[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] New: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-1.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0


Looking at them, they look only to be problems in the testcases and not
actually missed optimizations.
Also happens on powerp-aix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00885.html


-- 
           Summary: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in
                    gcc.dg/tree-ssa/
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: testsuite
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-darwin


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-17 18:22 -------
They were introduced between 111129 and 111175.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-17 18:24 -------
Maybe even between 111172 and 111175.
Which means the following change cause this:
 2006-02-16  Jeff Law  <law@redhat.com>

+       * tree-vrp.c (set_value_range_to_nonnegative): New function.
+       (vrp_expr_computes_nonnegative, ssa_name_nonnegative_p): Likewise.
+       (ssa_name_nonzero_p): Likewise.
+       (get_value_range): Return NULL if VRP is not running.
+       (extract_range_from_expr): Fallback to tree_expr_XXX_p if
+       VRP routines do not discover a range.
+       (vrp_finalize): Clear VR_VALUE to indicate VRP is not running.
+       * tree.h (ssa_name_nonzero_p, ssa_name_nonnegative_p): Prototype.
+       * fold-const.c (tree_expr_nonzero_p): For SSA_NAMEs, query VRP.
+       (tree_expr_nonnegative_p): Similarly.
+       * tree-ssa-dom.c (nonzero_vars, nonzero_vars_stack): Remove.
+       (restore_nonzero_vars_to_original_value): Remove.
+       (unsafe_associative_fp_binop): Remove.
+       (tree_ssa_dominator_optimize): Remove initialization and
+       finalization of nonzero_vars and nonzero_vars_stack.
+       (dom_opt_initialize_block): No longer push marker on
+       nonzero_vars_stack.
+       (dom_opt_finalize_block): No longer call
+       restore_nonzero_vars_to_original_value.
+       (record_equivalences_from_phis): No longer look for
+       nonzero PHI arguments.
+       (cprop_into_successor_phis): No longer propagate nonzero
+       property into PHI arguments.  Lose unused argument.  Caller
+       updated.
+       (record_equivalences_from_stmt): No longer record nonzero
+       values for SSA_NAMEs.
+       (lookup_avail_expr): No longer use nonzero_vars.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-17 18:25 -------
Shows up on ia64 also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00886.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com  2006-02-17 18:35 -------
Subject: Re:   New: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
        failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:21 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-1.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> 
> 
> Looking at them, they look only to be problems in the testcases and not
> actually missed optimizations.
> Also happens on powerp-aix:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00885.html
Umm, how so?

Those tests are pretty damn simple.  If there are any conditionals
left by the time DOM3 is complete, then we've missed an optimization
and we've missed it badly.

Can you, or someone, send me the dump files on one of the affected
platforms?

-fdump-tree-all-blocks-vops-stats

Just tar up the mess and pass them to me directly.
jeff


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-17 18:43 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Just tar up the mess and pass them to me directly.

I will once the testsuite has finished running.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #6 from law at redhat dot com  2006-02-17 21:19 -------
Subject: Re:   New: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
        failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:21 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-1.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> 
> 
> Looking at them, they look only to be problems in the testcases and not
> actually missed optimizations.
> Also happens on powerp-aix:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00885.html
Nevermind.  I went back and reviewed my logs.  I've got these
failures as well.  I must have somehow not reviewed them.  I feel
like a bozo.

jeff


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-02-17 22:31:47
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru]

------- Comment #7 from belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru  2006-03-05 15:27 -------
seen also on amd64 with r111705


-- 

belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 GCC target triplet|powerpc-darwin              |
   Last reconfirmed|2006-02-17 22:31:47         |2006-03-05 15:27:02
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-06 15:29 -------
Any news on these three testsuite failures?  It is getting annoying to have
testsuite regressions.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com  2006-03-06 15:35 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
        failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 15:29 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> ------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-06 15:29 -------
> Any news on these three testsuite failures?  It is getting annoying to have
> testsuite regressions.
As I've mentioned at least 3 times now, the Ada mis-compilations
have priority.  I'm working on these between fixing Ada issues.

When there's status worth mentioning, I'll certainly add the
status to his PR.  Until then, bugging me about it isn't
helping.

jeff


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-06 17:10 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> As I've mentioned at least 3 times now, the Ada mis-compilations
> have priority.  I'm working on these between fixing Ada issues.
> When there's status worth mentioning, I'll certainly add the
> status to his PR.  Until then, bugging me about it isn't
> helping.

These are older regressions than the Ada regressions and they show up as
testsuite failures and also it has been 3 weeks since this has been reported
enough time to fix them, yes it might be a minor regression to you but it is an
annoying regression to the people who are testing their patches as they see the
fails and think it was their patch (this has already happened with these
testsuite failures already, see PR 26406).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #11 from law at redhat dot com  2006-03-06 17:21 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
        failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 17:10 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> ------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-06 17:10 -------
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > As I've mentioned at least 3 times now, the Ada mis-compilations
> > have priority.  I'm working on these between fixing Ada issues.
> > When there's status worth mentioning, I'll certainly add the
> > status to his PR.  Until then, bugging me about it isn't
> > helping.
> 
> These are older regressions than the Ada regressions and they show up as
> testsuite failures and also it has been 3 weeks since this has been reported
> enough time to fix them, yes it might be a minor regression to you but it is an
> annoying regression to the people who are testing their patches as they see the
> fails and think it was their patch (this has already happened with these
> testsuite failures already, see PR 26406).
They are minor performance related regressions.  The Ada
regresions are incorrect code.  The Ada regressions have priority.

You're not helping here.  As I've said before, be patient.  The
problems will be addressed.  The more you bug me the longer this
process takes.  When there's something worth reporting, I'll
report it.

Jeff


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #12 from law at redhat dot com  2006-03-08 16:43 -------
*** Bug 26406 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-09 17:19 -------
Fixed.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #14 from law at redhat dot com  2006-03-09 18:02 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
        failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 17:19 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> ------- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-09 17:19 -------
> Fixed.
Only two of the three have been fixed.  Please don't close this yet.
jeff


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344

[Bug testsuite/26344] [4.2 Regression] three testsuite failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #15 from law at redhat dot com  2006-03-13 16:37 -------
Subject: Re:   New: [4.2 Regression] three testsuite
        failures in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:21 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-1.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030730-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030807-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if  0
Last week's patch fixed 20030730-1.c and 2000730-2.c.  This patch
fixes 20030807-2.c.

The existing VRP code never visits statements with virtual operands.
In general, that's a good thing -- fewer statements to visit means
less work and assignments with virtual operands are highly unlikely
to produce useful ranges.

However, there is one exception, when the RHS is a call to a
built-in function.  In that case we may be able to determine
non-null ranges (builtin-alloca) and in some cases we can 
determine non-negative ranges.

This patch allows VRP to visit assignments with virtual operands
in this one case (RHS is a call to a built-in function).  Once
that's done the existing machinery will automatically discover
ranges created by calls to these special built-in functions.

Bootstrapped and regression tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.


------- Comment #16 from law at redhat dot com  2006-03-13 16:37 -------
Created an attachment (id=11042)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11042&action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26344