public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
       [not found] <bug-39251-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2012-09-23 22:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-09-23 22:40 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
  2021-12-12  9:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-23 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


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?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
       [not found] <bug-39251-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2012-09-23 22:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -" pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-23 22:40 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
  2021-12-12  9:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave.anglin at bell dot net @ 2012-09-23 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
       [not found] <bug-39251-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2012-09-23 22:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -" pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-09-23 22:40 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
@ 2021-12-12  9:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-12  9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

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.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (7 preceding siblings ...)
  2010-01-15  9:05 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-01-15 15:05 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: mark at codesourcery dot com @ 2010-01-15 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2010-01-15  3:26 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-01-15  9:05 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2010-01-15 15:05 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-15  9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2010-01-15  1:16 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-01-15  3:26 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2010-01-15  9:05 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2010-01-15 15:05 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-15  3:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2010-01-15  1:09 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-01-15  1:16 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2010-01-15  3:26 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-15  1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2009-05-13 15:20 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2010-01-15  1:09 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2010-01-15  1:16 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-01-15  1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2009-05-13 13:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-13 15:20 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
  2010-01-15  1:09 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2009-05-13 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2009-02-19 18:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39251] " dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
  2009-05-13 10:10 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-13 13:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2009-05-13 15:20 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-13 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2009-02-19 18:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39251] " dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
@ 2009-05-13 10:10 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2009-05-13 13:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-13 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"
  2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-19 18:28 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
  2009-05-13 10:10 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   ` (7 subsequent siblings)
  8 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca @ 2009-02-19 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- 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


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-12  9:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <bug-39251-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-09-23 22:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -" pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-23 22:40 ` dave.anglin at bell dot net
2021-12-12  9:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2009-02-19 18:22 [Bug tree-optimization/39251] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-19 18:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39251] " dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2009-05-13 10:10 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-13 13:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-13 15:20 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2010-01-15  1:09 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-15  1:16 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-15  3:26 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-15  9:05 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-01-15 15:05 ` mark at codesourcery dot com

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).