[Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/home
/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsui
te/g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C  -nostdinc++
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/arm-none-linu
x-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include/arm-none-linux-gnueabi
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdi
r/arm-none-linux-gnueabi/libstdc++-v3/include
-I/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++
-v3/libsupc++ -I/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/include/backward
-I/home/dav
e/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util -fmessage-length=0  -O2 -Wall
-fdump-t
ree-forwprop1  -S  -o new1.s    (timeout = 300)
PASS: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"


-- 
           Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not
                    forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: arm-none-linux-gnueabi
  GCC host triplet: arm-none-linux-gnueabi
GCC target triplet: arm-none-linux-gnueabi


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

------- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2009-02-19 18:28 -------
Subject: Re:   New: FAIL:
        g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

Attached new1.C.028t.forwprop1.

Dave


------- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2009-02-19 18:28 -------
Created an attachment (id=17332)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17332&action=view)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-13 10:10 -------
Appears on trunk as of r147467.


-- 

ramana 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         |2009-05-13 10:10:12
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-13 13:35 -------
trunk or 4.4?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca]

------- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2009-05-13 15:20 -------
Subject: Re:  FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .*
\+ -"

> trunk or 4.4?

I see it in trunk revision 147374.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-15 01:09 -------
Created an attachment (id=19603)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19603&action=view)
Dumps from testcase.

dumps attached.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-15 01:15 -------
With trunk I still see the dump as per the original attachment . 

I think these 3 lines in the dump cause it to fail . The question though is why
the +4 and -4 are not folded out on the ARM port 

  D.1844_3 = (unsigned int *) D.1824_2;
  D.1845_4 = D.1844_3 + 4;
  D.1846_5 = D.1845_4 + -4;


Looking at .004t.gimple I can see that this is generated out of it for the
following expression.


 D.1820 = operator new [] (15);
  try
    {
      D.1846 = (unsigned int *) D.1820;
      D.1847 = D.1846 + 4;
      D.1848 = D.1847 + -4;
      *D.1848 = 1;
      D.1846 = (unsigned int *) D.1820;
      D.1847 = D.1846 + 4;
      *D.1847 = 7;
      D.1849 = (struct D *) D.1820;
      D.1850 = D.1849 + 8;
      smart_ptr::smart_ptr (&p, D.1850);
    }

for

;; Function int test01() (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original

{
  struct smart_ptr p;

    struct smart_ptr p;
  <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
  (void) smart_ptr::smart_ptr (&p, (TARGET_EXPR <D.1820, operator new []
(15)>;, *(((unsigned int *) D.1820 + 4) + -4) = 1;, *((unsigned int *) D.1820 +
4) = 7;;, (struct D *) D.1820 + 8;)) >>>
>>;
  try
    {
      return <retval> = 0;
    }
  finally
    {
      (void) smart_ptr::~smart_ptr (&p);
    }
}

Is this a problem with the fix for PR36633 not being implemented for ARM  ?
Knowing that the ARM C++ ABI is slightly off in comparison to the standard but
not knowing enough of the ARM C++ ABI , it appears as though the fix for
PR36633 doesn't apply on the ARM EABI port.

Mark : could you take a quick look  and comment on this, please ? 


cheers
Ramana


-- 

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mark at codesourcery dot com
      Known to fail|                            |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-15 03:26 -------
Ramana --

If I'm reading the log correctly for PR36633 the change that Jason made there
didn't actually fix the bug; it was just a cleanup.  He commented that
something else had changed which made the bug go away.  However, if this is
behaving different on ARM from (say) x86, I think that the ABI is a likely
cause because, as you say, the C++ ABI for these bits is subtly different.  Do
we know that this is ARM-specific?

Thanks,

-- Mark


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-15 09:05 -------


(In reply to comment #8)


Hi Mark,

Many thanks for looking into this. 

> However, if this is behaving different on ARM from (say) x86, I think that the ABI is a likely
> cause because, as you say, the C++ ABI for these bits is subtly different.  Do
> we know that this is ARM-specific?


I've compared this with the mips port and the x86 port and in both cases the
first bit where there is a difference is after lowering into gimple - i.e there
is no address calculation like this sequence that comes in the ARM port. 


  D.1844_3 = (unsigned int *) D.1824_2;
  D.1845_4 = D.1844_3 + 4;
  D.1846_5 = D.1845_4 + -4;



So yes it does look ARM specific . Also peeking at results on gcc-testresults
doesn't show this failure on x86.

cheers
Ramana 


-- 

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to fail|4.5.0                       |4.4.2 4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[mark at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #10 from mark at codesourcery dot com  2010-01-15 15:05 -------
Subject: Re:  FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not
 forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> So yes it does look ARM specific . Also peeking at results on gcc-testresults
> doesn't show this failure on x86.

Thanks for looking at that.  I will investigate this bug, but it might
not be until week after next, as I will be out of the office this coming
week.

Thanks,


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to fail|                            |

--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-23 22:21:06 UTC ---
This testcase works for me in 4.7.0 or was removed.  Can we close this bug
report?

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[dave.anglin at bell dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-09-23 22:40:10 UTC ---
Test hasn't been removed.  I also don't see the fail anymore.

--
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.0
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization

--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Closing as fixed for GCC 4.7.0.