* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2008-05-05 21:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-06 1:06 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-05 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-05 21:30 -------
Yes I saw this, this is because we are not creating a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR for the
first indirect reference, I think it has something to do with the placement
new. I will look at it when I get home tonight.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-05-05 21:30:39
date| |
Summary|[4.4 Regression]: FAIL: |[4.4 Regression]: FAIL:
|g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C |g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2008-05-05 21:31 ` [Bug middle-end/36143] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-06 1:06 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-06 3:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-06 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 01:05 -------
FWIW, noticed on cris-elf as well, where additionally, for the record,
gfortran.dg/transfer_assumed_size_1.f90 regressed. From gfortran.log:
PASS: gfortran.dg/transfer_assumed_size_1.f90 -O2 (test for excess errors)
core: 4 byte read to unmapped address 0x2a000 at 0x16248^M
program stopped with signal 11.^M
FAIL: gfortran.dg/transfer_assumed_size_1.f90 -O2 execution test
which I'd rather not dig further into until the g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C s
fixed.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2008-05-05 21:31 ` [Bug middle-end/36143] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-06 1:06 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-06 3:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-06 4:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-06 3:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 03:56 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> FWIW, noticed on cris-elf as well, where additionally, for the record,
> gfortran.dg/transfer_assumed_size_1.f90 regressed. From gfortran.log:
I just checked on i686-darwin and there is no changes that were produced by the
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR changes in forwprop. That is forwprop does not produce any
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR for that testcase.
g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C is just a missed optimization and not about wrong
code in this case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-06 3:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-06 4:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-06 4:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-06 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 04:09 -------
So for &i[0], we don't convert it to VCE but the others we convert it but we
don't get to the point convert to VCE for the placement new case for some
reason ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-06 4:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-06 4:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-06 10:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-06 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 04:15 -------
Oh we don't handle VCE On the left hand side for many different reasons. One
is because if we set only part of the variable, we could get possible invalid
gimple as we are only setting part of a SSA_NAME. I am un-assigning myself for
now.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenther at suse dot de
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-06 4:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-06 10:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2008-05-07 17:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2008-05-06 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-05-06 10:22 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
On Tue, 6 May 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 04:15 -------
> Oh we don't handle VCE On the left hand side for many different reasons. One
> is because if we set only part of the variable, we could get possible invalid
> gimple as we are only setting part of a SSA_NAME. I am un-assigning myself for
> now.
We fold
i.1_7 = (struct Foo *) &i;
D.2236_8 = i.1_7->i[0];
to
D.2236_8 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<struct Foo>(i).i[0];
which is fine in principle but misses a folding to i[0].
maybe_fold_offset_to_{array,component}_ref in tree-ssa-ccp.c should
be extended to handle this case, invoked via fold_stmt.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-06 10:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2008-05-07 17:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-07 17:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-07 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 17:08 -------
Also seen on cris-elf with the revision as mentioned and still there as late as
r135041. Pinskia, are you going to revert it, fix it or should we xfail the
test?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-07 17:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-07 17:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-16 19:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-07 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 17:21 -------
Fix it:
[andrew-pinskis-computer:local/gcc/gcc] apinski% svn diff
Index: tree-ssa-forwprop.c
===================================================================
--- tree-ssa-forwprop.c (revision 135021)
+++ tree-ssa-forwprop.c (working copy)
@@ -132,6 +132,16 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
res = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<type1>(type2var)
Or
+ ptr = (type1*)&type2var;
+ *ptr = res
+
+ Will get turned into (if type1 and type2 are the same size
+ and neither have volatile on them and is not a scalar):
+ VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<type1>(type2var) = res
+ FIXME: The last constraint is not needed if DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P is expended
+ to all types
+
+ Or
ptr = &x[0];
ptr2 = ptr + <constant>;
@@ -573,6 +583,7 @@ forward_propagate_addr_expr_1 (tree name
{
tree lhs, rhs, array_ref;
tree *rhsp, *lhsp;
+ bool in_reference_lhs = false;
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (def_rhs) == ADDR_EXPR);
@@ -602,7 +613,10 @@ forward_propagate_addr_expr_1 (tree name
ADDR_EXPR will not appear on the LHS. */
lhsp = &GIMPLE_STMT_OPERAND (use_stmt, 0);
while (handled_component_p (*lhsp))
- lhsp = &TREE_OPERAND (*lhsp, 0);
+ {
+ lhsp = &TREE_OPERAND (*lhsp, 0);
+ in_reference_lhs = true;
+ }
lhs = *lhsp;
/* Now see if the LHS node is an INDIRECT_REF using NAME. If so,
@@ -617,6 +631,43 @@ forward_propagate_addr_expr_1 (tree name
TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0))))
{
*lhsp = unshare_expr (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0));
+ lhs = *lhsp;
+ fold_stmt_inplace (use_stmt);
+ tidy_after_forward_propagate_addr (use_stmt);
+
+ /* Continue propagating into the RHS if this was not the only use. */
+ if (single_use_p)
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ /* Now see if the LHS node is an INDIRECT_REF using NAME. If so,
+ propagate the ADDR_EXPR into the use of NAME and try to
+ create a VCE for the result. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (lhs) == INDIRECT_REF
+ && TREE_OPERAND (lhs, 0) == name
+ && TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (lhs))
+ && TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0)))
+ /* Function decls should not be used for VCE either as it could be
+ a function descriptor that we want and not the actual function code.
