public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
@ 2004-05-05 14:08 hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 14:09 ` [Bug optimization/15296] " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (24 more replies)
0 siblings, 25 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-05 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
reorg.c messes up register liveness info by deleting its own
placeholder insns. Further analysis with forthcoming patch.
First seen in 3.2.x. On 3.3-branch, 3.4-branch the problem
is exposed by the to-be-attached test-case but it's hidden
on trunk.
--
Summary: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
Product: gcc
Version: 3.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: critical
Priority: P1
Component: optimization
AssignedTo: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: cris-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/15296] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-05 14:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 16:05 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-05 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-05-05 14:09:16
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/15296] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 14:09 ` [Bug optimization/15296] " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-05 16:05 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-05 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-05 16:05 -------
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg00246.html>
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/15296] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 14:09 ` [Bug optimization/15296] " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 16:05 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-07 3:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-07 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-07 03:20 -------
Subject: Bug 15296
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: hp@gcc.gnu.org 2004-05-07 03:20:25
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog reorg.c
Log message:
PR optimization/15296
* reorg.c (fill_simple_delay_slots): Use next_real_insn when
getting last consecutive label at a branch.
(relax_delay_slots): Similar, near top of loop.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.3593&r2=2.3594
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/reorg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.93&r2=1.94
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/15296] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-07 3:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-07 3:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-07 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-07 03:22 -------
Subject: Bug 15296
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: hp@gcc.gnu.org 2004-05-07 03:22:34
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Log message:
PR optimization/15296
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr15296.c: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3723&r2=1.3724
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/15296] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-07 3:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-07 3:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:30 ` [Bug optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-07 3:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-07 03:24 -------
Committed on trunk, awaiting resolution for 3.3 and 3.4 branches.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-07 3:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-07 3:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-17 11:22 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-07 3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |3.3.3 3.4.0
Known to work| |3.5.0
Summary|Delayed branch scheduling |[3.3/3.4 only] Delayed
|causing invalid code on |branch scheduling causing
|cris-* |invalid code on cris-*
Target Milestone|3.5.0 |3.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-07 3:30 ` [Bug optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-17 11:22 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-26 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-17 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-16 22:14 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg00246.html>
This is OK for gcc-3_3-branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-17 11:22 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-26 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-26 19:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-26 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-26 13:19 -------
Subject: Bug 15296
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Branch: gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by: hp@gcc.gnu.org 2004-05-26 13:19:22
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog reorg.c
Log message:
PR optimization/15296
* reorg.c (fill_simple_delay_slots): Use next_real_insn when
getting last consecutive label at a branch.
(relax_delay_slots): Similar, near top of loop.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.984&r2=1.16114.2.985
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/reorg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.82.4.1&r2=1.82.4.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-26 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-26 19:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 9:42 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 " hp at bitrange dot com
` (15 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-26 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-26 13:24 -------
Subject: Bug 15296
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Branch: gcc-3_3-branch
Changes by: hp@gcc.gnu.org 2004-05-26 13:24:07
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute: pr15296.c
Log message:
PR optimization/15296
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr15296.c: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.2261.2.375&r2=1.2261.2.376
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr15296.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=NONE&r2=1.1.10.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-26 19:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-27 9:42 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 9:56 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at bitrange dot com @ 2004-05-27 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-05-26 17:08 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling
causing invalid code on cris-*
On Wed, 26 May 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Known to fail|3.3.3 3.4.0 |3.4.0
> Known to work|3.5.0 |3.5.0 3.3.3
No, 3.3.3 is still known to fail.
brgds, H-P
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 9:42 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 " hp at bitrange dot com
@ 2004-05-27 9:56 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 10:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-27 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-26 17:11 -------
I also removed 3.5.0 from "known to work" since it isn't released: we
can't "know" anything about it. Please don't change anything.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail|3.4.0 |3.4.0 3.3.3
Known to work|3.5.0 3.3.3 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 9:56 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-27 10:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 11:18 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-27 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-26 17:16 -------
Maybe I misunderstand the use of known to fail, since I thought your patch fixed it in 3.3.4 since you
applied it there, likewise for 3.5.0 as that is what the known to fail is for. Yes I did mess up by
including 3.3.3 that should have been 3.3.4 woops but you can test 3.5.0 but you said it was fixed by
your patch already, there might be a different bug which effects the now merged tree-ssa but that
should be a different bug as none of the tree-ssa merge touched this code.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work| |3.3.4 3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 10:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-27 11:18 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 11:22 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-27 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-26 18:04 -------
I really think so. How can you *know* that the test-case
succeeds in 3.5.0 when until it's released? These "known to"
fields are an indication from a user, not a statement from a
developer: that's what "target milestone" is for. With your
interpretation one of "known to" and "target milestone" fields
would be redundant, and there would not be a field to specify
what *released* versions are known to work/fail. The "reported
against" is just the first spotting. Now please *do not* change
it again without proper references.
If you think my interpretation is incorrect, do take it up on
gcc@ (please CC: me, I'm behind on the list reading) and/or
point me to the proper documentation. I can't find anything
specific for the "known to" fields at
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/management.html> or
<URL:http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/html/> (but target
milestone is documented).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work|3.3.4 3.5.0 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 11:18 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-27 11:22 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-05-27 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-26 18:21 -------
All of us bugzilla people quite frequently use the known-to-{work,fail}
fields to fill which _branches_ work. For example, if something is
known to fail with the 3.4.0 release but to be fixed on mainline, then
3.5.0 will be listed in the known-to-work field. This actually makes some
sense, since if it is fixed on the mainline, then there needs to be a
testcase in the testsuite which (at least ideally) should prevent this
problem from re-appearing on mainline, thus guaranteeing that the actual
3.5.0 release will also work.
This procedure may not be documented, but us bugzilla guys all seem to use
it.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 11:22 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at bitrange dot com @ 2004-05-27 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-05-26 18:40 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling
causing invalid code on cris-*
On Wed, 26 May 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> All of us bugzilla people quite frequently use the known-to-{work,fail}
> fields to fill which _branches_ work. For example, if something is
> known to fail with the 3.4.0 release but to be fixed on mainline, then
> 3.5.0 will be listed in the known-to-work field. This actually makes some
> sense, since if it is fixed on the mainline, then there needs to be a
> testcase in the testsuite which (at least ideally) should prevent this
> problem from re-appearing on mainline, thus guaranteeing that the actual
> 3.5.0 release will also work.
You may think it makes sense, but it is still confusing:
consider the bug re-appearing; perhaps because the fix was
reverted. Then later, someone looks at bugzilla to choose a
"safe" version regarding the bug. That person would be fooled
by the assertion that a bug is fixed in a version where the
testcase provingly fails. Hence "known to work/fail" should
only be used for released versions. That is, unless extra work
is done at the release (or for any change that could possibly
affect the "known to" facts), checking the "known to work"
fields, adjusting them when necessary.
Besides, how do you compare the "known to work" field with the
"target version" field? What about the apparent redundancy?
>
> This procedure may not be documented, but us bugzilla guys all seem to use
> it.
Which doesn't make it correct or any less confusing.
Anyway, if you stand by that usage, please document it for the
benefit of everyone else. I'd like to be able to explain the
person reporting the bug to me (or anyone, for example a
manager), without refering to folklore. 1/2 :-)
brgds, H-P
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
@ 2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 11:47 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at bitrange dot com @ 2004-05-27 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-05-26 18:43 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling
causing invalid code on cris-*
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Besides, how do you compare the "known to work" field with the
> "target version" field? What about the apparent redundancy?
Sorry, should've been "target milestone".
brgds, H-P
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
@ 2004-05-27 11:47 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-05-27 14:02 ` hp at bitrange dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-05-27 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-26 19:09 -------
If a patch is reverted, the PR must be reopened anyway, and the person
doing so should ideally also adjust the fields that this changes. Note
that bugs should really not re-appear in other circumstances, since patches
are supposed to come with testcases.
The target milestone is always the first upcoming version on the first
active branch on which the bug appears, unless the release manager for
that branch decides that this bug can't be fixed for this release. Note
that the target milestone describes an _intent_: "we'd like to have this
bug fixed by that version". The known-to-work field describes a _fact_:
"This bug has been tested against these versions/branches and has been
verified to trigger/to not trigger the bug there".
Thus, the known-to-* fields are not meant to indicate something to a
user, but rather to fellow developers, namely where we have checked the
bug and for example whether a patch has to be applied to the 3.4 or 3.3
branch as well since the bug exists there as well. If we have verified that
the bug doesn't exist there, that means that the developer does not have
to spend cycles on re-checking this.
I understand that the fact that we also use branch-names and not only
release names in these fields can in a few occasions be confusing.
However, I cannot imagine a significant number of cases where us setting
the known-to-work field for branch x.y will be wrong for release x.y
because the bug has reappeared. I believe that these should be very
infrequent cases, and that we are much better served if we use this
field to indicate where people have tested against a certain bug.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 11:47 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-05-27 14:02 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 14:40 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at bitrange dot com @ 2004-05-27 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-05-26 21:02 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling
causing invalid code on cris-*
On Wed, 26 May 2004, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> Note
> that the target milestone describes an _intent_: "we'd like to have this
> bug fixed by that version". The known-to-work field describes a _fact_:
> "This bug has been tested against these versions/branches and has been
> verified to trigger/to not trigger the bug there".
Well, that's what I've been trying to say... The known-to
fields should state facts, but your current usage does not
follow the intent you state: when you write release identifiers
rather than branch identifiers, it can't be a *fact* until the
release is done.
Can you consider e.g. writing 3.3-branch, not 3.3.4 in the
known-to-work field? It doesn't have to be an exact branch
identifier as long as it's unique.
Perhaps also consider using the known-to-fail field for releases
only? If not, you'd have to iterate over all bugs to fix
known-to-fail fields for bugs that "disappear" for that field to
state a fact!
> I understand that the fact that we also use branch-names and not only
> release names in these fields can in a few occasions be confusing.
The problem seems to be that you use non-unique terms in those
fields: your refer to the 3.3 branch as 3.3.4, which will
hopefully be the name of a release as well.
Still, please document whatever usage of yours, supposedly in
management.html. Maybe I should open a bug report for that?
(No, *I* don't want to document it since I still consider this
usage confusing if not wrong, if nothing else than that it's
easy to mistakenly remove a "known to fail" field for a release
known to fail (QED). At least until you stop using the same
name for releases as branches.)
brgds, H-P
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 14:02 ` hp at bitrange dot com
@ 2004-05-27 14:40 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-05-27 15:23 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-05-27 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-26 21:52 -------
I understand your reasoning, though I fail to see where it will
actually bite us in practice. The fact that we don't document could
be improved, though. Please open a a PR for this, and either copy
the contents of our discussion there, or put a link to this PR. I
myself will now have to leave for a nice Memorial Day weekend :)
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 14:40 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-05-27 15:23 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-06 3:56 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (4 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-27 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-26 22:54 -------
> I fail to see where it will actually bite us in practice.
Lack of imagination? :-) Consider the time put into this issue:
enough evidence of a problem, methinks. 8-)
> Please open a a PR for this
bug 15669 (gotta love those generated links)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-27 15:23 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-06 3:56 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-06-07 14:24 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-06-06 3:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-06-06 03:56 -------
Mark, there is a proposed patch for this which already went into mainline and
3.3 as far as I can see. Is it OK for 3.4 as well?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Target Milestone|3.3.4 |3.4.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-06 3:56 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-06-07 14:24 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-12 22:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-07 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-07 14:24 -------
This patch is OK for 3.4.1; please apply it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-07 14:24 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-12 22:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-13 1:59 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-13 2:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-12 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-12 22:16 -------
See Comment #20.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |giovannibajo at libero dot
| |it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-12 22:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-13 1:59 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-13 2:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-06-13 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-13 01:59 -------
Subject: Bug 15296
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: giovannibajo@gcc.gnu.org 2004-06-13 01:58:58
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog reorg.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute: pr15296.c
Log message:
PR rtl-optimization/15296
* reorg.c (fill_simple_delay_slots): Use next_real_insn when
getting last consecutive label at a branch.
(relax_delay_slots): Similar, near top of loop.
PR rtl-optimization/15296
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr15296.c: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_4-branch&r1=2.2326.2.498&r2=2.2326.2.499
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/reorg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_4-branch&r1=1.90.4.1&r2=1.90.4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_4-branch&r1=1.3389.2.205&r2=1.3389.2.206
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr15296.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_4-branch&r1=NONE&r2=1.1.18.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 only] Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-*
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2004-06-13 1:59 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-06-13 2:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-06-13 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-06-13 02:00 -------
Fixed by applying HP's patch to 3.4 branch.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15296
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-06-13 2:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-05-05 14:08 [Bug optimization/15296] New: Delayed branch scheduling causing invalid code on cris-* hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 14:09 ` [Bug optimization/15296] " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-05 16:05 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-07 3:30 ` [Bug optimization/15296] [3.3/3.4 only] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-17 11:22 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-26 19:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-26 19:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 9:42 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/15296] [3.4 " hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 9:56 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 10:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 11:18 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-27 11:22 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 11:37 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 11:47 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-05-27 14:02 ` hp at bitrange dot com
2004-05-27 14:40 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-05-27 15:23 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-06 3:56 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-06-07 14:24 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-12 22:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-13 1:59 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-13 2:00 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).