https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't know that a sort is unstable or a particular sort. It is a hunch based
on similar failures in the past -- some output in a different order.
Why would stage2 and stage3 be built with different options, especially if
their object files are compared?
I added -frandom-seed=0 to the options, but I still see differences in
addresses, which makes comparison a little difficult.
sbitmap.c.001.tu differ, with the @XXXX addresses. The first difference where
one dump file contains information not present in another dump file is
sbitmap.c.003t.original. Stage2 contains three lines of
;; Function constexpr bool std::_ImplicitlyConvertiblePair() [with _T1 =
mem_usage*; _T2 = mem_usage*; _U1 = mem_usage*; _U2 = mem_usage*] (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
return <retval> = 1;
while Stage3 contains only one line. The rest of the file contains identical
statements but different labels.
sbitmap.c.006.omplower begin to show differences in funcdef_no, cgraph_uid and
symbol_order.
