On June 7, 2015 5:03:30 PM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 06/06/2015 05:49 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Bootstrap fails on aarch64: >> >> Comparing stages 2 and 3 >> warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs >> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs >> warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs >> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs >> Bootstrap comparison failure! >> gcc/ira-costs.o differs >> gcc/tree-sra.o differs >> gcc/tree-parloops.o differs >> gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.o differs >> gcc/java/jcf-io.o differs >> gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.o differs > >The bootstrap comparison failure on ppc64le, aarch64, and possibly >others is due to the order of some sections being in a different order >with and without debugging. > >Stage2 is being compiled with no debugging due to -gtoggle, and stage3 >is being compiled with debugging. > >For ira-costs.o on ppc64le we have: > >-Disassembly of section >.rodata._ZN10hash_tableI19cost_classes_hasher11xcallocatorE6expandEv.str1.8: >+Disassembly of section >.rodata._ZN10hash_tableI19cost_classes_hasher11xcallocatorE26find_empty_slot_for_expandEj.str1.8: > >... > >-Disassembly of section >.rodata._ZN10hash_tableI19cost_classes_hasher11xcallocatorE26find_empty_slot_for_expandEj.str1.8: >+Disassembly of section >.rodata._ZN10hash_tableI19cost_classes_hasher11xcallocatorE6expandEv.str1.8: > >There is no semantic difference between the objects, just the ordering. > >I assume it's the same problem for the rest of the objects and >architectures. > >I will look into this, unless someone beats me to it, or has an idea >right off the bat.
Check whether the symbol table walkers are walking hash tables. I assume the above are emitted via the symbol removal handling for debug stuff? Richard. >Aldy
