Does musl build error with gcc-4.9.2+ git repo resolved

Does musl build error with gcc-4.9.2+ git repo resolved

[vlse]

I want to know whether the gcc 4.9.x bug bugzilla id 61144 resolved with latest git/svn branch of gcc-4.9.x.

That bugzilla page says bug 61144 has been resolved. Anybody has confirmed it? Has musl changed it's build scripts to account that?

Re: Does musl build error with gcc-4.9.2+ git repo resolved

[Timo Teras]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:52:35 +0530
vlse <vlse@veera.biz> wrote:

> I want to know whether the gcc 4.9.x bug bugzilla id 61144 resolved
> with latest git/svn branch of gcc-4.9.x.
> 
> That bugzilla page says bug 61144 has been resolved. Anybody has
> confirmed it? Has musl changed it's build scripts to account that?

There was a workaround commit in musl for this earlier:
http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=a6adb2bcd8145353943377d6119c1d7a4242bae1

This said, we've been running gcc 4.9.2 + musl on Alpine Linux edge for
a reasonable time with success. Then again, we mostly dynamic link, and
IIRC this bug affects only static linking.

/Timo

Re: Does musl build error with gcc-4.9.2+ git repo resolved

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:52:35AM +0530, vlse wrote:
> I want to know whether the gcc 4.9.x bug bugzilla id 61144 resolved
> with latest git/svn branch of gcc-4.9.x.
> 
> That bugzilla page says bug 61144 has been resolved. Anybody has
> confirmed it? Has musl changed it's build scripts to account that?

I haven't done detailed tests to confirm, but I believe the bug is
fixed in 4.9.2. However there's another very serious bug that affects
4.9.2 and possibly all 4.9.x releases causing incorrect code gen:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307

On the musl side, we worked aroung bug 61144 with gratuitous use of
volatile before 4.9.2 was released. This workaround might be reverted
at some point in the future if the affected versions are deemed too
buggy for any distros to keep them around.

Rich

Re: Does musl build error with gcc-4.9.2+ git repo resolved

[Jens Gustedt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1955 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 08:02 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:52:35AM +0530, vlse wrote:
> > I want to know whether the gcc 4.9.x bug bugzilla id 61144 resolved
> > with latest git/svn branch of gcc-4.9.x.
> > 
> > That bugzilla page says bug 61144 has been resolved. Anybody has
> > confirmed it? Has musl changed it's build scripts to account that?
> 
> I haven't done detailed tests to confirm, but I believe the bug is
> fixed in 4.9.2. However there's another very serious bug that affects
> 4.9.2 and possibly all 4.9.x releases causing incorrect code gen:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
> 
> On the musl side, we worked aroung bug 61144 with gratuitous use of
> volatile before 4.9.2 was released. This workaround might be reverted
> at some point in the future if the affected versions are deemed too
> buggy for any distros to keep them around.

I have another bug in 4.9 that is really nasty and for which the
minimal code to produce is very lengthy and contrived. So much that I
didn't even yet reported it because I wanted to cook it down a bit,
still. For the moment it involves at least 15 levels of nested for
loops and setjmp/longjmp. The bug then has the compiler crash, but who
knows what it produces if it doesn't crash for code that is more
normal.

There are other issues (but perhaps related) that are really
suspicious with that line of gcc. The static analyser seems to be
screwed and tells me about lack of initialization for variables that
are initialized.

So I wouldn't trust 4.9 one bit for anything related to production.

Jens

-- 
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536   ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183   ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::




[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]