This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: we are starting the wide int merge


Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> writes:
> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> To rule out one possibility: which GCC are you using for stage1?
>>
>> I think that may the smoking gun.  When I use GCC 4.7 to bootstrap,
>> FreeBSD 8, 9 and 10 all build fine on i386 (= i486) and amd64.
>>
>> When I use the system compiler, which is GCC 4.2 on FreeBSD 8 and 9
>> and clang on FreeBSD 10, things fail on FreeBSD 10...
>>
>> ...with a bootstrap comparison failure of stages 2 and 3 on i386:
>> https://redports.org/~gerald/20140518230801-31619-208277/gcc410-4.10.0.s20140518.log
>
> Do you get exactly the same comparison failures using clang and GCC 4.2
> as the stage1 compiler?  That would rule out the system compiler
> miscompiling stage1.

I couldn't reproduce this with GCC 4.2 but I could with clang.
The problem is that the C++ frontend's template instantation code has
several instances of foo (..., bar (...), bar (...), ...), where bar (...)
can create new decls.  The numbering of the decls can then depend on which
order the compiler chooses to evaluate the function arguments.  This later
causes code differences if the decl uids are used as tie-breakers to get
a stable sort.

I was just unlucky that this happened to trigger for the new wi:: code. :-)

I'm testing a patch now.  It might need more than one iteration, but hopefully
I'll have something to submit tomorrow.

Thanks,
Richard


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]