*/
+ && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0)) != FUNCTION_DECL
+ /* We should not convert volatile loads to non volatile loads. */
+ && !TYPE_VOLATILE (TREE_TYPE (lhs))
+ && !TYPE_VOLATILE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0)))
+ && operand_equal_p (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (lhs)),
+ TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0))), 0)
+ /* Check for aggregate types so we don't end up with a SSA_NAME inside
+ a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR on the lhs.
+ FIXME: this can go away when DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P is extended for all
+ scalar types. */
+ && (AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0)))
+ || TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0))) == VECTOR_TYPE
+ || TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0))) ==
COMPLEX_TYPE))
+ {
+ tree new_lhs = unshare_expr (TREE_OPERAND (def_rhs, 0));
+ /* Use build1 here as we not produce a right hand side so we need to
keep
+ around the VCE. */
+ new_lhs = build1 (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (lhs), new_lhs);
+ *lhsp = new_lhs;
fold_stmt_inplace (use_stmt);
tidy_after_forward_propagate_addr (use_stmt);
@@ -673,9 +724,10 @@ forward_propagate_addr_expr_1 (tree name
if (TREE_CODE (new_rhs) != VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR)
{
block_stmt_iterator bsi = bsi_for_stmt (use_stmt);
- new_rhs = force_gimple_operand_bsi (&bsi, new_rhs, true, NULL, true,
BSI_SAME_STMT);
- /* As we change the deference to a SSA_NAME, we need to return false
to make sure that
- the statement does not get removed. */
+ new_rhs = force_gimple_operand_bsi (&bsi, new_rhs, true, NULL, true,
+ BSI_SAME_STMT);
+ /* As we change the deference to a SSA_NAME, we need to return false
+ to make sure that the statement does not get removed. */
res = false;
}
*rhsp = new_rhs;
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-07 17:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-16 19:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-21 11:15 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-16 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-16 19:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-21 11:15 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-25 18:14 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-21 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-21 11:14 -------
If the patch is ready and tested, fine: post it.
Do you need help testing? If something else needs done, please be explicit.
Otherwise, it seems this PR is ripe for being marked as an xfail.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-21 11:15 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-25 18:14 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-21 2:39 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-25 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 18:13 -------
Failure also occurs on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and i686-unknown-linux-gnu,
see:
x86_64: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg02221.html
i686: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-05/msg01800.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
Last reconfirmed|2008-05-05 21:30:39 |2008-05-25 18:13:41
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-25 18:14 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-21 2:39 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-03 15:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-21 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 02:38 -------
Subject: Bug 36143
Author: hp
Date: Mon Jul 21 02:37:36 2008
New Revision: 138020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=138020
Log:
PR middle-end/36143
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C: XFAIL.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-21 2:39 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-03 15:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-03 15:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-03 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-03 15:20 -------
Created an attachment (id=16813)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16813&action=view)
gcc44-pr36143.patch
I've tried to implement what Richi suggested in #c6, unfortunately that didn't
fix the failure.
After forwprop1 foo_char and foo_void contain:
D.2279_5 = (struct Foo *) &i;
D.2279_5->i[0] ={v} 1;
D.2281_11 = i[0];
but the optimizers don't figure out that ((struct Foo *) &i)->i[0]
and i[0] is the same thing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-03 15:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-03 15:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-24 13:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-03 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-03 15:33 -------
We should be able to go via a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR when propagating (struct Foo *)
&i
into the LHS dereference D.2279_5->i[0]. That is, convert that to
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR <struct Foo> (i)->i[0]
and further fold that by noting that the final access is at offset zero and
of the same type as i. (or more generally, for a final offset zero access
always strip all component-refs and fold to
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR <final-access-type> (i)).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-03 15:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-24 13:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-15 12:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-24 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-24 13:49 -------
Fixed on the trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |38747
Known to work| |4.5.0
Summary|[4.4/4.5 Regression]: FAIL: |[4.4 Regression]: FAIL:
|g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C |g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-24 13:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-15 12:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-21 13:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-15 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.2 |4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-15 12:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-01-21 13:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-03-30 17:26 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-30 8:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-21 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.3 |4.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2010-01-21 13:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-03-30 17:26 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-04-30 8:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-03-30 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 17:25 -------
PASSes on 4.5 trunk, but still XFAILs on 4.4 branch. Since it's a 4.4
regression, should the patch be backported to 4.4 ?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |4.4.4
Last reconfirmed|2008-05-25 18:13:41 |2010-03-30 17:25:40
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/36143] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr19637.C
2008-05-05 21:29 [Bug middle-end/36143] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2010-03-30 17:26 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-04-30 8:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-04-30 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.4 |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36143
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread