* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-23 10:41 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 12:25 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-23 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No significant change in results for regress-446 -> regress-444 for r201882
from r201874 (some libstdc++ changes pass again, but others now fail). Maybe
r201883 is the winner; checking.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 10:41 ` [Bug regression/58221] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-23 12:25 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 12:40 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-23 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2013-08-23
CC| |tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #1)
> Maybe r201883 is the winner; checking.
Yes, that's it. I'll have to leave for a few hours but I'll extract a small
test-case, probably just one of the regressions as-is. CC to committer.
N.B. cris-* does not have target support for section-switching - at least I
don't remember putting in any specific support.
Regarding the patch, I can't say at a glance what could possibly be so damaging
about *not* skipping the first non-active insn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 10:41 ` [Bug regression/58221] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 12:25 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-23 12:40 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 13:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-23 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
SH also gets many execution failures at r201833. I've reported it as
PR58220. It looks NEXT_INSN vs. next_insn problem.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-23 12:40 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-23 13:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 13:30 ` tejohnson at google dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-23 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Patch to change that bogus next_insn call to NEXT_INSN is preapproved, please
put these two PRs into the ChangeLog entry.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-23 13:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-23 13:30 ` tejohnson at google dot com
2013-08-23 13:49 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: tejohnson at google dot com @ 2013-08-23 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com> ---
Thanks, and sorry for the trouble.
Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test
it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but
I didn't get the failure on that target and don't have on hand yet a
reproducer.
Teresa
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:13 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
>
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Patch to change that bogus next_insn call to NEXT_INSN is preapproved, please
> put these two PRs into the ChangeLog entry.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-23 13:30 ` tejohnson at google dot com
@ 2013-08-23 13:49 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-23 13:54 ` tejohnson at google dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-23 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #5)
> Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test
> it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but
> I didn't get the failure on that target and don't have on hand yet a
> reproducer.
I've tested it on sh4-linux only. I've just fired bootstrap
and the usual tests on i686-linux. It will take hours on my
slow host, though. Could you apply the patch after your x86_64
tests?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-23 13:49 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-23 13:54 ` tejohnson at google dot com
2013-08-23 14:34 ` tejohnson at google dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: tejohnson at google dot com @ 2013-08-23 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com> ---
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
>
> --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #5)
>> Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test
>> it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but
>> I didn't get the failure on that target and don't have on hand yet a
>> reproducer.
>
> I've tested it on sh4-linux only. I've just fired bootstrap
> and the usual tests on i686-linux. It will take hours on my
> slow host, though. Could you apply the patch after your x86_64
> tests?
Will do, thanks.
Teresa
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-23 13:54 ` tejohnson at google dot com
@ 2013-08-23 14:34 ` tejohnson at google dot com
2013-08-28 9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: tejohnson at google dot com @ 2013-08-23 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com> ---
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and also reproduced the failure
listed in PR rtl-optimization/58220 and verified the fix with it.
Committed as r201941:
Index: final.c
===================================================================
--- final.c (revision 201940)
+++ final.c (revision 201941)
@@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ reemit_insn_block_notes (void)
rtx insn, note;
insn = get_insns ();
- for (; insn; insn = next_insn (insn))
+ for (; insn; insn = NEXT_INSN (insn))
{
tree this_block;
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- ChangeLog (revision 201940)
+++ ChangeLog (revision 201941)
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+2013-08-23 Kaz Kojima <kkojima@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+ PR rtl-optimization/58220
+ PR regression/58221
+ * final.c (reemit_insn_block_notes): Use NEXT_INSN to
+ handle SEQUENCE insns properly.
+
2013-08-23 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
* pretty-print.h (pp_newline_and_flush): Declare. Remove macro
Thanks,
Teresa
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
> <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
>>
>> --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #5)
>>> Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test
>>> it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but
>>> I didn't get the failure on that target and don't have on hand yet a
>>> reproducer.
>>
>> I've tested it on sh4-linux only. I've just fired bootstrap
>> and the usual tests on i686-linux. It will take hours on my
>> slow host, though. Could you apply the patch after your x86_64
>> tests?
>
> Will do, thanks.
> Teresa
>
>>
>> --
>> You are receiving this mail because:
>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>
>
>
> --
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-23 14:34 ` tejohnson at google dot com
@ 2013-08-28 9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-30 13:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-23 4:30 ` tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-28 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-28 9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-30 13:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-11-23 4:30 ` tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-30 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf
2013-08-23 1:21 [Bug regression/58221] New: [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-30 13:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-11-23 4:30 ` tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-23 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #10 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Sat Nov 23 04:30:07 2013
New Revision: 205298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport to google/4_8 new sanity checking and some dwarf emission fixes for
-freorder-blocks-and-partition from trunk (r201883, r201941, r202125).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r201883 | tejohnson | 2013-08-20 06:29:53 -0700 (Tue, 20 Aug 2013) | 8 lines
Changed paths:
M /trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
M /trunk/gcc/final.c
M /trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
A /trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/pr57451.C
2013-08-20 Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com>
PR rtl-optimizations/57451
* final.c (reemit_insn_block_notes): Prevent lexical blocks
from crossing split section boundaries.
* testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/pr57451.C: New test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r201941 | tejohnson | 2013-08-23 07:31:06 -0700 (Fri, 23 Aug 2013) | 7 lines
Changed paths:
M /trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
M /trunk/gcc/final.c
2013-08-23 Kaz Kojima <kkojima@gcc.gnu.org>
PR rtl-optimization/58220
PR regression/58221
* final.c (reemit_insn_block_notes): Use NEXT_INSN to
handle SEQUENCE insns properly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r202125 | tejohnson | 2013-08-30 18:43:33 -0700 (Fri, 30 Aug 2013) | 30 lines
Changed paths:
M /trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
M /trunk/gcc/basic-block.h
M /trunk/gcc/bb-reorder.c
M /trunk/gcc/cfg.c
M /trunk/gcc/cfgcleanup.c
M /trunk/gcc/cfgrtl.c
M /trunk/gcc/predict.c
This patch sanitizes the partitioning to address issues such as edge
weight insanities that sometimes occur due to upstream optimizations,
and ensures that hot blocks are not dominated by cold blocks. This
needs to be resanitized after certain cfg optimizations that may
cause hot blocks previously reached via both hot and cold paths to
only be reached by cold paths.
The verification code in sanitize_dominator_hotness was contributed by
Steven Bosscher.
2013-08-29 Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com>
Steven Bosscher <steven@gcc.gnu.org>
* cfgrtl.c (fixup_new_cold_bb): New routine.
(commit_edge_insertions): Invoke fixup_partitions.
(find_partition_fixes): New routine.
(fixup_partitions): Ditto.
(verify_hot_cold_block_grouping): Update comments.
(rtl_verify_edges): Invoke find_partition_fixes.
(rtl_verify_bb_pointers): Update comments.
(rtl_verify_bb_layout): Ditto.
* basic-block.h (probably_never_executed_edge_p): Declare.
(fixup_partitions): Ditto.
* cfgcleanup.c (try_optimize_cfg): Invoke fixup_partitions.
* bb-reorder.c (sanitize_hot_paths): New function.
(find_rarely_executed_basic_blocks_and_crossing_edges): Invoke
sanitize_hot_paths.
* predict.c (probably_never_executed_edge_p): New routine.
* cfg.c (check_bb_profile): Add partition insanity warnings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added:
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/pr57451.C
Modified:
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/basic-block.h
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/bb-reorder.c
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/cfg.c
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/cfgcleanup.c
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/cfgrtl.c
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/final.c
branches/google/gcc-4_8/gcc/predict.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread