* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-08 18:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-15 12:40 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-08 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ABI, wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-08 18:37 ` [Bug middle-end/19330] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-15 12:40 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-15 16:34 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-15 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15 12:39 -------
Why is this a middle-end bug? Is this not target-specific?
Anyone working on fixes?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-08 18:37 ` [Bug middle-end/19330] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-15 12:40 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-15 16:34 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-01-15 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2005-01-15 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-01-15 16:34 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execu
> ------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
> 12:39 -------
> Why is this a middle-end bug? Is this not target-specific?
It's not really clear. I marked it as a middle-end bug because the fails
started in a very specific period and they aren't as far as I know related
to a target specific change. 20010605-2.c passes at -O0. This suggests
an optimization issue.
> Anyone working on fixes?
I've looked a bit at gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c. I know that
main is incorrectly passing z to baz.
At the moment, I only have weekends and evenings for GCC work. PR 19332
and this one are the only C fails that are not understood for this target.
If you are interested, I would appreciate help in working on these two
PRs.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-15 16:34 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2005-01-15 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-23 19:48 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-15 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-15 16:37:05
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-15 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-23 19:48 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-23 20:23 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-23 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 19:48 -------
The bad mem is generated by the call to extract_bit_field from this code
in emit_group_load_1:
(gdb) list
1678 {
1679 rtx mem;
1680
1681 gcc_assert (!bytepos);
1682 mem = assign_stack_temp (GET_MODE (src), slen, 0);
1683 emit_move_insn (mem, src);
1684 tmps[i] = extract_bit_field (mem, bytelen * BITS_PER_UNIT,
1685 0, 1, NULL_RTX, mode, mode);
1686 }
(gdb) p debug_rtx (mem)
(mem:TC (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 62 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int 8 [0x8])) [0 S32 A128])
(gdb) p debug_rtx (tmps[0])
(mem:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 62 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int 40 [0x28])) [0 S8 A128])
(gdb) p mode
$26 = DImode
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-23 19:48 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-23 20:23 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-25 0:24 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-23 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-23 20:23 -------
This regression was introduced by the following change:
2004-11-26 Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
* expmed.c (extract_bit_field): When extracting from non-integer mode,
force a SUBREG into a register because we may be taking a further
SUBREG of it.
(gdb) list
1156 if we aren't. */
1157 {
1158 enum machine_mode imode = int_mode_for_mode (GET_MODE (op0));
1159 if (imode != GET_MODE (op0))
1160 {
1161 op0 = gen_lowpart (imode, op0);
1162
1163 /* If we got a SUBREG, force it into a register since we aren't
going
1164 to be able to do another SUBREG on it. */
1165 if (GET_CODE (op0) == SUBREG)
(gdb) p imode
$32 = BLKmode
(gdb) p debug_rtx (op0)
(mem:TC (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 62 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int 8 [0x8])) [0 S32 A128])
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra
| |dot nyu dot edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-23 20:23 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-25 0:24 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-25 2:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-25 2:25 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-25 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 00:24 -------
Patch here <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01749.html>.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-25 0:24 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-25 2:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-25 2:25 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-25 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 02:06 -------
Subject: Bug 19330
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: danglin@gcc.gnu.org 2005-01-25 02:05:43
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog expmed.c
Log message:
PR middle-end/19330
* expmed.c (extract_bit_field): Use adjust_address instead of
gen_lowpart when op0 is a MEM.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.7267&r2=2.7268
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/expmed.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.216&r2=1.217
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/19330] [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1
2005-01-08 18:10 [Bug middle-end/19330] New: [4.0 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010605-2.c execution, -O1 danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-25 2:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-25 2:25 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-25 2:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25 02:24 -------
Fixed by patch.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19330
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread