https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93765
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #24 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #23)
> (In reply to Levi Zim from comment #11)
> > It comes with a similar pattern that .gnu.lto_.jmpfuncs.1 is the most
> > different section ignoring offset differences and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
See Als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #22 from Levi Zim ---
This no longer reproduces for gcc 15.1.1+r7+gf36ec88aa85a.
I am not sure if the underlying bug is solved or the trigger no longer
triggers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #20 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #18)
> * Bisecting between basepoints/gcc-15 and trunk for a difference in a
> constant source file (reduced gimple-match-6.cc from
> r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016) yields r15-7652
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #19 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #18)
-fdisable-tree-sccp doesn't help but -fno-tree-ccp does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
Made a little bit of progress. I have it semi-standalone but it needs headers
from the same directory.
* Script to reproduce the comparison failure on trunk:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=612
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61314
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61314&action=edit
compare.sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
Looks like with it partly reduced (still nothing worth sharing, as it's not
standalone, needs headers (am manually inlining) and preprocessing makes it
work) I can drop -g* and it still miscompares.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #14)
> OK, I think it might be a GC issue.
>
> It's very sensitive to small changes (clang-format, for example, makes it
> work). The preprocessed version also works. Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
OK,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
https://dev.gentoo.org/~sam/bugs/gcc/119977/gimple-match.tar.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #12 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61230
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61230&action=edit
build.log (after, r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61222|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
No, that gives the same result (no diff). I made a mistake somewhere. I'll take
a break and try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> OK, if I run:
> ```
> /home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/xg++
> [...]
> gimple-match-6-stage2.ii -o b -fchecking=1
> ```
This should say -o a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Ugh, let me just paste the right ones, sorry.
OK, if I run:
```
/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/xg++
-B/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/
-B/home/sam/prefix/gcc-after/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
OK, if I run:
```
/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/xg++
-B/home/sam/build/gcc-after/./stage2-gcc/
-B/home/sam/prefix/gcc-after/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++
-B/home/sam/build/gcc-after/stage2-x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61226
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61226&action=edit
gimple-match-6.ii.xz (after, r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016, stage3)
The stage3 .ii is of course the same except for line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61225&action=edit
gimple-match-6.ii.xz (after, r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016, stage2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61224
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61224&action=edit
gimple-match-6.ii.xz (before, r16-151-g996729efbf6d0d)
The patch I applied to get -fchecking=1 to see if it helped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Anyway, this one bisects to r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016 with a mismatch in
>gimple-match-6.o.
On that note can you attach the preprocessed source of gimple-match-6.cc and
the full command line used to compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Anyway, this one bisects to r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016 with a mismatch in
> gimple-match-6.o.
That looks like just source change exposed the issue.
Is there a way to generate a -6 preprocessed source and b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> It also goes away if I apply -fchecking=1 to stage2.
Hmm, this could point to someone missing an update_stmt. Or something similar
as the verifiers cause updates when the pass didn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977
Bug ID: 119977
Summary: [16 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure with
-march=znver4 -ggdb3 and bootstrap-lto since
r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6675cf3abd09731ec8360ba8ac8928b63b33b7bb
commit r12-11035-g6675cf3abd09731ec8360ba8ac8928b63b33b7bb
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #19 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a2e39a5349a36deea33f5fb078edfe658daaf50
commit r13-9521-g1a2e39a5349a36deea33f5fb078edfe658daaf50
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31e31bbeea657496eaa2d8bf629f6e61c6cd1266
commit r14-11600-g31e31bbeea657496eaa2d8bf629f6e61c6cd1266
Author: Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07de7717a22b1503760e9b79dfbe22a0f428
commit r15-9334-g07de7717a22b1503760e9b79dfbe22a0f428
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org|rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #14 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> diff --git a/gcc/lra-remat.cc b/gcc/lra-remat.cc
> index 2f3afffcf5b..5f823193aa7 100644
> --- a/gcc/lra-remat.cc
> +++ b/gcc/lra-remat.cc
> @@ -460,7 +46
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/lra-remat.cc b/gcc/lra-remat.cc
index bb13c616a74..2f3afffcf5b 100644
--- a/gcc/lra-remat.cc
+++ b/gcc/lra-remat.cc
@@ -459,7 +459,8 @@ create_cands (void)
if (insn2 != NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/lra-remat.cc b/gcc/lra-remat.cc
index 2f3afffcf5b..5f823193aa7 100644
--- a/gcc/lra-remat.cc
+++ b/gcc/lra-remat.cc
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ create_cands (void)
&& dst_regno >=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like inheritance goes wrong, no inheritance with debug insns, inheritance
w/o debug insns:
c4: 89 34 24mov%esi,(%esp)
c7: 8b 10 mov(%eax),%edx
c9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 61051
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61051&action=edit
reduced.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 61048
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61048&action=edit
a bit reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While in *.ira it was the same:
-(insn 12915 12914 12923 384 (set (reg:DI 711 [ _1446 ])
+(insn 12915 12914 2776 384 (set (reg:DI 711 [ _1446 ])
(zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 771 [ _1682 ])))
"/space/rgue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|comparison failure on |comparison failure on
|i586-linux |i586-linux since r15-9239
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r15-9239-g4d7a634f6d41029811cdcbd5f7282b5b07890094
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 61047
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61047&action=edit
preprocessed source
Adding -fcompare-debug to the ipa-fnsummary.o compile in stage2 or stage3 fails
with
xg+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i586-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I've used glibc 2.38 and binutils 2.43.1 and the host compiler is GCC 7 from
SLES 15 SP6. I'm now tying w/o custom BOOT_CFLAGS. I suspect this is a
compare-debug issue, but will have to verify that as wel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119689
Bug ID: 119689
Summary: [15 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on
i586-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #21 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #18)
> (In reply to Levi Zim from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Levi Zim from comment #15)
> > >
> > > As long as the flag is p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #20 from Levi Zim ---
I have minified it to the following commands:
git -C gcc checkout 1cd744a6828f6ab9179906d16434ea40b6404737
mkdir gcc-build && cd $_
export CFLAGS="-march=rv64gc -mabi=lp64d -O2 -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -g
-ffil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #19 from Levi Zim ---
Another trigger flag, a little surprisingly, is
-ffile-prefix-map=/build/gcc/src=/usr/src/debug/gcc in CFLAGS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #18 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Levi Zim from comment #17)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Levi Zim from comment #15)
> >
> > As long as the flag is passed correctly and applied to both the stage2 +
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #17 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> (In reply to Levi Zim from comment #15)
>
> As long as the flag is passed correctly and applied to both the stage2 +
> stage3 builds, then the flag can't be to blame (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #16 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Levi Zim from comment #15)
As long as the flag is passed correctly and applied to both the stage2 + stage3
builds, then the flag can't be to blame (just a trigger for it, rather than
some problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #15 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #14)
> Thanks. Please try to reproduce it manually next.
If I didn't revert that commit, then bisection of the CFLAGS shows that
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 is what causes the bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #14 from Sam James ---
Thanks. Please try to reproduce it manually next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #13 from Levi Zim ---
Our full gcc 14.2.1+r753+g1cd744a6828f toolchain could bootstrap with
3228df20cfa3581015dc32657eb17d6f24af3104 reverted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Bug 118802 depends on bug 116961, which changed state.
Bug 116961 Summary: [12/13/14 regression] Valgrind reports uninitialized memory
use in dstruct.d (dmd.dstruct._isZeroInit(dmd.expression.Expression))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #12 from Levi Zim ---
The bad commit is 3228df20cfa3581015dc32657eb17d6f24af3104 "rtl: Remove invalid
compare simplification" [PR117186]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #11 from Levi Zim ---
When building 14.2.1+r711+g3228df20cfa3, I got a different object that is
different between stage 2 and 3:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
Bootstrap comparison failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #10 from Levi Zim ---
Sometimes I didn't get the comparison failure but a hard ICE instead:
*** stack smashing detected ***: terminated
during RTL pass: combine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #9 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> Thanks. First, try strip out various bits from the packaging like
> STAGE1_*FLAGS (which is only really safe if you're 100% sure the stage1
> compiler is robust, and I wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Can you link me to your packaging script? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #7 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Levi Zim from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Can you attach the preprocessed source for rust-lex.cc ?
> >
> > The big difference between stage1 and stage2 is debug inf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
Thanks. First, try strip out various bits from the packaging like STAGE1_*FLAGS
(which is only really safe if you're 100% sure the stage1 compiler is robust,
and I would not make that bet for riscv at this time)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #6 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5)
> Can you link me to your packaging script? Thanks.
Our packaging script is a patch[1] over Arch Linux's one[2].
After applying the patch, it is https://paste.rs/578r4
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #4 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you attach the preprocessed source for rust-lex.cc ?
>
> The big difference between stage1 and stage2 is debug info.
Here are the preprocessed source (*.ii, *.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||116961
--- Comment #24 from Sam James ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #23 from Iain Buclaw ---
@Sam, I have a suspicion that this is related to PR116961.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #3 from Levi Zim ---
Weird. It seems that I cannot reproduce it outside of our packaging infra.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
--- Comment #2 from Levi Zim ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you attach the preprocessed source for rust-lex.cc ?
Do you mean re-running the command that produces rust-lex.o but with
-save-temps?
> The big difference betw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119012
Bug ID: 119012
Summary: [riscv] Bootstrap comparison failure:
gcc/rust/rust-lex.o differs
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #22 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #16)
> Bisected to r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace (not CCing anyone yet as not enough
> useful information).
There's a new patch in [1] which will revert the commit and may fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
I understand, thanks. I'll keep whittling it down.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60544|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #17 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60544&action=edit
gcc-bug.sh
I can reproduce with this script at least. I'll try cut it down next.
] Bootstrap |[15 regression] Bootstrap
|comparison failure on |comparison failure on
|libphobos/libdruntime/core/ |libphobos/libdruntime/core/
|internal/gc/impl/conservati |internal/gc/impl/conservati
|ve/gc.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |bootstrap
--- Comment #15 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #14 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> Thanks Iain.
>
> Building stage0 with STAGE1_C{,XX}FLAGS="-O0" works. I'll try reproduce
> manually next.
At the bottom of the conservative/gc.d module (well, almos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #13 from Sam James
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #12 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1)
> The differences are odd.
>
> ```
> $ diffoscope
> ./work/build/stage2-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libphobos/libdruntime/core/
> internal/gc/impl/conservative/gc.o
> ./wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #11 from Sam James ---
```
--- stage2-gc.d.010t.omplower 2025-02-18 17:37:52.789497648 +
+++ stage3-gc.d.010t.omplower 2025-02-18 17:38:00.421354601 +
@@ -5910,7 +5910,7 @@
-;; Function __xtoHash
(_D4core8internal2gc4i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #10 from Sam James ---
(I pasted the wrong command and used the wrong one in script.)
At least I can reproduce it consistently with:
```
cd
/var/tmp/portage.notmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/gcc-15.0./libphobos/libdrunt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
wtf?
```
--- stage2-gc.d.006t.original 2025-02-18 17:30:33.525730918 +
+++ stage3-gc.d.006t.original 2025-02-18 17:30:42.471563243 +
@@ -26,12 +26,12 @@
{
struct ConservativeGC * gc;
- gc = (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #8 from Sam James ---
At least I can reproduce it consistently with:
```
cd
/var/tmp/portage.notmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./work/gcc-15.0./libphobos/libdruntime
# build stage2 gc
/var/tmp/portage.notmp/portage/sys-devel/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #4 from Sam Jam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93765
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93765
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #3 from Sam James ---
I only hit this on one machine and at first I was suspicious of HW failure or
something but it's consistent. Not tried to repro it manually yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 60430
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60430&action=edit
gcc-118802.tar.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
The differences are odd.
```
$ diffoscope
./work/build/stage2-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libphobos/libdruntime/core/internal/gc/impl/conservative/gc.o
./work/build/stage3-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/32/libphobos/libdruntim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
Bug ID: 118802
Summary: [15 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on
libphobos/libdruntime/core/internal/gc/impl/conservati
ve/gc.o
Product: gcc
Version
1 - 100 of 1018 matches
Mail list logo
