From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-362974-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28633 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2011 16:33:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 28621 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2011 16:33:36 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:33:23 +0000
From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49452-4-qmPIcRmbTn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49452-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49452-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:33:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg01458.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452

--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-18 16:31:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The machine-dependent reorg pass does something unexpected:
> 
> (insn 30 18 14 3 (set (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>         (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>             (const_int 36 [0x24]))) 4 {*arm_addsi3}
>      (nil))
> 
> (insn 14 30 16 3 (use (reg/f:SI 11 fp)) -1
>      (nil))
> 
> (insn 16 14 24 3 (unspec_volatile [
>             (const_int 0 [0])
>         ] VUNSPEC_BLOCKAGE) 252 {blockage}
>      (nil))
> 
> (insn 24 16 27 3 (set (reg/i:SI 0 r0)
>         (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>                 (const_int -56 [0xffffffffffffffc8])) [6 %sfp+-20 S4 A32]))
> comp-goto-2.c:26 176 {*arm_movsi_insn}
>      (nil))
> 
> is reordered into:
> 
> (insn 14 18 16 (use (reg/f:SI 11 fp)) -1
>      (nil))
> 
> (insn 16 14 24 (unspec_volatile [
>             (const_int 0 [0])
>         ] VUNSPEC_BLOCKAGE) 252 {blockage}
>      (nil))
> 
> (insn 24 16 30 (set (reg/i:SI 0 r0)
>         (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>                 (const_int -20 [0xffffffffffffffec])) [6 %sfp+-20 S4 A32]))
> comp-goto-2.c:26 176 {*arm_movsi_insn}
>      (nil))
> 
> (insn 30 24 27 (set (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>         (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)
>             (const_int 36 [0x24]))) 4 {*arm_addsi3}
>      (nil))
> 
> despite the blockage.

Hmmm I'm not sure I see this - what's the configure and arch. specific flags
you used just in case ? 


cheers
Ramana