* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2012-08-06 8:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-06 14:25 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-08-06 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-08-06
Component|middle-end |testsuite
CC| |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-06 08:33:38 UTC ---
As said in the commit mail, the testcase is "broken". It scans for a random
string not in any way associated with what the testcase checks. That random
string no longer appears - instead of just deleting the scan I've opted to
let the author of the patch figure a better way to check for a successful
testcase.
Confirmed anyway.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-08-06 8:34 ` [Bug testsuite/54184] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-08-06 14:25 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-21 17:47 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-08-06 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-06 14:24:37 UTC ---
cris-elf too, since it's global. It should be xfailed until fixed; that is,
assuming it doesn't randomly succeed, which could be confusing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-08-06 8:34 ` [Bug testsuite/54184] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-06 14:25 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-08-21 17:47 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-02 16:36 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-08-21 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-21 17:46:26 UTC ---
My bad... I'm on this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-21 17:47 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-02 16:36 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-05 21:16 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-02 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin <danglin at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-02 16:36:13 UTC ---
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 as well.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-02 16:36 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-05 21:16 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-05 22:43 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-05 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-05 21:15:52 UTC ---
What I was trying to test here originally was whether the LIM pass kept a flag
of changes to "count" and only if the flag was true, allow the cached version
of "count" to be stored.
Technically, I could get away with only checking the presence of count_lsm_flag
in the dump, though I realize that this also is an imperfect solution if a
previous pass changed things around.
Apart from checking count_lsm_flag, the only thing I can think of is replacing
this test with one within the simulate-thread/ infrastructure that actually
checks that no caching occurs unless p->data > 0.
Richard, which solution do you prefer, or do you recommend something else?
void func()
{
struct obj *p;
for (p = q; p; p = p->next)
if (p->data > 0)
count++;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-05 21:16 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-05 22:43 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-06 8:54 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-05 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-05 22:43:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28137
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28137
proposed patch
Proposed patch using the simulate-thread harness.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-05 22:43 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-06 8:54 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-06 17:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2012-09-06 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-09-06 08:53:36 UTC ---
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
>
> Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
> |gnu.org |
>
> --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-05 21:15:52 UTC ---
> What I was trying to test here originally was whether the LIM pass kept a flag
> of changes to "count" and only if the flag was true, allow the cached version
> of "count" to be stored.
>
> Technically, I could get away with only checking the presence of count_lsm_flag
> in the dump, though I realize that this also is an imperfect solution if a
> previous pass changed things around.
>
> Apart from checking count_lsm_flag, the only thing I can think of is replacing
> this test with one within the simulate-thread/ infrastructure that actually
> checks that no caching occurs unless p->data > 0.
Yes, that sounds like the proper solution.
> Richard, which solution do you prefer, or do you recommend something else?
Another way would be to make LIM emit something in the dump when
it did a "conditional" hoisting as opposed to an un-conditional one
and check that for the testcases the hoisting occurs but only conditional.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-06 8:54 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2012-09-06 17:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-09-07 16:00 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-07 18:23 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2012-09-06 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2012-09-06 17:06:07 UTC ---
What about gcc.dg/pr52558-2.c and gcc.dg/tm/reg-promotion.c not handled by the
patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00390.html?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-06 17:06 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2012-09-07 16:00 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-07 18:23 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-07 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-07 16:00:18 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Fri Sep 7 16:00:07 2012
New Revision: 191079
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191079
Log:
PR testsuite/54184
* gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c: Delete.
* gcc.dg/simulate-thread/speculative-store-2.c: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/simulate-thread/speculative-store-2.c
Removed:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure
2012-08-05 23:57 [Bug middle-end/54184] New: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-07 16:00 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-07 18:23 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-07 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-07 18:23:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> What about gcc.dg/pr52558-2.c and gcc.dg/tm/reg-promotion.c not handled by the
> patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00390.html?
I have pending patches for these too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00485.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00487.html
Thanks for reporting this.
I will now close this PR, as the original problem reported has been fixed and
committed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread