On 3/13/18, PkmX via arch-general wrote:

Hi,

AFAIK this is the exact case of gcc bugzilla #84607:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84607

As this is an upstream bug this should affect all distributions, maybe the commenter on Debian is using 7.3.1 so he can't reproduce the issue?

Let's not forget that Debian is patch happy (as is Ubuntu, logically), especially for gcc. Mostly for good reason but quite a bit is too many diffs: https://sources.debian.org/src/gcc-7/7.3.0-11/debian/patches/ It's quite possible that the snapshot plus diffs fixes/hides the bug on Debian. Fedora is another distro that is very happy to carry many diffs for some packages. Thinks of the version string like git-gc-7.3.1+dirty in mainstream distros. It's like a downstream branch.

On 03/13/2018 02:17 AM, PkmX via arch-general wrote:

Hi,

AFAIK this is the exact case of gcc bugzilla #84607:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84607

As this is an upstream bug this should affect all distributions, maybe the commenter on Debian is using 7.3.1 so he can't reproduce the issue?

That is good to know that it is being addressed. I can see this current handling of optimizations causing many of subtle non-traceable and just plain "wonky" errors that have been see these past few days. I thought the guy who posted it was nuts... It built and had the correct output on SuSE, but when I tried it on Arch - WTF? they was right. Who knows in how many subtle ways that could manifest itself. I've convinced it is as the root of the (Out of IOMMU space) error I have in the logs, and more than likely it is responsible for my hardlocks on the big servers. We will be looking for a fix -- hopefully soon. Thank you for letting me know. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

On 03/13/2018 03:28 PM, mar77i via arch-general wrote:

On 03/13/2018 02:17 AM, PkmX via arch-general wrote:

...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84607

Pass -std=... to compiling the programi n question. If it's in clear deviation of what the respective standard dictates, it's a bug.

​Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.​

Yes, confirmed it was indeed a bug: $ gcc -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c11 -o bin/infunc2 infunc2.c $ ./bin/infunc2 In main And, with Jelle van der Waa's suggestion, I loaded clang (which I never otherwise install) and it confirms the issue further: $ clang -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c11 -o infunc2 infunc2.c $ ./infunc2 In func In main The only part I'm unclear on is where in the fix process https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84607 is on getting fixed and when that will trickle down to us. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

On 03/14/2018 04:26 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

As I suggested, create a bugtracker issue for gcc on our bugtracker otherwise you'll have to wait on a new gcc minor release.

Someone already did. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57823 -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

On 03/14/2018 03:44 AM, Bastian Beischer wrote:

The fix is available in the trunk and the gcc7 branch, but there hasn't been a release yet. It will be in GCC 7.4.0 and GCC 8.1.0 when they come. If you need the fix before that you need to open a ticket on bugs.archlinux.org and ask for a backport of that particular bugfix.

Yes, thanks, I see that somebody beat me to it. Thank you. https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=details&action=details.addvote&task_id=57823 -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

On 03/14/2018 06:52 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: <quote> This was *probably* an accident (flyspray links are sort of weird for reloading the page and replacing the current url with this at all); nevertheless, please don't do this again... </quote> Oh, sorry, and yes this was definitely an accident. While I see the logic behind the *probably* comment, I assure you that wasn't intention, I simply double-clicked the content of the address window and pasted -- will make sure that does not happen again.... -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

On 3/15/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:

Good news, I guess, is that we will almost certainly switch to bugzilla as soon as Harmony brings stable psgi support (Soon™).

Harmony? PSGI? I like Bugzilla's features, and I don't use arch's tracker enough to have a voice, or maintain it to have a say, but I would still like to provide an opinion. It's just an opinion. Having used large bugzilla installations like mozilla.org, kernel.org, freedesktop.org, it doesn't look like Bugzilla can be fast. I've found Mantis and to some extend Redmine to be fast and lean trackers. These may or may not suit Arch's needs, and I still have hope Bugzilla will at some point become snappy. Just an opinion based on experience, the arch admins/devs will know why bugzilla is the right choice. I trust them.

On 03/15/18 at 09:29pm, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:

On 3/15/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:

...

Good news, I guess, is that we will almost certainly switch to bugzilla as soon as Harmony brings stable psgi support (Soon™).

Harmony? PSGI?

I like Bugzilla's features, and I don't use arch's tracker enough to have a voice, or maintain it to have a say, but I would still like to provide an opinion. It's just an opinion. Having used large bugzilla installations like mozilla.org, kernel.org, freedesktop.org, it doesn't look like Bugzilla can be fast. I've found Mantis and to some extend Redmine to be fast and lean trackers. These may or may not suit Arch's needs, and I still have hope Bugzilla will at some point become snappy.

Just an opinion based on experience, the arch admins/devs will know why bugzilla is the right choice. I trust them.

Please don't de-rail the thread. (Obviously the Arch devs also want a performing bugtracker, but Flyspray has to go either way) -- Jelle van der Waa