> Can you try --param large-stack-frame=1? No change. The program did not return/exit for more than 12 minutes.
> Is sizeof (int) <= 2? No. Regards, Kannan -----Original Message----- From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:14 PM To: Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: 4.7.0 regression? gcc.c-torture/execute/vla-dealloc-1.c failure. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan <kanna...@hp.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Similarly for the following two test case which deals with VLA > de-allocation in a branch back situation: > 1. gcc.c-torture/execute/pr43220.c > 2. gcc.c-torture/execute/20040811-1.c Can you try --param large-stack-frame=1? Is sizeof (int) <= 2? > Regards, > Kannan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:48 PM > To: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org' > Subject: 4.7.0 regression? gcc.c-torture/execute/vla-dealloc-1.c failure. > > Hi, > > This is regarding gcc.c-torture/execute/vla-dealloc-1.c failure. > > 4.7.0 ia64-hp-hpux: program timed out (time out 300 seconds). > 4.7.0 ia64-redhat-linux: program timed out (time out 300 seconds). > 4.7.0 x86_64-suse-linux: execution completes successfully. > > Inserting a printf statement in the loop path makes the executable to > complete executing without any issues. > > 4.6.3 ia64-hp-hpux: execution completes successfully. > > So it looks like a regression in 4.7.0. Any suggestion, which fix (check in) > between 4.6.3 and 4.7.0 could have caused this failure? > > ==== gcc.c-torture/execute/vla-dealloc-1.c > > #if (__SIZEOF_INT__ <= 2) > #define LIMIT 10000 > #else > #define LIMIT 1000000 > #endif > > void *volatile p; > > int > main (void) > { > int n = 0; > if (0) > { > lab:; > } > int x[n % 1000 + 1]; > x[0] = 1; > x[n % 1000] = 2; > p = x; > n++; > if (n < LIMIT) > goto lab; > return 0; > } > > Regards, > Kannan >
