--- Comment #11 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-09 00:39 ---
Let's consider this PR as only the -O1 and above bug that has been confirmed
and regression hunted. Another PR can be opened for the -O0 bug that does not
appear to be as general -- it may be a problem with WRS running
--- Comment #10 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-09 00:21 ---
A regression hunt using the testcase from comment #7 compiled with -O1, with a
powerpc-linux compiler configured with --enable-sjlj-exceptions, identified the
following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&
--- Comment #9 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-09 00:13 ---
Aaron, I had not noticed that the stack pointer is modified in some of the code
that I had thought looked correct. My example works correctly with -O0 for
powerpc-linux with sjlj exceptions for 4.0 and 4.1 branches, b
--- Comment #8 from atgraham at gmail dot com 2006-08-08 23:21 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I don't get any failures with the 4.0-branch for powerpc-linux with sjlj
> exceptions. Here's the executable test case I'm using for a regression hunt:
Janis,
Thank you for looking into this.
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-08 21:08 ---
I don't get any failures with the 4.0-branch for powerpc-linux with sjlj
exceptions. Here's the executable test case I'm using for a regression hunt:
extern "C" void abort (void);
void *pc, *
--- Comment #6 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-08 20:49 ---
Oops, I meant that for 4.1 powerpc-linux with sjlj exceptions, it passes for
-O0 but fails for -O[s123]. I'm trying 4.0 now, then will back up if I see
problems with 4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-08 20:35 ---
David asked me to run a regression hunt on this, but I'm very confused about
when the problem occurs, since some of the submitter's examples look just fine
to me. Here's what it looks like to me, based on the generate
--- Comment #4 from atgraham at gmail dot com 2006-08-05 21:11 ---
Actually, it turns out that gcc versions before the 4.1 series all get it wrong
too, at -O0. The bug gets masked when introducing optimization. Here is the
-O0 output from 4.0.3:
g++-4.0.3 -O0 -msoft-float -mcpu=405 -c
--- Comment #3 from atgraham at gmail dot com 2006-08-05 16:58 ---
This may not be related to 19774 as I had originally thought. This failure
case is new as of 4.1.0. GCC version 4.0.3 gets it right:
g++-4.0.3 -Os -msoft-float -mcpu=405 -c bug.cc -fno-inline -Wall -dA
:
0
--- Comment #2 from atgraham at gmail dot com 2006-07-27 02:47 ---
This bug appears to only happen when the compiler is built with SjLj
exceptions. When the compiler is built for dwarf2 exceptions, this test case
(and my original problem area) are both correct:
:
0: 94 21
--- Comment #1 from atgraham at gmail dot com 2006-07-26 15:42 ---
Actually, the for loop is unnecessary. Here's a shorter version that displays
the same problem:
struct Command {
virtual ~Command() {}
};
void tryfunc() {
Command cmd;
throw 1;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Component|c++ |target
http:
12 matches
Mail list logo
