* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2010-05-24 11:02 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2010-05-24 12:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2010-05-24 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-05-24 11:02 -------
Created an attachment (id=20732)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20732&action=view)
preprocessed parser from kdelibs sources.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
2010-05-24 11:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44258] " pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2010-05-24 12:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-24 12:14 ` arekm at pld-linux dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-24 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |4.5.1
Known to work| |4.5.0
Summary|possible SRA wrong-code |[4.5/4.6 Regression]
|generation. |possible SRA wrong-code
| |generation.
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
2010-05-24 11:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44258] " pluto at agmk dot net
2010-05-24 12:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-24 12:14 ` arekm at pld-linux dot org
2010-05-24 12:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: arekm at pld-linux dot org @ 2010-05-24 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from arekm at pld-linux dot org 2010-05-24 12:14 -------
In meantime - is reversing the problematic gcc commit a sane thing to do for a
gcc user? (from what I understand it was simply a better optimization and no
real bugfix, right?)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-24 12:14 ` arekm at pld-linux dot org
@ 2010-05-24 12:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-30 17:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-24 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-24 12:57 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> In meantime - is reversing the problematic gcc commit a sane thing to do for a
> gcc user? (from what I understand it was simply a better optimization and no
> real bugfix, right?)
>
If you're asking about reverting it in your local copy and by sane you
mean safe then yes, you certainly can do it. I'll have a look at this
as soon as I can but unfortunately that probably means next week.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-24 12:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-30 17:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-03 9:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-30 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-05-30 17:04:29
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-30 17:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-03 9:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-03 19:16 ` torbenh at users dot sourceforge dot net
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-03 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-03 09:30 -------
Unfortunately the preprocessed source from comment #1 seems to be
damaged, I get loads of errors like "error: stray '\336' in program."
Can you please re-upload it? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-03 9:31 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-03 19:16 ` torbenh at users dot sourceforge dot net
2010-06-04 0:55 ` maksim at kde dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: torbenh at users dot sourceforge dot net @ 2010-06-03 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from torbenh at users dot sourceforge dot net 2010-06-03 19:15 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Unfortunately the preprocessed source from comment #1 seems to be
> damaged, I get loads of errors like "error: stray '\336' in program."
> Can you please re-upload it? Thanks.
>
have a look at PR44406... i believe its the same thing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-03 19:16 ` torbenh at users dot sourceforge dot net
@ 2010-06-04 0:55 ` maksim at kde dot org
2010-06-04 16:39 ` maksim at kde dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: maksim at kde dot org @ 2010-06-04 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from maksim at kde dot org 2010-06-04 00:55 -------
I can provide an .i file, but it would be on x86 (with 4.4.3). Is it likely to
be of use?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-04 0:55 ` maksim at kde dot org
@ 2010-06-04 16:39 ` maksim at kde dot org
2010-06-07 16:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: maksim at kde dot org @ 2010-06-04 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from maksim at kde dot org 2010-06-04 16:38 -------
Created an attachment (id=20839)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20839&action=view)
Preprocessed source
Actually, never mind that --- got it on x86-64 from an another KDEer (credit to
Alex Fiestas).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-04 16:39 ` maksim at kde dot org
@ 2010-06-07 16:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-08 9:07 ` pluto at agmk dot net
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-07 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-07 16:56 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> have a look at PR44406... i believe its the same thing.
>
I think it probably is because the patch of mine would lead to code
very similar to what exposed PR 44406. However, PR 44406 actually no
longer happens on the trunk because it is very likely a duplicate of
PR 44164.
So can you please verify that this miscompilation still takes place
with the current 4.5 branch before I go into all the troubles of
looking at what compiles differently and where? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-07 16:57 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-08 9:07 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2010-06-08 10:16 ` pluto at agmk dot net
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2010-06-08 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-06-08 09:07 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> >
> > have a look at PR44406... i believe its the same thing.
> >
>
> I think it probably is because the patch of mine would lead to code
> very similar to what exposed PR 44406. However, PR 44406 actually no
> longer happens on the trunk because it is very likely a duplicate of
> PR 44164.
>
> So can you please verify that this miscompilation still takes place
> with the current 4.5 branch before I go into all the troubles of
> looking at what compiles differently and where? Thanks.
verification in progress...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-08 9:07 ` pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2010-06-08 10:16 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2010-06-09 14:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2010-06-08 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-06-08 10:15 -------
the gcc-4.5-20100608 still miscompiles kde4libs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-08 10:16 ` pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2010-06-09 14:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-10 16:49 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-09 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 14:43 -------
OK, I have found the bug and I admit it is rather embarrassing. I'll
submit a patch soon.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2010-05-30 17:04:29 |2010-06-09 14:43:08
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5/4.6 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-09 14:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-10 16:49 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-14 12:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5 " pluto at agmk dot net
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-10 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-10 16:49 -------
Subject: Bug 44258
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jun 10 16:49:09 2010
New Revision: 160561
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160561
Log:
2010-06-10 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/44258
* tree-sra.c (build_access_subtree): Return false iff there is a
partial overlap.
(build_access_trees): Likewise.
(analyze_all_variable_accesses): Disqualify candidates if
build_access_trees returns true for them.
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr44258.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr44258.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-10 16:49 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-14 12:49 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2010-06-14 12:52 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2010-06-14 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-06-14 12:48 -------
do you plan to backport this fix to 4.5 branch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-14 12:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5 " pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2010-06-14 12:52 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-15 10:04 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-15 10:05 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-14 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:51 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> do you plan to backport this fix to 4.5 branch?
>
Of course, I'm running the bootstrap and testsuite right now. I will
commit it today if everything goes fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-14 12:52 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-15 10:04 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-15 10:05 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-15 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:03 -------
Subject: Bug 44258
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 10:03:35 2010
New Revision: 160776
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160776
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/44258
* tree-sra.c (build_access_subtree): Return false iff there is a
partial overlap.
(build_access_trees): Likewise.
(analyze_all_variable_accesses): Disqualify candidates if
build_access_trees returns true for them.
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr44258.c: New test.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr44258.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc/tree-sra.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/44258] [4.5 Regression] possible SRA wrong-code generation.
2010-05-24 11:01 [Bug tree-optimization/44258] New: possible SRA wrong-code generation pluto at agmk dot net
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-15 10:04 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-15 10:05 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-15 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:05 -------
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44258
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread