On 3 April 2011 20:28, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2011/4/3 Gerald Pfeifer :
>> I'm a bit surprised I'm not seeing other notes on this on the list,
>> but all of my automated tests (on i386-unknown-freebsd9.0 and
>> amd64-unknown-freebsd8.2) exhibit comparision failures since yesterday:
>>
>> Comparing st
2011/4/3 Gerald Pfeifer :
> I'm a bit surprised I'm not seeing other notes on this on the list,
> but all of my automated tests (on i386-unknown-freebsd9.0 and
> amd64-unknown-freebsd8.2) exhibit comparision failures since yesterday:
>
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o d
I'm a bit surprised I'm not seeing other notes on this on the list,
but all of my automated tests (on i386-unknown-freebsd9.0 and
amd64-unknown-freebsd8.2) exhibit comparision failures since yesterday:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-chec
>
> This patch also fails for gcc.target/i386/movq.c with -fpic[1]. It
> doesn't fail before this patch was committed [2].
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg00031.html
> [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg1.html
This did not reproduce for me, but I've
Hello!
> > Have you tried running valgrind?
>
> Thanks for the tip. Indeed something shows up:
>
> [...]
>
> if (parts.base)
> {
> if (REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (REGNO (parts.base)) < 32) <-- 820
> return 0;
> }
>
> I think parts.base is OK so it's probably REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN
>
>
> if (parts.base)
> {
> if (REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (REGNO (parts.base)) < 32) <-- 820
> return 0;
> }
>
> I think parts.base is OK so it's probably REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN
Uh, while converting the regno_pointer_align from GGC to malloced
memory, I mistakely used xmalloc instead
> Have you tried running valgrind?
Thanks for the tip. Indeed something shows up:
Compiler executable checksum: 87aef5f5c9fba1ed8f2a556528fc3927
==3282== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==3282==at 0x904EFA6: aligned_operand_1 (predicates.md:820)
==3282==by 0x90
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hi,
Since yesterday I'm having seemingly random bootstrap comparisons failures on
i586-suse-linux: for caller-save.o yesterday, for build/gensupport.o today at
revision 133861. But a second tree at the same revision bootstrapped fine.
Is anyone else seeing this?
Have
Hi,
Since yesterday I'm having seemingly random bootstrap comparisons failures on
i586-suse-linux: for caller-save.o yesterday, for build/gensupport.o today at
revision 133861. But a second tree at the same revision bootstrapped fine.
Is anyone else seeing this?
--
Eric Botcazou
