public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dberlin at dberlin dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/20134] 176.gcc miscompare with -m64 after DOM change
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:07:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050222001939.22521.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050222001243.20134.janis@gcc.gnu.org>


------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-22 00:19 -------
Subject: Re:  New: 176.gcc miscompare with
	-m64 after DOM change

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 00:12 +0000, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The SPEC CPU2000 test 176.gcc has been failing on powerpc64-*-linux-gnu
> with "-m64 -O1" since this patch was added:
>                                                                                
>                 
> 2004-10-23  Daniel Berlin  <dberlin@dberlin.org>
>                                                                                
>                 
>         * tree-ssa-dom.c (record_equality): Use loop depth to determine
>         which way to record the equality as well.
>         (loop_depth_of_name): New function.
>                                                    

This can't be the real cause of the problem, however, it must just be
exposing the latent bug.
It just changes the direction we record the equality, so that we will
use one variable instead of another.
The code still believes both variables to be equal.
In other words, there is something in record_equality that isn't
correct, or some pass later on is now doing something wrong as a result.

Can you print out the values of x, y, and prev_x we are passing to
record_const_or_copy_1 in record_equality before and after the patch,
for that function?





-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20134


  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-02-22  0:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-22  7:46 [Bug tree-optimization/20134] New: " janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22  7:51 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20134] " janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22  8:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20134] New: " Daniel Berlin
2005-02-22  8:07 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org [this message]
2005-02-22  8:54 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20134] [4.0 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22  9:32 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20134] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22  9:47 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20134] " janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22  9:48 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20134] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22  9:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-22 22:06 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20134] [4.0 Regression] combine messes up subreg/zero_extend/compare/lshift jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-23  1:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050222001939.22521.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).