From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-385226-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23067 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2012 12:32:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 23049 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2012 12:32:44 -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; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:32:31 +0000
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/51244] SH Target: Inefficient conditional branch
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:32:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51244-4-S43fQHuG9O@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51244-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51244-4@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
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: 2012-03/txt/msg00279.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244

--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-03 12:32:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 26812 [details]
> Proposed patch
> 
> I've tested this patch again against rev 184764 (GCC 4.7) with
> 
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=sh-sim\{
> -m2/-ml,-m2/-mb,-m2a-single/-mb,-m4-single/-ml,
> -m4-single/-mb,-m4a-single/-ml,-m4a-single/-mb}"
> 
> Surprisingly, it fixes the following libstdc++ tests.
> 

That was a false alarm.  I've messed up the test results somehow.
The libstdc++ test case fixes have nothing to do with the patch, but rather
rev 184764 vs. rev 184829.  Sorry for any confusion.

> 
> However, it also introduces two new of new failures.
> 
> For all sub targets:
> FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/cons/char/6.cc execution test
> 
> For -m4a-single and -m4-single (-ml and -mb):
> FAIL: 22_locale/ctype/is/char/3.cc execution test
> 
> I'm looking into what is happening in the two cases.

It seems that when building newlib something gets messed up related to delayed
branches.  Building newlib with -fno-delayed-branch seems to make the failures
go away.