where it
works.  It looks like it started between June 18 and June 22, 2006:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01003.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01167.html

6.  22_locale/num_put/put/wchar_t/14220.cc fails with sparc64 -fpic/-fPIC.
The sparc32 doesn't fail.  This is a regression from the previous 4.1
release and 4.0.x.  The testsuite logfile doesn't say anything about what
failed.  It started failing sometime between Oct 8 and Nov 2, 2006, which
like #2 above has a wide gap between my historical test posts.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg00509.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-11/msg00076.html


I don't know whether any of these are important enough to hold up the
release, most appear not.  Maybe Eric can comment.

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu