* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
@ 2006-09-02 21:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07 1:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-02 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-02 21:29 -------
Well actually this is just address section which goes funny. We use CSE at the
rtl level do to some address mode selection (which I feel is wrong). Part of
the reasons why we go funny is that we do the add in 32bit.
What is happening with the other ones
is the others are being converted into " return (&a[1])[i] + (&b[1])[i];" which
are not converted back into a[i+1] and b[i+1] because I don't know but they
should be.
This is a regression because we do PRE/FRE at the tree level and let the
address selection done at the rtl level (which is correct) but the rtl level
address selectiong is not working to the level we need it to be for the
regression not to show up.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|minor |normal
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build triplet|x86_64-redhat-linux |
GCC host triplet|x86_64-redhat-linux |
GCC target triplet|x86_64-redhat-linux |x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-02 21:29:36
date| |
Summary|Overzealous CSE with static |[4.1/4.2 Regression] address
|array access |selection does not work
| |correctly
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
2006-09-02 21:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-07 1:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07 8:11 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-07 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
2006-09-02 21:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-07 1:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-07 8:11 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-09-07 8:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2006-09-07 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-07 08:11 -------
It's not really CSE's fault, though I agree that doing addressing mode
selection there is wrong. fwprop does not fix the bug for example, though
teaching it about this case could be easier than teaching CSE.
Unlike CSE, fwprop fixes this case:
char a[10], b[10];
int f1(log i)
{
return a[i+1] + b[i+1];
}
which generates
incq %rdi
movsbl a(%rdi),%eax
movsbl b(%rdi),%edx
addl %edx, %eax
with current GCC. So one way to fix this bug (assuming fwprop is merged in
4.3) is to teach something (expand?) that
(set (reg:DI 58 [ D.1872 ])
(sign_extend:DI (reg:SI 60 [ D.1872 ])))
(parallel [
(set (reg:DI 62 [ D.1872 ])
(plus:DI (reg/v:DI 58 [ i ])
(const_int 1 [0x1])))
(clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
])
at least when we can disregard overflow, might be better than
(parallel [
(set (reg:SI 58 [ D.1872 ])
(plus:SI (reg/v:SI 60 [ i ])
(const_int 1 [0x1])))
(clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
])
(set (reg:DI 62 [ D.1872 ])
(sign_extend:DI (reg:SI 58 [ D.1872 ])))
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bonzini at gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-07 8:11 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-07 8:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-09-09 5:48 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2006-09-07 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-07 08:15 -------
BTW, what did 4.0 and 3.4 produce?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-07 8:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-09 5:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-09 13:02 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-09 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 05:48 -------
For x86, 3.4.0 produces:
movl 4(%esp), %edx
movsbl a+1(%edx),%eax
movsbl b+1(%edx),%edx
addl %edx, %eax
ret
While 4.0.0 produced:
movl 4(%esp), %edx
incl %edx
movsbl a(%edx),%eax
movsbl b(%edx),%edx
addl %edx, %eax
ret
(Note this is also not really a target issue as PPC can be helped by this also
by having a+1 and b+1 and no need for an extra increment of 1 to the argument).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
GCC target triplet|x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-* |
Known to fail| |4.0.0 4.1.0 4.2.0
Known to work| |3.4.0
Summary|[4.1/4.2 Regression] address|[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]
|selection does not work |address selection does not
|correctly |work correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-09 5:48 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-09 13:02 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-09-09 13:03 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2006-09-09 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:02 -------
fwprop fixes the bug on i386-pc-linux-gnu
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-09 13:02 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-09 13:03 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-10-11 12:23 ` [Bug c/28940] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2006-09-09 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-09-09 13:03 -------
I plan to fix it via the fwprop merge in 4.3, but not in 4.2. Should I still
assign this to me?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-09 13:03 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 12:23 -------
We're not folding
return (int) *((char *) (long unsigned int) i + &a + 1B) + (int) *((char *)
(long unsigned int) i + &b + 1B);
one reason is that the C frontend decomposes &a[i], one is the array-to-pointer
decay code of the frontend. Compare that to the C++ frontend where we manage
to fold to
return <retval> = (int) a[(<unnamed type>) (long unsigned int) i + 1] + (int)
b[(<unnamed type>) (long unsigned int) i + 1];
and so do the optimization.
In particular, fold-const.c:try_move_mult_to_index does not recognize
<addr_expr 0x2b0bb95fd0c0
type <pointer_type 0x2b0bb9615420
type <integer_type 0x2b0bb96022c0 char public string-flag QI
size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb95f27e0 constant invariant 8>
unit size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb95f2810 constant invariant 1>
align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 precision 8 min <integer_cst
0x2b0bb95f28a0 -128> max <integer_cst 0x2b0bb95f2960 127>
pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x2b0bb9615420>>
public unsigned DI
size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb95f2d80 constant invariant 64>
unit size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb95f2db0 constant invariant 8>
align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1>
constant invariant
arg 0 <var_decl 0x2b0bb97bcbb0 a
type <array_type 0x2b0bb97bcb00 type <integer_type 0x2b0bb96022c0 char>
BLK
size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb97ce3f0 constant invariant 80>
unit size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb97ce390 constant invariant 10>
align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 domain <integer_type 0x2b0bb97bca50>>
addressable used public static common BLK defer-output file t.i line 1
size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb97ce3f0 80> unit size <integer_cst 0x2b0bb97ce390 10>
align 8>>
as &a[0].
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|rtl-optimization |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 12:23 ` [Bug c/28940] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 12:47 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 12:30 -------
One minimal fix for this is the following (patches for this I sent many times
long time ago, but poking in the C frontend is tedious):
Index: c-typeck.c
===================================================================
*** c-typeck.c (revision 117629)
--- c-typeck.c (working copy)
*************** build_unary_op (enum tree_code code, tre
*** 3032,3046 ****
}
/* For &x[y], return x+y */
! if (TREE_CODE (arg) == ARRAY_REF)
{
tree op0 = TREE_OPERAND (arg, 0);
if (!c_mark_addressable (op0))
return error_mark_node;
! return build_binary_op (PLUS_EXPR,
! (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (op0)) == ARRAY_TYPE
! ? array_to_pointer_conversion (op0)
! : op0),
TREE_OPERAND (arg, 1), 1);
}
--- 3032,3044 ----
}
/* For &x[y], return x+y */
! if (TREE_CODE (arg) == ARRAY_REF
! && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (arg, 0))) != ARRAY_TYPE)
{
tree op0 = TREE_OPERAND (arg, 0);
if (!c_mark_addressable (op0))
return error_mark_node;
! return build_binary_op (PLUS_EXPR, op0,
TREE_OPERAND (arg, 1), 1);
}
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu
| |dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 12:47 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-10-11 12:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-10-11 12:47 -------
For this, on i386-pc-linux-gnu, C and C++ give the exact (pessimized) same
code:
char a[10], b[10];
int f1(int i)
{
return a[i+1] + b[i+1];
}
That RTL address selection sucks is just a fact. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 12:47 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 12:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 13:05 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 12:53 -------
I get (-O -m32) for C++:
_Z2f1i:
.LFB2:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI1:
movl 8(%ebp), %edx
addl $1, %edx
movsbl b(%edx),%eax
movsbl a(%edx),%edx
addl %edx, %eax
popl %ebp
ret
which I thought was the good behavior.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 12:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 13:05 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
2007-01-15 20:21 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch @ 2006-10-11 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2006-10-11 13:05 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does
not work correctly
> movl 8(%ebp), %edx
> addl $1, %edx
> movsbl b(%edx),%eax
> movsbl a(%edx),%edx
>
No, the good behavior has "b+1(%edx)" and "a+1(%edx)" (for non-PIC code).
Paolo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 13:05 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
@ 2007-01-15 20:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-14 9:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-15 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-15 20:20 -------
On the trunk I get:
movsbl b+1(%edx),%eax
movsbl a+1(%edx),%edx
so this has been fixed there.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression]|[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]
|address selection does not |address selection does not
|work correctly |work correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-15 20:21 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-14 9:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-05 10:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-14 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-14 9:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-05 10:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-07-05 10:43 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-07-05 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-07-05 10:36 -------
Can we mark it as WONTFIX for 4.0 to 4.2?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-05 10:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-05 10:43 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-05 10:46 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-05 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-05 10:43 -------
> Can we mark it as WONTFIX for 4.0 to 4.2?
Seems reasonable to me, but it would be nice to detect a future regression.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-05 10:43 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-05 10:46 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
2007-11-03 7:53 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-03 7:54 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch @ 2007-07-05 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-07-05 10:46 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address
selection does not work correctly
Yes, we should add a testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-05 10:46 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch
@ 2007-11-03 7:53 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-03 7:54 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-11-03 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-03 07:53 -------
Subject: Bug 28940
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Nov 3 07:53:01 2007
New Revision: 129868
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129868
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/28940
* gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/28940] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] address selection does not work correctly
2006-09-02 21:14 [Bug tree-optimization/28940] New: Overzealous CSE with static array access lmakhlis at bmc dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-03 7:53 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-03 7:54 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-11-03 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-03 07:54 -------
Fixed in the upcoming 4.3 series.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28940
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread