public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "gjl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/50063] [4.6/4.7 Regression] DSE: wrong code for gcc.dg/torture/pta-ptrarith-3.c Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:21:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-50063-4-BAM6WpV4Lr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-50063-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063 Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |denisc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 00:03:08 UTC --- >From what you wrote the internals documentation need to be fixed, i.e. there should be a disclaimer in expand_prologue documentation that SP=FP is an illegal configuration that breaks GCC. Moreover there is: > FIND_BASE_TERM (x): It is always safe for this macro to not be defined. Which is obviously wrong. I don't know enough of alias internals, but I get more and more the impression that implementing FIND_BASE_TERM is just working around problem in generic code and instead of backend hacking around it the generic code should be made robust. At the moment I tend to deactivate malicous pass(es) in the backend until they use robust approach and don't value performance higher than correctness.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-22 0:04 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-08-12 20:26 [Bug target/50063] New: [avr]: " gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-12 20:46 ` [Bug target/50063] " gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-13 17:06 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-13 17:10 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-13 17:33 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/50063] [avr]: DSE: " gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-14 9:54 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/50063] [4.6/4.7 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 8:09 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 11:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 15:32 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11 15:48 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-26 17:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-27 10:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 18:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 18:58 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 19:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 23:25 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20 0:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20 7:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-22 0:21 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2012-02-20 13:55 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-20 14:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-22 9:32 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-01 15:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-22 16:22 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/50063] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-50063-4-BAM6WpV4Lr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).