* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2010-01-24 16:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-05 13:08 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-24 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-24 16:58 -------
It's a new test. Probably MOVE_RATIO is not defined for your target and thus
the default of 2 applies.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2010-01-24 16:59 ` [Bug testsuite/42855] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-05 13:08 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-03-04 14:56 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-05 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 13:08 -------
I wonder what to do about this. Perhaps I should change the test to
run only on i386, x86_64 and perhaps some other enumerated platforms?
That would be enough to alert us if SRA was failing in this regard and
would not have any effect on platforms that might have their limits
set in all sorts of ways.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2010-01-24 16:59 ` [Bug testsuite/42855] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-05 13:08 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-03-04 14:56 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-14 18:18 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-03-04 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 14:55 -------
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00208.html
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-03-04 14:56 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-14 18:18 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-21 17:20 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-14 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 18:18 -------
Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so the
testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-14 18:18 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-21 17:20 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-21 23:52 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-21 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 17:19 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so the
> testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?
>
I do not think I got an approval to commit the patch. I'll be happy
to cooperate with respective architecture maintainers to resolve this
issue in one way or another. (However, this is not important enough
for me to go and actively try to force their attention this way.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-21 17:20 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-21 23:52 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-04 19:33 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-21 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 23:52 -------
I think the thread about the patch became confused.
First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.
Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not
defined. The statement caused some misunderstanding. MOVE_RATIO does not need
to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition. The
default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to
disable the optimization being tested.
If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the
testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase
explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur
on all targets.
--
dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-07-21 23:52:38
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-21 23:52 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-04 19:33 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-05 13:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-01 11:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-04 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 19:33 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the thread about the patch became confused.
>
> First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.
OK, I've re-submitted the patch to the mailing list and will commit it
tomorrow if nobody objects. Thanks.
>
> Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not
> defined. The statement caused some misunderstanding. MOVE_RATIO does not need
> to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition. The
> default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to
> disable the optimization being tested.
>
> If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the
> testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase
> explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur
> on all targets.
>
Well, MOVE_RATIO defines the ratio of costs of different methods of
copying memory. Assuming that the default value is indeed the correct
one for those platforms, it is most probably OK that SRA decides not
to totally scalarize the aggregate in the testcase in question. But
that is really what the platform maintainers should examine (or at
least someone who knows the platforms well enough should do it).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-04 19:33 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-05 13:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-01 11:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-05 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 13:36 -------
Subject: Bug 42855
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Aug 5 13:36:18 2010
New Revision: 162913
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162913
Log:
2010-08-05 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR testsuite/42855
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c: Skip dump scan on powerpc
and arm.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *
2010-01-24 16:06 [Bug testsuite/42855] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized * dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-05 13:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-01 11:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-01 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:13 -------
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread