This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 1/9] gensupport: Fix define_subst operand renumbering.
- From: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, uweigand at de dot ibm dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:55:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] gensupport: Fix define_subst operand renumbering.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1456735599-21355-1-git-send-email-krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1456735599-21355-2-git-send-email-krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <56D4497A dot 40304 at redhat dot com> <56D560F8 dot 40500 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20160301121500 dot GA7234 at arm dot com> <56D58C86 dot 7020404 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20160301133822 dot GA19657 at arm dot com>
On 03/01/2016 02:38 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 01:35:18PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> On 03/01/2016 01:15 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>> On 02/29/2016 02:36 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 02/29/2016 09:46 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>>>> Ok for mainline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * gensupport.c (process_substs_on_one_elem): Split loop to
>>>>>> complete mark_operands_used_in_match_dup on all expressions in the
>>>>>> vector first.
>>>>>> (adjust_operands_numbers): Inline into process_substs_on_one_elem
>>>>>> and remove function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't I approve this a while ago? Not sure it's appropriate for stage4
>>>>> though; is this series fixing an important regression?
>>>>
>>>> Yes you did. I didn't commit it until the rest of the patch series was ready to commit. The patch
>>>> series fixes a fundamental problem in the backend. The first iteration was posted before stage 4 but
>>>> it took me a few iterations to get it right.
>>>>
>>>> I've committed the patch now after retesting.
>>>
>>> This looks like it has caused failures in the following tests on an
>>> x86_64-none-linux-gnu build.
>>
>> I've regression tested the patch on x86_64 as well. Are there specific
>> options required to enable these tests?
>
> The bisect robot just builds a stage one compiler, configured with:
>
> ./configure --disable-bootstrap, --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
> --disable-multilib --disable-libsanitizer
>
> My system GCC is a 5.2 from the release sources with:
>
> ../gcc-5.2.0/configure --with-bugurl='Good luck'
> --enable-languages=c,c++,go,fortran,objc,obj-c++
> --prefix=/work/install-gcc-5.2.0 --enable-shared
> --enable-linker-build-id --without-included-gettext
> --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
> --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug
> --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
> --enable-gnu-unique-object --disable-libmudflap
> --enable-plugin --with-system-zlib
> --disable-browser-plugin --enable-java-awt=gtk
> --enable-gtk-cairo --with-arch-directory=amd64
> --enable-objc-gc --enable-multiarch
> --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686
> --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32
> --with-tune=native --enable-checking=release
> --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu
> --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
>
> I tried a full bootstrap at that revision and still see these failures.
> Who knows what state has been corrupted, or that you silently get away with,
> if this is an undefined behaviour somewhere :-). I haven't tried with a
> valgrind checking build to see what it can spot.
Ok. Thanks for the infos. I'll try to have a look. I've reverted the patch now.
Bye,
-Andreas-