[Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline with the following error message:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
pr19633-1.c:(.text+0xd7): undefined reference to `link_error'


This started between r119726 and r119792.


-- 
           Summary: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the
                    mainline
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: missed-optimization
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 04:16 -------
It was passing at r119745:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-12/msg00467.html

It was failing at r119761:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-12/msg00472.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 04:21 -------
Looks like the mem-ssa patches cause this.
There are no other patches in that time frame.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 14:11 -------

Works for me with @119760 (mem-ssa) on all arches (x86, x86_64, ia64 and
ppc64).

$ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=pr19633-1.c
[...]
Test Run By dnovillo on Wed Dec 13 09:05:53 2006
Native configuration is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

                === gcc tests ===

Schedule of variations:
    unix

Running target unix
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for
target.
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /home/dnovillo/gcc/src/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /home/dnovillo/gcc/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp ...

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            2
/home/notnfs/dnovillo/BLD-gcc-native/gcc/xgcc  version 4.3.0 20061212
(experimental)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com  2006-12-13 16:37 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression]
        gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:12 +0000, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
> Works for me with @119760 (mem-ssa) on all arches (x86, x86_64, ia64
> and
> ppc64). 

So, this is about the mainline and not about the mem-ssa branch.  I
don't see why you are looking at the mem-ssa branch's results except to
say something changed on the mainline to expose this issue.

-- Pinski


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 16:50 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression]
>         gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
> 
> On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:12 +0000, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
> wrote:
> > Works for me with @119760 (mem-ssa) on all arches (x86, x86_64, ia64
> > and
> > ppc64). 
> 
> So, this is about the mainline and not about the mem-ssa branch.  I
> don't see why you are looking at the mem-ssa branch's results except to
> say something changed on the mainline to expose this issue.
> 
You completely misunderstood.  It works for me on my *mainline* tree that has
the mem-ssa patch applied.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 16:59 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> You completely misunderstood.  It works for me on my *mainline* tree that has
> the mem-ssa patch applied.
Then why does it fail for FX right after your patch?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 17:41 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > You completely misunderstood.  It works for me on my *mainline* tree that has
> > the mem-ssa patch applied.
> Then why does it fail for FX right after your patch?
> 
I would love to find out.  FX, do you have a pre-processed .i?  Do you still
have a cc1 that eliminates the call to link_error?  What transformation removes
it?

Does it work with revision 119760?  That's the revision that added the main
mem-ssa changes (aliasing and rewriting).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 17:49 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Looks like the mem-ssa patches cause this.
> There are no other patches in that time frame.
> 
There must be.  mem-ssa is @119760.  If you can reproduce with @119760, then
let me know and I'll take a look.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 17:59 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> There must be.  mem-ssa is @119760.  If you can reproduce with @119760, then
> let me know and I'll take a look.

I can reproduce it at @119761 which is the same revision for the trunk as
119761 was a revision on a branch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-13 22:37 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > There must be.  mem-ssa is @119760.  If you can reproduce with @119760, then
> > let me know and I'll take a look.
> 
> I can reproduce it at @119761 which is the same revision for the trunk as
> 119761 was a revision on a branch.
> 
OK, I'll take a look.  FX mind sending me that data about the test?  I can't
reproduce it locally.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-14 19:29 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > There must be.  mem-ssa is @119760.  If you can reproduce with @119760, then
> > > let me know and I'll take a look.
> > 
> > I can reproduce it at @119761 which is the same revision for the trunk as
> > 119761 was a revision on a branch.
> > 
> OK, I'll take a look.  FX mind sending me that data about the test?  I can't
> reproduce it locally.
> 
Oh, boy.  Now I see it.  We are making different partitioning decisions because
the order of the symbols in the partitioned alias set changed.  So, sometimes
we get one SFT into a partition which just happens to cross a call-site, and if
it's added to the partition, we miss the optimization.  In this case, the SFT
associated with b.s.w is added to MPT.69.

  <L1>:;
    # MPT.69_8 = VDEF <MPT.69_7(D)> { MPT.69 }
    b.s.w = 3;
    # VUSE <SFT.54_9(D), SFT.55_10(D), SFT.56_11(D)> { SFT.54 SFT.55 SFT.56
SFT.62 }
    # SFT.62_13 = VDEF <SFT.62_12(D)>
    # MPT.69_14 = VDEF <MPT.69_8> { SFT.62 MPT.69 }
    x = bar1 (*c_1, *c_1);
    # VUSE <MPT.69_14> { MPT.69 }
    D.1993_6 = b.s.w;


But if aliases are stored in different order in the alias set (different
DECL_UID assignment), we just happen not to choose this SFT for partitioning,
leaving the IL as:

 <L1>:;
    # SFT.61_8 = VDEF <SFT.61_7(D)> { SFT.61 }
    b.s.w = 3;
    # VUSE <SFT.58_9(D), SFT.59_10(D), SFT.60_11(D), SFT.61_8> { SFT.58 SFT.59
SFT.60 SFT.61 }
    # MPT.69_13 = VDEF <MPT.69_12(D)> { MPT.69 }
    x = bar1 (*c_1, *c_1);
    # VUSE <SFT.61_8> { SFT.61 }
    D.1990_6 = b.s.w;

I will workaround this by increasing partitioning thresholds on this test, for
now, but I will leave the PR assigned to me while I figure out better
partitioning heuristics.


-- 

dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-12-14 19:29:22
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-14 19:50 -------
Subject: Bug 30194

Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Dec 14 19:50:11 2006
New Revision: 119867

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119867
Log:

        PR 30194
        * gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c: Increase threshold for partitioning
        temporarily.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-02 19:00 -------
This has started failing again on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu as of 20070701.


-- 

danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-18 23:17 -------
Dave,
Does the test case pass again if you increase the VOPS threshold once more?  


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-19 01:52 -------
This went away in mid July on hppa.


-- 

danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|danglin at gcc dot gnu dot  |
                   |org                         |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-08 16:20 -------
Diego, 
Is this something you plan to work on for GCC 4.3?

Does this still qualify as a "4.3 regression"?


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.3 Regression]            |[4.3 Regression] alias set
                   |gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on |partitioning dependent on
                   |the mainline                |SFT DECL_UIDs


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs

[dnovillo at google dot com]

------- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com  2008-01-08 16:23 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
DECL_UIDs

On 8 Jan 2008 16:20:39 -0000, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Diego,
> Is this something you plan to work on for GCC 4.3?

I will do my best.

> Does this still qualify as a "4.3 regression"?

If it can't be reproduced with earlier versions, yes.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-08 16:40 -------
I don't think anything is wrong with 'alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
DECL_UIDs'.  If two SFTs score equal we need to discriminate them somehow.
DECL_UID is exactly the right thing to use for this.

Note that

2007-10-25  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>

...
        * tree-ssa-alias.c (mem_sym_stats): ... here and make it static.
...
        (compare_mp_info_entries): Make sort stable by disambiguating
        on DECL_UID.

might have improved the situation.  Or worsened it.

The question would be - why should the DECL_UIDs for SFTs change
spontaneously?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs

[dnovillo at google dot com]

------- Comment #19 from dnovillo at google dot com  2008-01-08 17:06 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
DECL_UIDs

> I don't think anything is wrong with 'alias set partitioning dependent on SFT
> DECL_UIDs'.  If two SFTs score equal we need to discriminate them somehow.
> DECL_UID is exactly the right thing to use for this.
>
> Note that
>
> 2007-10-25  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>
>
> ...
>         * tree-ssa-alias.c (mem_sym_stats): ... here and make it static.
> ...
>         (compare_mp_info_entries): Make sort stable by disambiguating
>         on DECL_UID.
>
> might have improved the situation.  Or worsened it.
>
> The question would be - why should the DECL_UIDs for SFTs change
> spontaneously?

Bother.  I thought I was replying to a different PR (33237).  No, I
don't think I'll work on this PR.  I agree with Richard's assessment.

Diego.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-08 17:18 -------
Lets just close this as fixed then, as the problem went away.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

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


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194

[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-08 17:21 -------
OK.  I was asking because of the final remark in comment #11.  Let's close this
as fixed because the test suite failure is gone and it's unclear what's left to
work on.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194