hppa-linux regressions and 3.2.2 release

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org> writes:

| Greetings,
| 
| I understand the 3.2.2 release is imminent. I filed two PRs
| against gcc-3.2.2 earlier last week. (#9492, #9493)  They relate to
| gcc-3.2.2 regressions that are seen on hppa-linux (jda tells me 9493
| happens on hppa-hpux as well).

Hi,

  I see that those PRs are also issues for 3.2, so they aren't
regressions from 3.2.1.  By the second point of the criteria

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-01/msg01048.html

we adopted for gcc-3.2.2, it can be argued that causing failures on a
GNU/Linux system is a showstopper.  Still, the problems seem to be
there since 3.2...

I recall Eric Botcazou's patch were being reviewed this week but my
impression was that the discussion got stalled after Joe Buck asked
whether the patch was just papering over a fundamental problem.  I'll
recheck what the final answer is and incorporate the patch if
appropriate. 

[...]

| #9492 is causing the hppa-linux kernel to be miscompiled. We have a
| workaround in place, but I think there may be more silently miscompiled
| cases that we have not yet discovered. No one has identified what 
| causes this yet, but it seems to be a generic scheduling problem 
| rather than an hppa specific one?

Anyone seeing this?  I don't have any idea of how much it will
take to get a fix for that one -- and I don't have access to HPPA
boxes.  If by tomorrow we don't have anything, and since you already
have a workarounf, I would suggest we make the release and
dig up the problem for 3.2.3 (if that ever happens to exist) or 3.3.

| Both of these are fairly major regressions from 3.0, so it'll be good to
| get these fixed before release. 

As explained above, the critirai 3.2.2 aren't to fix all major
regressions from 3.0.  The goal for this release is (unfortunately)
much moderate.

| I can help test Eric's patch, but I have
| no idea where to look for #9492. Does anyone have any ideas?

Please, test Eric's patch and report whatever you get.

Thanks,

-- Gaby