* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-04-07 14:56 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-04-07 15:26 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-04-07 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2013-04-07 14:56:42 UTC ---
The tests pass for me on costmodel-vect-76b.c at r196686.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-04-07 14:56 ` [Bug target/56864] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2013-04-07 15:26 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-04-07 15:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-04-07 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> 2013-04-07 15:26:32 UTC ---
The test was run with r197541.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-04-07 14:56 ` [Bug target/56864] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-04-07 15:26 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-04-07 15:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-04-07 16:30 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-04-07 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2013-04-07 15:31:13 UTC ---
> > The tests pass for me on costmodel-vect-76b.c at r196686.
>
> The test was run with r197541.
I did a copy&paste error, the tests pass for me at r197531.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-07 15:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2013-04-07 16:30 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-04-07 17:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-04-07 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> 2013-04-07 16:30:10 UTC ---
Neither r196686 nor r197531 are revisions on the trunk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-07 16:30 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-04-07 17:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-04-08 11:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-04-07 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2013-04-07 17:33:12 UTC ---
> Neither r196686 nor r197531 are revisions on the trunk.
Well, I record the revision number given by svn:
Updated to revision xxxxxx
The corresponding actual revision for trunk may be some number below, e.g.,
197530 for 197531, or 196683 for 196686. If you know a simple way to get the
last actual revision for trunk (branch), I'll be glad to use it.
Note that between r197531 and r197541, the only changes I can find are r197533
and r197534. Both are supposed to have been tested on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00263.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00333.html), but may be not with
-m32. Since there is no division in the test, I suspect that if there is a
regression in the 197531 to 197541 range, it is likely r197533, hence CCed
Steven.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-07 17:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2013-04-08 11:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-01 17:49 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-08 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-08 11:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-01 17:49 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-01 20:07 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-01 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-01 17:49:00 UTC ---
I can't confirm this today, either. The test passes with r198500. Andreas, do
you still see a problem with the current trunk?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-01 17:49 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-01 20:07 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-05-01 20:13 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-05-01 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> 2013-05-01 20:07:45 UTC ---
Still failing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-01 20:07 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-05-01 20:13 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-02 10:37 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-01 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-01 20:13:35 UTC ---
If possible, please check whether this began failing with r196872. That commit
looks suspicious for at least one other test. I'm stabbing in the dark since I
can't reproduce this one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-01 20:13 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-02 10:37 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-05-02 15:55 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-05-02 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> 2013-05-02 10:37:53 UTC ---
r196872 it is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 10:37 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-05-02 15:55 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-02 16:20 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-02 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-02 15:55:07 UTC ---
Well, I still can't find the magic to reproduce this myself, but our overnight
tester shows the failure
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-05/msg00094.html).
Richi, this is another test that started failing with the same commit as
PR56865. In this case, it appears we are now vectorizing a loop that we
formerly expected not to. Are you able to reproduce this?
Andreas, would you be able to provide -fdump-tree-vect-details information for
r196871 and r196872 to make it easier to debug the problem?
Thanks,
Bill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 15:55 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-02 16:20 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-05-02 16:36 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-05-02 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> 2013-05-02 16:19:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 30003
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30003
r196871 dump
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 16:20 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-05-02 16:36 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2013-07-23 17:36 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2013-05-02 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> 2013-05-02 16:36:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 30005
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30005
r196872 dump
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-02 16:36 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2013-07-23 17:36 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-25 12:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-25 13:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-07-23 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-07-23
CC| |dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2013-07-23 17:36 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-25 12:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-25 13:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-25 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/56864] [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0
2013-04-07 14:48 [Bug target/56864] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 0 schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-25 12:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-25 13:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-25 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Doesn't fail anymore according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-10/msg01946.html
and according to my cross compiler. Also with -fvect-cost-model=dynamic
(the testsuite uses -O2 and thus now -fvect-cost-model=cheap - something
you may want to change).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread