* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 4:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 4:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 4:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30194] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 4:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 4:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 4:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30194] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 4:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 4:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 14:12 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 4:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 14:12 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 16:37 ` pinskia at gmail dot com
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 14:12 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 16:37 ` pinskia at gmail dot com
2006-12-13 16:50 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gmail dot com @ 2006-12-13 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 16:37 ` pinskia at gmail dot com
@ 2006-12-13 16:50 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 17:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 16:50 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 17:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 17:42 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 17:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 17:42 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 17:49 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 17:42 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 17:49 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 17:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 17:49 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 17:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-13 22:37 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 17:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-13 22:37 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-14 19:29 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-13 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-13 22:37 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-14 19:29 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-14 19:50 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-14 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-14 19:29 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-12-14 19:50 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-06-29 17:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-12-14 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-12-14 19:50 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-06-29 17:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-02 19:00 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-06-29 17:49 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=30194
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-06-29 17:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-02 19:00 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-18 23:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-02 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-02 19:00 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-18 23:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-18 23:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-12-18 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-18 23:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-18 23:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-19 1:52 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-12-18 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-18 23:17 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-19 1:52 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 16:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-12-19 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-19 1:52 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-08 16:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 16:37 ` dnovillo at google dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-08 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-08 16:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-08 16:37 ` dnovillo at google dot com
2008-01-08 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at google dot com @ 2008-01-08 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-08 16:37 ` dnovillo at google dot com
@ 2008-01-08 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 17:11 ` dnovillo at google dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-08 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-08 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-08 17:11 ` dnovillo at google dot com
2008-01-08 17:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 17:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at google dot com @ 2008-01-08 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-08 17:11 ` dnovillo at google dot com
@ 2008-01-08 17:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-08 17:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-08 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] alias set partitioning dependent on SFT DECL_UIDs
2006-12-13 4:09 [Bug tree-optimization/30194] New: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-08 17:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-01-08 17:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-01-08 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread