X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D25963858039 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=t-online.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=HBBroeker AT t-online DOT de Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Test: {mingw64-{i686,x86_64}-,}gcc-11.1.0-0.1 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <87mtszzsvd DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <29a53ee2-cac3-6815-792d-36f96be47bd1 AT towo DOT net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hans-Bernhard_Br=c3=b6ker?= Message-ID: <5d911b7f-70c6-01f5-a353-d8735be46ecd@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 21:33:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <29a53ee2-cac3-6815-792d-36f96be47bd1@towo.net> Content-Language: de-DE X-ID: VygkvGZ18h1x+de31X2GcjRV2FkUR7mPBIEa2MRzFLTZljNWzZNArx5t7zzM789ZhS X-TOI-EXPURGATEID: 150726::1620934403-0000B3FF-6F030DF4/0/0 CLEAN NORMAL X-TOI-MSGID: 1cb3ba82-841b-4142-9d3b-4a3c7bbc5f8a X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Am 13.05.2021 um 10:57 schrieb Thomas Wolff: > The crash vanishes after removing a few lines from a conditional (if > block) where the condition is false. A conditions that's always false, or one that's false during the execution of a particular test case? > This smells like wrong calculation of a relative jump (Intel "short > jump") by the optimizer. If it were that simple, the problematic change should stand out like the proverbial sore thumb when comparing assembly listings of the two cases. Does it? -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple