http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-06 07:24:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> This is PR 49972, reportedly fixed in binutils [1].
Er, the ice in gas with invalid .gcc_except_table is fixed in binutis.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-06 07:21:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> There are two remaining problems, an assert in "as", as reported in [2]
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C compilation, -Os -fprofile-use (internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #21 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-06 06:29:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html
Works ok on native alpha [1].
There are two remaining problems, an assert in "as", as reported in [
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #20 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-05
19:04:20 UTC ---
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #19 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-05
17:44:43 UTC ---
Err, it's slightly more complicated than that.
We're emitting *both* a frame from .ent/.end *and* a frame from .cfi.
The later has the personality info, and the former does not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #18 from Richard Henderson 2011-08-05
17:33:05 UTC ---
Argh. The problem is that if we emit both
.ent / .frame / .mask / .end
notes and .cfi directives, the .cfi directives get ignored.
Thus the .cfi_personality directive did n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-02 06:16:21
UTC ---
Still happens with unpatched compiler, gcc 4.7.0 20110801 [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-08/msg00190.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-15 07:08:46
UTC ---
Results with a patched compiler [1], no regressions.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg01678.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-14
21:34:16 UTC ---
Well, .cfi handling in gas isn't totally untested because
there's plenty of glibc asm files that use it.
But I have to concede that there might be a bug. We'll
have to examine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 21:27:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Just guessing now, but you might also want to try a different version of
> binutils - maybe there's a problem with .cfi directive handling?
Due to some othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-07-14
21:21:15 UTC ---
Just guessing now, but you might also want to try a different version of
binutils - maybe there's a problem with .cfi directive handling?
Or maybe this has just never been tested wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 21:12:13
UTC ---
Created attachment 24771
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24771
asm source at r176020
Indeed, reverting the patch from Comment 10 fixed cleanup-10.c execution
failur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-07-14
20:40:40 UTC ---
Well, the new use of .cfi directives probably comes from this bit that was
committed in between the two revisions:
Index: gcc/config/alpha/elf.h
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-14
20:37:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is
> using .cfi directives while the other isn't.
Lack of .cfi was caused by th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 20:34:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is
> using .cfi directives while the other isn't.
Yes, compiler is configured and bui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 20:32:01
UTC ---
Created attachment 24769
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24769
Preprocessed source.
Gzipped cleanup-10.i preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-07-14
20:16:38 UTC ---
Are you sure these were configured the same way? One of the output files is
using .cfi directives while the other isn't.
Could you post a .i file? cleanup-10.c needs headers...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 19:57:21
UTC ---
Created attachment 24768
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24768
good executable, contents of the .eh_frame section
good: file format elf64-alpha
Contents of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 19:56:17
UTC ---
Created attachment 24767
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24767
bad executable, contents of the .eh_frame section
bad: file format elf64-alpha
Contents of the .e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 19:39:17
UTC ---
Created attachment 24766
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24766
asm source that compiles to good executable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2011-07-14 19:37:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 24765
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24765
asm source that compiles to good executable
This asm was produced by compiling gcc.dg/cleanup-10.c wit
24 matches
Mail list logo