This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/47005] [4.6 Regression] ACATS c62002a is miscompiled at -O2
- From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:33:37 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/47005] [4.6 Regression] ACATS c62002a is miscompiled at -O2
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-47005-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47005
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-05 15:33:24 UTC ---
> The regression tests just completed for OpenBSD i386.
> There is one failure on ACATS (cb1010a timeout)*
This is a stack checking test.
> 3) the STACK_CHECK_STATIC_BUILTIN macro value has no effect on OpenBSD. I was
> expecting failures on c5210[3x,4x,4y] and cb1010[a,b,c] but they don't fail.
The tests should pass w and w/o it on x86, but it's better to define it.
> 4) Despite DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO being set to 0 (meaning MD_UNWIND_SUPPORT macro
> is ignored), the null_deref and stack_check gnat.dg tests pass. in gdb, the
> segfault comes and then the program just exits normally.
This is expected with SJLJ exceptions, you don't need MD_UNWIND_SUPPORT.
> The summary is that the OpenBSD port is currently better then it has ever been,
> and one remaining ACATS failure is probably related to how OpenBSD handles
> their stack. As of today, I don't have any errors to report, but that may
> change as I discover more about the issues I just outlined above.
Great, thanks for the detailed report.