[Bug other/14708] description of -ffloat-store in gcc man page incorrect/inaccurate
--- Additional Comments From vincent at vinc17 dot org 2004-12-08 15:13 --- I'm wrong. gcc 3.4 (from Debian) still has this problem. So, -ffloat-store is still needed for C compliance. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14708 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
Bug#284777: g++-3.4: internal compiler error: in uses_template_parms at cp/pt.c:4860
Package: g++-3.4
Version: 3.4.2-2
Severity: important
Hi,
the following (error prone) C++ code triggers an internal compiler error in
uses_template_parms, at cp/pt.c:4860
template
struct Dummy
{
void evil()
{
this->template tester();
}
template
void tester()
{
// evil should actually be a bool
bar()();
}
template
struct bar
{
void operator()()
{ }
};
};
int main()
{}
If class Dummy is not a template class the code triggers no internal compiler
error
but the following error message:
testcase1.cc: In member function `void Dummy::tester()':
testcase1.cc:12: error: `void Dummy::evil()' cannot appear in a
constant-expression
testcase1.cc:12: error: template argument 1 is invalid
Cheers,
Markus Blatt
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.27thinkpad
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Versions of packages g++-3.4 depends on:
ii gcc-3.4 3.4.2-2 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-3.4-base3.4.2-2 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libstdc++6-dev 3.4.2-2 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (d
-- no debconf information
Re: Bug#284793: libc6-prof: Running programs compiled with -profile fails
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Arno Wagner wrote: > E ~/exp/c/misc>gcc -profile hello.c > E ~/exp/c/misc>a.out > Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-version.c: 230: _dl_check_map_versions: > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > E ~/exp/c/misc> This has got to be either a GCC or binutils bug. The link line is: /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/collect2 --eh-frame-hdr -m elf_i386 -dynamic-linker /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/../../../gcrt1.o /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/../../../crti.o /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/crtbegin.o -L/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5 -L/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/../../.. /tmp/ccNEb3Zl.o -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc_p -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/crtend.o /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.5/../../../crtn.o But somehow a.out has a DT_NEEDED entry for libc.so.6. I see two problems: 1. It looks like --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed has somehow dragged in libc.so.6, even though libgcc_s.so is not needed (and not referenced by the output). 2. Should GCC add -static automatically to -profile, since libc_p.a is a static library? You can't link libc statically to a dynamic executable. -- Daniel Jacobowitz
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-08
22:18 ---
extern int printf (__const char *__restrict __format, ...);
void
divisors_bug(long *t, long e, long P)
{
long j;
long *d, *old_d, *act_d, *tmp;
d = t;
*++d = 5;
old_d = t;
for (j = e; j; j--)
{
act_d = d;
tmp = old_d;
while (tmp < act_d)
*++d = *(++tmp);
old_d=act_d;
}
}
int main(void)
{
long t[4];
long i;
divisors_bug(t,2,2);
for(i=1;i<4;i++)
printf("%ld ",t[i]);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Expected output: 5 5 5
Output with -O1: 5 5 garbage
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
Results for 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) testsuite on s390-linux
LAST_UPDATED: Sat Dec 4 07:38:33 UTC 2004 Native configuration is s390-linux (lnxdeb02) === gpc tests === Running target any === gpc Summary === # of tests3910 # of expected passes 3905 # of unsupported tests5 /home/ton/gcc-3.3-3.3.5/build/gcc/xgpc version 20040516, based on gcc-3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) === g++ tests === Running target unix XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test === g++ Summary === # of expected passes8205 # of unexpected successes 1 # of expected failures 97 # of untested testcases 23 # of unsupported tests 29 /home/ton/gcc-3.3-3.3.5/build/gcc/testsuite/../g++ version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) === g77 tests === Running target unix === g77 Summary === # of expected passes1720 # of unsupported tests 8 /home/ton/gcc-3.3-3.3.5/build/gcc/testsuite/../g77 version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) === gcc tests === Running target unix FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-1.c -gstabs -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-1.c -gstabs3 -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-1.c -gstabs+ -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-1.c -gstabs+3 -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-2.c -gstabs -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-2.c -gstabs3 -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-2.c -gstabs+ -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/debug-2.c -gstabs+3 -O3 scan-assembler xyzzy FAIL: gcc.dg/duff-2.c (test for excess errors) === gcc Summary === # of expected passes21196 # of unexpected failures9 # of expected failures 70 # of unsupported tests 196 /home/ton/gcc-3.3-3.3.5/build/gcc/xgcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) === objc tests === Running target unix === objc Summary === # of expected passes1166 /home/ton/gcc-3.3-3.3.5/build/gcc/xgcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) === treelang tests === Running target unix === treelang Summary === # of expected passes1 === libjava tests === Running target unix WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test === libjava Summary === # of expected passes2987 # of unexpected failures2 # of expected failures 16 # of untested testcases 14 === libstdc++-v3 tests === Running target unix XPASS: 22_locale/collate_byname.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/ctype_is_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/ctype_is_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/members.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/messages_byname.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/messages_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/money_get_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/money_get_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/money_put_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/money_put_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/moneypunct_byname.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/moneypunct_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/moneypunct_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/num_get_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/num_get_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/num_put_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/num_put_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/numpunct_byname.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/numpunct_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/numpunct_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/time_get_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/time_get_members_wchar_t.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/time_put_members_char.cc execution test XPASS: 22_locale/time_put_members_wchar_t.cc execution test WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: 27_io/filebuf_members.cc execution test === libstdc++-v3 Summary === # of expected passes452 # of unexpected failures1 # of unexpected successes 26 # of expected failures 2 Compiler version: 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-3) Platform: s390-linux configure flags: --host=s390-linux -v --enable-languages=c,c++,java,f77,pascal,objc,ada,treelang --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/3.3 --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --enable-nls --without-included-gettext --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-debug --enable-java-gc=boehm --enable-java-awt=xlib --enable-objc-gc BOOT_CFLAGS=-g -O2 Build Dependencies: Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Ha
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 00:47
---
I took Steven's testcase in comment #12,
fed into GCC,
took its .t13.cfg output,
reformatted into C code,
fed that back into GCC with -O0,
and now I get the "5 5 garbage".
I separated main() to a separate file by the way.
Otherwise, I don't see the problem.
int
divisors_bug (int *t, int e)
{
int * d;
int * ivtmp7;
int * D1176;
unsigned int ivtmp14;
int * d22;
unsigned int e0;
int D1132;
d = t + 1;
*d = 5;
if (e != 0) goto L2; else goto L7;
L22:;
ivtmp7 = D1176;
L1:;
d22 = d22 + 1;
D1176 = ivtmp7 + 1;
D1132 = *D1176;
*d22 = D1132;
if (d > D1176) goto L22; else goto L3;
L3:;
ivtmp14 = 0;
L24:;
ivtmp14 = ivtmp14 + 1;
e0 = (unsigned int) e;
if (e0 != ivtmp14) goto L24; else goto L7;
L2:;
if (t < d) goto L23; else goto L3;
L23:;
d22 = d;
ivtmp7 = t;
goto L1;
L7:;
return;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 00:58 --- Forget about comment #13. My bad. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-09
01:01 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Here is a testcase which might be slightly easy to understand it should do
(removes *a++):
extern int printf (__const char *__restrict __format, ...);
void
divisors_bug(long *t, long e, long P)
{
long int * tmp;
long int * act_d;
long int * old_d;
long int * d;
long int j;
d = t + 1;
*d = 5;
old_d = t;
j = e;
while (j != 0) {
act_d = d;
tmp = old_d;
while (tmp < act_d) {
d++;
tmp++;
*d = *tmp;
}
old_d = act_d;
j--;
}
}
int main(void)
{
long t[4];
long i;
divisors_bug(t,2,2);
for(i=1;i<4;i++)
printf("%ld ",t[i]);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 01:32
---
Here is a complete testcase that fails at DOM1.
With -O0, this testcase prints "5 5 5".
With -O1, this testcase prints "5 5 0".
I generated this testcase from final_cleanup after disabling DOM[123].
extern int printf (__const char *__restrict __format, ...);
void
divisors_bug (int *t, unsigned int e)
{
int * d23;
unsigned int ivtmp14;
int * ivtmp7;
int * d;
int * tmp;
d23 = t + 1;
*d23 = 5;
if (e != 0) goto L24; else goto L6;
L24:
tmp = t;
d = d23;
ivtmp14 = 0;
goto L2;
L22:
ivtmp7 = tmp;
L1:
d23 = d23 + 1;
*d23 = *(ivtmp7 + 1);
ivtmp7 = ivtmp7 + 1;
if (d > ivtmp7) goto L1; else goto L4;
L4:
ivtmp14 = ivtmp14 + 1;
if (e != ivtmp14) goto L23; else goto L6;
L23:
tmp = d;
d = d23;
L2:
if (d > tmp) goto L22; else goto L4;
L6:
return;
}
int
main (void)
{
int t[4];
int i;
divisors_bug (t,2);
for(i = 1; i < 4; i++)
printf ("%d ", t[i]);
printf ("\n");
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-09
01:33 ---
And here is a testcase which aborts and it is independent of storing to memory:
extern void abort (void);
void
divisors_bug(long t, long e, long P)
{
long int tmp;
long int act_d;
long int old_d;
long int d;
long int j;
d = t + 1;
old_d = t;
j = e;
while (j != 0) {
act_d = d;
tmp = old_d;
while (tmp < act_d) {
d++;
tmp++;
}
if (tmp != act_d)
abort ();
old_d = act_d;
j--;
}
}
int main(void)
{
divisors_bug(0,2,2);
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-09 01:46 --- (In reply to comment #16) > Here is a complete testcase that fails at DOM1. > With -O0, this testcase prints "5 5 5". > With -O1, this testcase prints "5 5 0". > > I generated this testcase from final_cleanup after disabling DOM[123]. Lets look at the SSA level for this: L23:; tmp_15 = d_5; d_16 = d23_2; # ivtmp14_6 = PHI ; # d_5 = PHI ; # tmp_4 = PHI ; # d23_3 = PHI ; L2:; if (tmp_4 < d_5) goto L22; else goto L4; See we know that this if condition cannot be proven false or true but DOM thinks is false always coming from BB 5 (aka L23). [20:45] < kazu> if you are coming from bb 1, the condition is ultimately tmp_11 < d_12. From bb 5, the condition is ultimately tmp_15 < d_16. -- What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 02:14 --- DOM1 is translating tmp_4 < d_5 (in L2:) into d23_2 < d23_2, which would be false. So the threader itself doesn't seem to be broken. Something else is. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 02:51 --- Here are the PHI nodes that I am getting at L2 in thread_across_edge called on edge L23 -> L2. TMT.0_24 = PHI ; ivtmp14_6 = PHI <0(1), ivtmp14_14(5)>; d_5 = PHI ; <- defined tmp_4 = PHI ; <- used d23_3 = PHI ; Note that d_5 is defined *and* used. At this point, it's not safe to use SSA_NAME_VALUE for d_5. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 03:26 --- I meant: At this point, it's not safe to use SSA_NAME_VALUE for tmp_4. Maybe we shouldn't add equivalence of tmp_4 and d_5 in the first place if d_5 is also defined in a PHI node at the same BB. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 03:35 --- Created an attachment (id=7710) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7710&action=view) a patch This patch is fixes the bug but maybe a bit too conservative. If thread_across_edge gets a comparison "op0 code op1", and op0 and op1 are defined by PHI nodes at e->dest, we could still replace op0 and op1 with the PHI arguments before we look up the condition. With my patch, if the condition involves an SSA_NAME that is also used as a PHI argument at e->dest, I would guess that the lookup is very likely to fail. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-12-09 05:24
---
Updated the testcase like so:
/* PR tree-optimization/18694
The dominator optimization didn't take the PHI evaluation order
into account when threading an edge. */
extern void abort (void) __attribute__((noreturn));
extern void exit (int) __attribute__((noreturn));
void __attribute__((noinline))
foo (int i)
{
int next_n = 1;
int j = 0;
for (; i != 0; i--)
{
int n;
for (n = next_n; j < n; j++)
next_n++;
if (j != n)
abort ();
}
}
int
main (void)
{
foo (2);
exit (0);
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
