* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-04 18:01 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca
2010-12-06 7:07 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca @ 2010-12-04 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-04 18:01:04 UTC ---
Attached tree dump.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-04 18:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/46801] " dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca
@ 2010-12-06 7:07 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-06 7:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-06 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-06 07:06:44 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02722.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-04 18:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/46801] " dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca
2010-12-06 7:07 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-06 7:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 18:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-06 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2010.12.06 07:08:21
Host|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Build|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-06 07:08:21 UTC ---
This is a pessimization in SRA. Probably definitive I'm afraid...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-06 7:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-15 18:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 18:21 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-15 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-15 18:13:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02722.html
Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing?
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-15 18:13 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-15 18:21 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-28 14:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-15 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-15 18:21:38 UTC ---
> Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing?
It fails everywhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-15 18:21 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-28 14:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-29 0:07 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-28 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-28 14:36:58 UTC ---
This seems to be a fallout from the fix to PR 46351 and PR 46377
(revision 166535, patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00933.html).
The problem is that struct pack9__copy__t___PAD apparently contains
aggregate bit-fields which we reject in type_internals_preclude_sra_p
even before we make the variable a candidate. This seems to be a good
reason to have another look at the rather crude fix, although my
still fresh memories of the bit-field mess make me refrain from any
promises of a quick better solution.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-28 14:37 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-29 0:07 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-29 16:41 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-29 0:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-29 00:07:02 UTC ---
Proposed fix posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01912.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-29 0:07 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2010-12-29 16:41 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-03 15:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-29 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-29 16:40:47 UTC ---
> Proposed fix posted to the mailing list:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01912.html
Thanks a lot!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-12-29 16:41 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-03 15:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-03 15:46 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-30 14:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-03 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-03 15:43:25 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 3 15:43:23 2011
New Revision: 168431
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168431
Log:
2011-01-03 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/46801
* tree-sra.c (type_internals_preclude_sra_p): Check whether
aggregate fields start at byte boundary instead of the bit-field flag.
* testsuite/gnat.dg/pack9.adb: Remove xfail.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/pack9.adb
trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-03 15:43 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-01-03 15:46 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-30 14:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-01-03 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-03 15:46:26 UTC ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
2010-12-04 17:59 [Bug tree-optimization/46801] New: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck" danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-03 15:46 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-30 14:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-30 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-30 14:36:37 UTC ---
SRA does
Pack9.Copy (struct pack9__r2 * const x, struct pack9__r2 * const y)
{
+ integer t$i2;
const struct pack9__r2 t;
integer D.2584;
integer D.2583;
<bb 2>:
t = *y_1(D);
- D.2583_2 = t.i2;
+ t$i2_9 = y_1(D)->i2;
+ D.2583_2 = t$i2_9;
D.2584_3 = y_1(D)->i2;
D.2584_4 = D.2584_3;
if (D.2583_2 != D.2584_4)
@@ -206,6 +58,7 @@
<bb 4>:
*x_5(D) = t;
+ x_5(D)->i2 = t$i2_9;
return;
}
thus eliminates 't' and makes D.2583_2 and D.2584_3 redundant (and VN
figure that out and remove the if stmt).
Value-numbering does not see that in
<bb 2>:
t = *y_1(D);
<bb 3>:
D.2584_2 = t.i2;
D.2585_3 = y_1(D)->i2;
the two loads are the same (because it enters (only) the non-rewritten ops
into the hashtable). See PR52054.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread