* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
@ 2003-06-01 17:57 ` marcus@mc.pp.se
2003-06-08 18:58 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
` (42 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus@mc.pp.se @ 2003-06-01 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus@mc.pp.se 2003-06-01 17:57 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
"dhazeghi@yahoo.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I can confirm that on gcc 3.3 branch and mainline (20030527), the same faulty code is still
> produced. Which previous snapshot do you find this to be a regression against?
To the best of my knowledge, the 20030113 snapshot did not have this
problem. (Sorry that I can't just test to make sure, but I don't have
the binaries anymore.)
// Marcus
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
2003-06-01 17:57 ` [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing marcus@mc.pp.se
@ 2003-06-08 18:58 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-28 1:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (41 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-06-08 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
2003-06-01 17:57 ` [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing marcus@mc.pp.se
2003-06-08 18:58 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-06-28 1:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2003-07-11 22:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (40 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2003-06-28 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
Priority|P3 |P1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-28 1:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2003-07-11 22:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-07 14:28 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (39 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-11 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.3.1 |3.3.2
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-11 22:55 -------
Postponed until GCC 3.3.2: SH is not a primary platform.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-11 22:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-07 14:28 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-12 6:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (38 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-07 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
GCC build triplet|sparc-sun-solaris2.8 |
GCC host triplet|sparc-sun-solaris2.8 |
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-07 14:28 -------
Confirmed on i586-redhat-linux-gnu as of gcc version 3.3.2 20030904
(prerelease). This is tricky reload problem, which is related to the range of
immediate constants accepted by the 'add' instructions (so the bug doesn't show
up with buf[126] and below).
I cleared the 'host' field since the bug is not SPARC-specific.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-07 14:28 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-12 6:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-12 7:42 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (37 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-12 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|
|org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-12 06:56 -------
Trying to fix the reload pass.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-12 6:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-12 7:42 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-09-12 8:18 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (36 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-12 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
dank at kegel dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dank at kegel dot com
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-12 07:42 -------
Thanks! BTW are you going to submit a testcase for the testsuite,
too (or is there already one)?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-12 7:42 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-09-12 8:18 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-12 19:12 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
` (35 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-12 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-12 08:18 -------
It would be nice to have a testcase (a runnable one of course). Could you write
it and post it here (I don't have access to SH hardware)? I'll commit it along
with my patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-12 8:18 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-12 19:12 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
2003-09-12 22:27 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (34 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus at mc dot pp dot se @ 2003-09-12 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus at mc dot pp dot se 2003-09-12 19:06 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
Here is the reproduction recipe reworked as a runnable testsuite test.
If the program exits with code 0, the compiler is ok. If it exits
with code 1 or segfaults, the compiler is not ok.
---8<--- test.c ---8<---
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
char res[128];
char *use(char *z)
{
strncat(res, z, 10);
return "X";
}
void func(char *a, char *b)
{
char buf[128];
unsigned char i;
char *item[] = {
"one",
"two",
};
strcpy(buf, "buf");
for(i=0; i<2; i++) {
char *x;
use(item[i]);
x = use(buf);
use(a);
use(b);
use(x);
}
}
int main()
{
strcpy(res, "<");
func("A", "B");
strcat(res, ">");
/* printf("res=\"%s\"\n", res); */
return strcmp(res, "<onebufABXtwobufABX>")? 1 : 0;
}
---8<---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-12 19:12 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
@ 2003-09-12 22:27 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-12 22:27 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
` (33 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-12 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-12 21:02 -------
Thanks, but testcases should be self-contained, that is they shouldn't include
header files. Testing the first character sent to use() and aborting if it is
unexpected should be good enough.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-12 22:27 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-12 22:27 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
2003-09-13 0:13 ` dkegel at ixiacom dot com
` (32 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus at mc dot pp dot se @ 2003-09-12 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus at mc dot pp dot se 2003-09-12 19:12 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
The flags -O2 -m4 will be needed for the testcase as well, of course.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-12 22:27 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
@ 2003-09-13 0:13 ` dkegel at ixiacom dot com
2003-09-13 1:25 ` dkegel at ixiacom dot com
` (31 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dkegel at ixiacom dot com @ 2003-09-13 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dkegel at ixiacom dot com 2003-09-12 23:08 -------
OK, how 'bout this? This reproduces the crash nicely,
and should be ready to check in as a dg testcase.
/* PR optimization/10392
* [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
* The address calculation of an index operation on an array on the stack
* can _under some conditions_ get messed up completely
*/
/* { dg-do run } */
const char *foo;
const char *use(const char *str)
{
foo = str;
return str[0] ? "apple" : "bannana";
}
const char *func(char *a, char *b)
{
char buf[128];
unsigned char i;
const char *result;
char *item[] = {
"one",
"two",
};
buf[0] = 'b';
buf[1] = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
/* bug is: following line crashes with SIGSEGV on sh4 -O2 */
result = use(item[i]);
use(buf);
use(a);
use(b);
result = use(result);
}
return result;
}
int main()
{
/* func never returns zero, so this will always exit with status 0,
* but the optimizer doesn't know that
*/
return func("a", "b") != 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 0:13 ` dkegel at ixiacom dot com
@ 2003-09-13 1:25 ` dkegel at ixiacom dot com
2003-09-13 9:58 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (30 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dkegel at ixiacom dot com @ 2003-09-13 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dkegel at ixiacom dot com 2003-09-12 23:10 -------
Er, except maybe the dg-do header needs to be changed a bit, I dunno.
I haven't tested it with dg, just standalone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 1:25 ` dkegel at ixiacom dot com
@ 2003-09-13 9:58 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-13 13:53 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
` (29 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-13 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-13 03:41 -------
Looks good. Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 9:58 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-13 13:53 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
2003-09-13 13:58 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (28 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus at mc dot pp dot se @ 2003-09-13 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus at mc dot pp dot se 2003-09-13 09:58 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
Two comments about this test case:
1) It does not SIGSEGV on NetBSD/dreamcast. The argument to use()
will point into the environment buffer, in my case it points to
"VENDOR=unknown". But as long as it actually segfaults on the
machine you're using to run these tests, I suppose that's ok...
2) Because func() never returns zero, the program always exits with
status _1_, not 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 13:53 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
@ 2003-09-13 13:58 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-13 17:55 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (27 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-13 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-13 10:33 -------
It doesn't segfault on my machine since I don't have SH hardware :-)
I'd then strongly suggest to test str[0] in use() and put an abort(). And the
main function should always return 0 on success.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 13:58 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-13 17:55 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-09-13 22:24 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
` (26 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-13 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-13 14:14 -------
Thanks. I'll update my copy of the testcase with those corrections.
(I plan to submit a patch in a couple days with testcases for
this and a bunch other sh PRs.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 17:55 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-09-13 22:24 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
2003-09-15 17:44 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (25 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus at mc dot pp dot se @ 2003-09-13 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus at mc dot pp dot se 2003-09-13 21:13 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
What I don't get is why the testcase shouldn't include stuff that's
part of the C standard. Several other testcases already do. In
gcc.dg alone I count to 61 of them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-13 22:24 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
@ 2003-09-15 17:44 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-09-15 19:34 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
` (24 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-15 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-15 17:40 -------
I've prepared a patch to add a testcase for this PR to the testsuite; see
http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/gcc-3.3.1/pr10392-1-test.patch
I'll submit it to gcc-patches in a couple days if nobody squawks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-15 17:44 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-09-15 19:34 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
2003-09-16 5:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (23 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus at mc dot pp dot se @ 2003-09-15 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus at mc dot pp dot se 2003-09-15 18:14 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
I have tested this testcase on NetBSD/dreamcast, and it seems ok. One
thing though: Shouldn't dg-options include "-m4"? The bug will not
be trigged without this flag.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-15 19:34 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
@ 2003-09-16 5:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-09-16 13:22 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
` (22 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-16 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-16 01:23 -------
Perhaps. But then you'd need to restrict the test to only run
on sh4 targets, and on those targets, -m4 is given anyway, isn't it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-16 5:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-09-16 13:22 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
2003-09-16 18:43 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (21 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: marcus at mc dot pp dot se @ 2003-09-16 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From marcus at mc dot pp dot se 2003-09-16 11:07 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
On NetBSD/dreamcast -m4 is not default even though the CPU is a SH4,
since the binaries should be interoperable with other NetBSD/sh
ports. The question is of course: Does the machine which will be
running this regression test to detect the regression default to -m4?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-16 13:22 ` marcus at mc dot pp dot se
@ 2003-09-16 18:43 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-09-17 10:05 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-16 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-16 16:15 -------
Unfortunately, I can't think of a safe and effective way to specify -m4 right in
the testcase.
I could restrict the testcase to sh*-*-* and avoid failing
non-SH processors, but what about SH processors that can't run code
compiled with -m4?
I could restrict the testcase to sh4-*-*, and specify -m4; that would
make the intent clear, but wouldn't have run the test when e.g.
http://mc.pp.se/dc/files/gcc3.3toolchain_local.tar.bz2 was built,
as that used target shl-unknown-netbsdelf1.6T.
Any opinions?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-16 18:43 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-09-17 10:05 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-17 17:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (19 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-17 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-17 08:19 -------
I think
/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -m4" { target sh4-*-* } } */
is a good solution.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-17 10:05 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-17 17:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-09-18 5:41 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-17 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-17 17:09 -------
Roger, wilco!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-17 17:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-09-18 5:41 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-18 6:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-18 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-18 04:57 -------
What are your fullnames? I want to put them in the ChangeLog entry for the testcase.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (25 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-18 5:41 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-18 6:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-10-16 2:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-09-18 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-09-18 05:09 -------
I'm dank@kegel.com (Dan Kegel)
Google says the submitter is marcus@mc.pp.se (Marcus Comstedt)
Thanks for committing the testcase!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (26 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-18 6:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-10-16 2:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-16 4:29 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-16 2:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.3.2 |3.3.3
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-16 02:58 -------
It looks like we build a test-case here -- but never fixed the bug.
Postponed until GCC 3.3.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (27 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-16 2:58 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-16 4:29 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-16 6:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-16 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at codesourcery dot com
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-16 04:29 -------
Well, we fixed the bug:
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg01083.html
approval: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-10/msg00433.html
but: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg02076.html
and I still don't have any testcase...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (28 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-16 4:29 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-16 6:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
2003-10-16 6:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2003-10-16 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2003-10-16 06:40 -------
Oh, sorry. You mean a testcase derived from
ftp://shell14.ba.best.com/pub.t/tm2/stress-1.17.tar.gz
I would try, but I can't contact that host, and I can't find
another source.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (29 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-16 6:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2003-10-16 6:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-25 15:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-16 6:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-16 06:52 -------
Yes. I think we should be very cautious before letting the patch go in, because
reload is a very sensitive pass of the compiler.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (30 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-16 6:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-25 15:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-21 18:53 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-25 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |joern dot rennecke at superh
| |dot com
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-25 13:11 -------
I don't really know what to do with this PR. The current situation is:
- the patch was approved for 3.3 branch,
- the patch reportedly introduces a regression in a particular package on SH4,
- the bug doesn't show up on mainline (but is latent).
I give up, all the more that I don't have access to SH hardware. If a SH
maintainer wants to take care of it...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (31 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-25 15:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-21 18:53 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-14 8:08 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-21 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-21 18:45 -------
Joern --
This bug is present on both 3.3.x branch and mainline.
It has "Severity:" set to critical. Do you think we should
keep it open for 3.3.3? (There is virtually no chance I fix
this myself as I don't speak SH).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (32 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-21 18:53 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-14 8:08 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-14 19:03 ` joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-14 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-14 08:08 -------
There does not seem to be anything one can do for this before 3.3.3.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |minor
Priority|P1 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (33 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-14 8:08 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-14 19:03 ` joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
2004-01-14 19:37 ` joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: joern dot rennecke at superh dot com @ 2004-01-14 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From joern dot rennecke at superh dot com 2004-01-14 19:03 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
> ------- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-21 18:45 -------
> Joern --
>
> This bug is present on both 3.3.x branch and mainline.
> It has "Severity:" set to critical. Do you think we should
> keep it open for 3.3.3? (There is virtually no chance I fix
> this myself as I don't speak SH).
AFAICS the problem is no longer present in mainline; I've attached the output
I get with yesterday's compiler. When did you last reconfirm the bug?
The incorrect use of reload registers observed is consistent with
a problem in reg_overlap_mentioned_for_reload_p that I've fixed with
this patch:
2003-12-15 J"orn Rennecke <joern.rennecke@superh.com>
* reload.c (reg_overlap_mentioned_for_reload_p):
When looking at a PLUS in X, avoid spuriously returning nonzero
when IN is a REG or another simple PLUS, or a MEM containing one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg01299.html
.file "10392.c"
.text
.section .rodata.str1.4,"aMS",@progbits,1
.align 2
.LC0:
.string "one"
.align 2
.LC1:
.string "two"
.text
.align 1
.align 5
.global _func
.type _func, @function
_func:
mov.l r8,@-r15
mov.l r9,@-r15
mov.l r10,@-r15
mov #0,r10
mov.l r11,@-r15
mov r5,r11
mov.l r12,@-r15
mov r4,r12
mov.l r13,@-r15
mov #1,r13
mov.l r14,@-r15
sts.l pr,@-r15
mov.w .L13,r0
add #-68,r15
mov.l .L10,r1
add #-68,r15
mov r15,r14
add r14,r0
mov.l r1,@r0
mov.l .L11,r9
mov.l .L12,r1
mov.l r1,@(4,r0)
.L5:
mov.w .L13,r1
mov r10,r2
shll2 r2
mov r14,r0
add r2,r1
jsr @r9
mov.l @(r0,r1),r4
jsr @r9
mov r14,r4
mov r12,r4
jsr @r9
mov r0,r8
jsr @r9
mov r11,r4
jsr @r9
mov r8,r4
mov r10,r1
add #1,r1
extu.b r1,r10
cmp/hi r13,r10
bf .L5
add #68,r14
add #68,r14
mov r14,r15
lds.l @r15+,pr
mov.l @r15+,r14
mov.l @r15+,r13
mov.l @r15+,r12
mov.l @r15+,r11
mov.l @r15+,r10
mov.l @r15+,r9
rts
mov.l @r15+,r8
.align 1
.L13:
.short 128
.L14:
.align 2
.L10:
.long .LC0
.L11:
.long _use
.L12:
.long .LC1
.size _func, .-_func
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.4.0 20040113 (experimental)"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (34 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-14 19:03 ` joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
@ 2004-01-14 19:37 ` joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
2004-01-14 19:49 ` [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: joern dot rennecke at superh dot com @ 2004-01-14 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From joern dot rennecke at superh dot com 2004-01-14 19:37 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
P.S.: Closer inspection showed that the patch that fixed this
on mainline was actually this one:
2003-06-26 J"orn Rennecke <joern.rennecke@superh.com>
* reload.c (can_reload_into): New function.
(push_reload): Use it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg02964.html
It applies cleanly to 3.3 with:
cvs -z 9 update -j1.214 -j1.215 reload.c
and fixes the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (35 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-14 19:37 ` joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
@ 2004-01-14 19:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-15 20:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-14 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-14 19:49 -------
Only a 3.3 regression.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[3.3/3.4 regression] [SH] |[3.3 regression] [SH]
|optimizer generates faulty |optimizer generates faulty
|array indexing |array indexing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (36 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-14 19:49 ` [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-15 20:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-16 18:24 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-15 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-15 20:21 -------
Subject: Bug 10392
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Branch: gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by: amylaar@gcc.gnu.org 2004-01-15 20:21:52
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog reload.c
Log message:
PR optimization/10392
* reload.c (can_reload_into): New function.
(push_reload): Use it.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.882&r2=1.16114.2.883
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/reload.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.199.2.10&r2=1.199.2.11
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (37 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-15 20:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-16 18:24 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-16 18:28 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-16 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-16 18:24 -------
Subject: Bug 10392
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: amylaar@gcc.gnu.org 2004-01-16 18:24:09
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg: pr10392-1.c
Log message:
PR 10392
From Marcus Comstedt / Dan Kegel:
* gcc.dg/pr10392-1.c: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3385&r2=1.3386
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr10392-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (38 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-16 18:24 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-16 18:28 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-21 12:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-16 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-16 18:28 -------
Patch from mainline merged into 3.3 branch, testcase checked in on mainline.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (39 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-16 18:28 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-21 12:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-21 12:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-21 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|REOPENED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (40 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-21 12:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-21 12:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-21 14:09 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-01-25 7:14 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-21 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-21 12:45 -------
There is a problem on the 3.3 branch:
../../gcc/reload.c: In function `can_reload_into':
../../gcc/reload.c:859: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function
definitions
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (41 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-21 12:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-01-21 14:09 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-01-25 7:14 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2004-01-21 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-01-21 14:09 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
"ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| There is a problem on the 3.3 branch:
|
| ../../gcc/reload.c: In function `can_reload_into':
| ../../gcc/reload.c:859: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function
| definitions
Odd. I bootstrapped the compiler at least about 20 times this night,
I did not notice this. I'll fix it.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10392] [3.3 regression] [SH] optimizer generates faulty array indexing
[not found] <20030413145600.10392.marcus@mc.pp.se>
` (42 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-21 14:09 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2004-01-25 7:14 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
43 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-01-25 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-25 07:14 -------
The last problem has been fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10392
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread