Bug 92288 - [10 Regression] 502.gcc_r ICE with -O3 -march=skylake -fno-checking since r277621
Summary: [10 Regression] 502.gcc_r ICE with -O3 -march=skylake -fno-checking since r27...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 92301
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: tree-optimization (show other bugs)
Version: 10.0
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: 10.0
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords: wrong-code
Depends on:
Blocks: spec
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2019-10-30 14:55 UTC by Martin Liška
Modified: 2019-11-04 10:26 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work: 9.2.0
Known to fail: 10.0
Last reconfirmed: 2019-10-30 00:00:00


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin Liška 2019-10-30 14:55:01 UTC
Before the revision there was a checking assert (that I disabled with -fno-checking).

Can reproduce with test size:
runcpu --config=spec2017 --size=test --iterations=1  --no-reportable -I  --action=run   --tune=peak 502.gcc_r -D

Contents of t1.opts-O3_-finline-limit_50000.err
****************************************
t1.c:2:5: warning: conflicting types for built-in function 'printf'
t1.c: In function 'main':
t1.c:9:1: benchmark internal error: in ?, at df-scan.c:1573
The 502.gcc_r benchmark binary 'cpugcc_r' has encountered an internal error.
It is possible that there is an error in the benchmark 502.gcc_r
source code, but it is more likely that your compiler
has mis-optimized or otherwise generated bad code for
the benchmark.  You might try reducing the optimization
level; see your compiler documentation.
If you think the error is in the benchmark source code, see
   www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/techsupport.html
Comment 1 Richard Biener 2019-11-04 10:09:13 UTC
Maybe this is now fixed (and thus dup of PR92301)?
Comment 2 Martin Liška 2019-11-04 10:26:26 UTC
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Maybe this is now fixed (and thus dup of PR92301)?

Yes, it's fixed now, thanks.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 92301 ***