I am attempting to compile a C++ code using gcc/5.3 on Scientific Linux release 6.7. I keep getting the following errors whenever I run my Makefile though:
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s:768: Error: no such instruction: `shlx %rax,%rdx,%rdx'
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s:1067: Error: no such instruction: `shlx %rax,%rdx,%rdx'
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s:6229: Error: no such instruction: `mulx %r10,%rcx,%rbx'
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s:6248: Error: no such instruction: `mulx %r13,%rcx,%rbx'
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s:7109: Error: no such instruction: `mulx %r10,%rcx,%rbx'
/tmp/ccjZqIED.s:7128: Error: no such instruction: `mulx %r13,%rcx,%rbx'
I've attmpted to follow the advice from this question with no change to my output:
Compile errors with Assembler messages
My compiler options are currently:
CXXFLAGS = -g -Wall -O0 -pg -std=c++11
Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this?
This means that GCC is outputting an instruction that your assembler doesn't support. Either that's coming from inline asm in the source code, or that shouldn't happen, and suggests that you have compiled GCC on a different machine with a newer assembler, then copied it to another machine where it doesn't work properly.
Assuming those instructions aren't used explicitly in an asm statement you should be able to tell GCC not to emit those instructions with a suitable flag such as -mno-avx (or whatever flag is appropriate to disable use of those particular instructions).
#jonathan-wakely's answer is correct in that the assembler, which your compiler invokes, does not understand the assembly code, which your compiler generates.
As to why that happens, there are multiple possibilities:
You installed the newer compiler by hand without also updating your assembler
Your compiler generates 64-bit instructions, but assembler is limited to 32-bit ones for some reason
Disabling AVX (-mno-avx) is unlikely to help, because it is not explicitly requested either -- there is no -march in the quoted CXXFLAGS. If it did help, then you did not show us all of the compiler flags -- it would've been best, if you simply included the entire compiler command-line.
If my suspicion is correct in 1. above, then you should build and/or install the latest binutils package, which will provide as aware of AVX instructions, among other things. You would then need to rebuild the compiler with the --with-as=/path/to/the/updated/as flag passed to configure.
If your Linux installation is 32-bit only (suspicion 2.), then you should not be generating 64-bit binaries at all. It is possible, but not trivial...
Do post the output of uname -a and your entire compiler command-line leading to the above error-messages.
Related
I understand the general concept of using optimization flags like -O2 and ending up having had things optimized out, makes sense. But what does it mean for the 'this' function parameter in a gdb frame to be optimized out? Does it mean the use of an Object was determined to be entirely pointless, and that it, and the following function call was elided from existence? Is it indicative of a function having been inlined? Is it indicative of the function call having been elided?
How would I go about investigating further? This occurs with both -O0 and -Og.
If it makes any difference, this is with an ARM process. I'm doing remote debugging using GNU gdbserver (GDB) 7.12.1.20170417-git and 'gdb-multiarch' GNU gdb (Ubuntu 8.1.1-0ubuntu1) 8.1.1.
But what does it mean for the 'this' function parameter in a gdb frame to be optimized out?
It means that GDB doesn't have sufficient debug info to understand the current value of this.
It could happen for two reasons:
the compiler failed to emit relevant debug info
the info is there, but GDB failed to understand it
GCC used to do (1) a lot with -O2 and higher optimization levels, but that has been significantly improved around 2015-2016. I have never seen <optimized out> with GCC at -O0.
Clang still does (1) with -O2 and above on x86_64 in 2022, but again I've never seen it do that at -O0.
How would I go about investigating further?
You can run readelf --debug-dump ./a.out and see what info is present in the binary. Beware -- there is a lot of info, and making sense of it requires understanding of what's supposed to be there.
Or you could file a bugzilla issue with exact compiler and debugger versions and compilation command, attach a small binary, and hope that someone will look.
But first make sure you still get this behavior from the latest released version of GCC and GDB (or the current tip-of-trunk versions if you can build them).
I am attempting to compile a C++ library for a Tegra TK1. The library links to TBB, which I pulled using the package manager. During compilation I got the following error
/tmp/cc4iLbKz.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc4iLbKz.s:9541: Error: thumb conditional instruction should be in IT block -- `strexeq r2,r3,[r4]'
A bit of googling and this question led me to try adding -mimplicit-it=thumb to CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS, but the compiler doesn't recognize it.
I am compiling on the tegra with kernal 3.10.40-grinch-21.3.4, and using gcc 4.8.4 compiler (thats what comes back when I type c++ -v)
I'm not sure what the initial error message means, though I think it has something to do with the TBB linked library rather than the source I'm compiling. The problem with the fix is also mysterious. Can anyone shed some light on this?
-mimplicit-it is an option to the assembler, not to the compiler. Thus, in the absence of specific assembler flags in your makefile (which you probably don't have, given that you don't appear to be using a separate assembler step), you'll need to use the -Wa option to the compiler to pass it through, i.e. -Wa,-mimplicit-it=thumb.
The source of the issue is almost certainly some inline assembly - possibly from a static inline in a header file if you're really only linking pre-built libraries - which contains conditionally-executed instructions (I'm going to guess its something like a cmpxchg implementation). Since your toolchain could well be configured to compile to the Thumb instruction set - which requires a preceding it (If-Then) instruction to set up conditional instructions - by default, another alternative might be to just compile with -marm (and/or remove -mthumb if appropriate) and sidestep the issue by not using Thumb at all.
Adding compiler option:
-wa
should solve the problem.
I have a project that uses OpenMP (which doesn't seem to be available in the current OS X default clang setup) but would also like to use LTO. I have sections of the code in SIMD intrinsics using SSE4 and found that G++ was unable to link this code without using the OS X provided clang linker (flag -Wa,-q). G++ 5.10 is installed via Homebrew and compiled with without multilib.
I can compile with LTO using clang but then I lose the parallel 'for's, when I add -flto to G++ I get:
lto1: internal compiler error: in add_symbol_to_partition_1, at lto/lto-partition.c:211
lto1: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6
g++-5: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6 (program lto1)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/issues> for instructions.
lto-wrapper: fatal error: g++-5 returned 4 exit status
compilation terminated.
collect2: fatal error: lto-wrapper returned 1 exit status
compilation terminated.
This also occurs without -Wa,-q if I remove the intrinsics so that it can compile the remaining code.
I have tried a simple two file program that compiles fine with LTO in G++ so I'm not sure what the problem is. Whilst LTO doesn't seem to make a huge amount of difference to this code, in clang I've measured about 7% which is non-negligible as the program takes a while to run.
I know the error says to submit a bug report but I don't want to unless I know it's not just my own stupidity.
Does anyone have experience of this sort of problem, or have I actually run into a compiler bug? (haven't come across one before to my knowledge)
Cheers!
Compilers are never supposed to report ICEs. It's a bug. It may already be a reported bug, but it is most certainly a bug.
I'm compiling DCP-O-Matic on a Raspberry Pi 2 and am getting the following warning:
/tmp/ccu6rDcg.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccu6rDcg.s:4208: Warning: swp{b} use is deprecated for ARMv6 and ARMv7
I've passed "-mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=neon" to the compiler, but I still get the warnings. I'm pretty sure there is something in the Linux kernel that makes this warning irrelevant, but I would really like to solve this.
This post has a lot of good information, but I can't seem to find the right switches to prevent the warnings. I've verified that there is no explicit assembler code using swp{b}.
Can anyone recommend the best way to clear these warnings? I really am kind of anal about compilation warnings. ;) I figure if there's a warning, there's a fix.
To clarify, I'm interested in how to get the gcc toolchain to emit the correct LDREX/STREX instructions, rather than swap{b}.
You can disable the warning with -mno-warn-deprecated. A quick grep of the source code doesn't seem to show a use of inline asm, so perhaps it is in a header file of some library.
Incidentally, the Raspberry Pi 2 uses a Cortex-A7 processor, and you should get better performance if you build with -mcpu=cortex-a7 instead of -mcpu=cortex-a8.
For example, gcc 4.7 has a new feature -Wnarrowing. In configure.ac, how can I test where a feature is supported by the current gcc or not?
There's a file in gnulibc, but doesn't make much sense to me.
Both gcc and clang support -W[no-]narrowing and -W[no-]error=narrowing options.
With -std=c++11, gcc emits a warning by default, and clang emits an error by default. Even though you only mention gcc, I think you could extend the functionality check to compilers like clang that attempt to provide the same options and extensions. That might include Intel's icc too.
Let's assume you've selected the C++ compiler with AC_PROG_CXX, and have ensured that it's using the C++11 standard.
ac_save_CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS"
CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Werror -Wno-error=narrowing"
AC_LANG_PUSH([C++])
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
[[int i {1.0}; (void) i;]])],
[ac_cxx_warn_narrowing=1], [ac_cxx_warn_narrowing=0])
AS_IF([test $ac_cxx_warn_narrowing -ne 0],
[AC_MSG_RESULT(['$CXX' supports -Wnarrowing])])
AC_LANG_POP([C++])
CXXFLAGS="$ac_save_CXXFLAGS"
Compilation will only succeed if: 1) the compiler supports -Wnarrowing related options, which implies it supports -Werror, and: 2) recognizes C++11 initialization syntax.
Normally, configure.ac scripts and flags passed to configure should avoid -Werror, as it breaks too many internal tests. In this context, we ensure there are no other warnings besides the narrowing, which is why (void) i; is needed to prevent a warning about unused variables.
The logic behind this should probably be:
Create a correct file that should get a warning with -Wnarrowing. Verify that it gets compiled correctly. This is a sanity check.
Then compile that same file with -Wnarrowing, and verify that it still gets compiled correctly. This makes sure you detect compilers that don't support -Wnarrowing as an option, and don't attempt to pass bogus options to them.
Finally, compile that same file with -Werror=narrowing, and verify that it now does not get compiled correctly. If it now fails, you can be fairly certain that the compiler does indeed support -Wnarrowing. This last check is useful to detect compilers that do accept -Wnarrowing/-Werror=narrowing, but spit out a warning "ignoring unknown option -Wnarrowing". In that case, you shouldn't be passing -Wnarrowing.
Optionally, you may also want to compile a file that shouldn't get a warning with -Wnarrowing with -Werror=narrowing, in case you find a compiler where -Wnarrowing is useless and -Werror=narrowing is a hard error. I cannot think of a compiler where this would be required, though.
Translating this to a configure check should be trivial.
See http://code.google.com/p/opendoom/source/browse/trunk/VisualC8/autotools/ac_c_compile_flags.m4 for an example test of this sort - this tries to compile a trivial program with the given compiler flag, and adds it to CFLAGS if it works.