[Bug middle-end/61225] New: [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[Bug middle-end/61225] New: [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

            Bug ID: 61225
           Summary: [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458
                    on x86_64-*-* with -m32
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.10.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr

After r210458 the following failures appeared with -m32 (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2014-05/msg00155.html)

FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43051-1.c  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  line 34 c == &a[0]
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr43051-1.c  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  line
34 c == &a[0]
FAIL: gcc.dg/shrink-wrap-loop.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "Performing
shrink-wrapping"
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90  -O  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90  -O  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
(internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
(test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (internal
compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for
excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/der_array_io_1.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
-finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops 
(internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess
errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -g  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_t_3.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)

On x86_64-apple-darwin13, configured with

../work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc4.10w
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,ada,java,lto --with-gmp=/opt/mp
--with-system-zlib --with-isl=/opt/mp --enable-lto --enable-plugin
--with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=corei7

I only see the failures

FAIL: gcc.dg/shrink-wrap-loop.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "Performing
shrink-wrapping"
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90  -O  (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90  -O  (test for excess errors)

The ICE is

[Book15] f90/bug% gfc
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90 -m32 -O
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90: In
function 'MAIN__':
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90:8:0:
internal compiler error: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2239
   print *, fun (a)
 ^

/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_needed_1.f90:8:0:
internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6

The ICE disappears if the code is compiled with -mtune=intel and if gcc is
configured with --enable-checking=release.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8", Size: 3566 bytes --]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|                            |i686
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-05-19
                 CC|                            |ubizjak at gmail dot com,
                   |                            |zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.10.0
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Confirmed, adding CC.
>From gcc-bugs-return-451884-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon May 19 10:08:04 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451884-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2210 invoked by alias); 19 May 2014 10:08:03 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2170 invoked by uid 48); 19 May 2014 10:08:00 -0000
From: "fatony at fatony dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/61227] New: [C++11] Regex does not work
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: fatony at fatony dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-61227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01576.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1027

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida227

            Bug ID: 61227
           Summary: [C++11] Regex does not work
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: fatony at fatony dot net

Created attachment 32819
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id2819&actioníit
Code sample

The attached code produces std::regex_error in g++ 4.9.0.

Here's what debugger says:
Debugger name and version: GNU gdb (GDB) 7.6.2 (Debian 7.6.2-1.1)
In __cxa_throw () (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6)
#2  0x0000000000410380 in std::__detail::_Compiler<std::regex_traits<char>
>::_M_expression_term<false, false> (this=0x7fffffffe3f0, __matcher=...) at
/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/regex_compiler.tcc:455
/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/regex_compiler.tcc:455:13755:beg:0x410380
At /usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/regex_compiler.tcc:455

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #2 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Patch @r210457 enhances move_insn_for_shrink_wrap to sink more instructions out
of entry block.

For ICE, it tries to sink a SP adjustment instruction. But some useful
information is lost during sinking.

A patch is in testing.

shrink-wrap-loop.c is a new test. I will update it to skip it for "-m32".

As pr49095.c, peephole2 generates inefficient code with the changes in
shrink-wrap. Need more investigation to identify the root cause.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #3 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
I can not reproduce gcc.dg/guality/pr43051-1.c fail with options

-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -m32 -mtune=core2

What are your final options to build the test case?

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hjl at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> I can not reproduce gcc.dg/guality/pr43051-1.c fail with options ...

The patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01579.html fixes the
issues I saw on x86_64-apple-darwin13 (not an approval). 

I don't see the other issues at 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2014-05/msg00155.html
in particular the guality test (not run on darwin): CCing H.J. Lu.

Personal opinion: the guality tests are just a mess that should be fixed or
removed.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[ubizjak at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Even with the patch, I still get (using -m32 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)

FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
>From gcc-bugs-return-452059-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue May 20 17:26:04 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-452059-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7777 invoked by alias); 20 May 2014 17:26:04 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7243 invoked by uid 55); 20 May 2014 17:25:58 -0000
From: "ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/61223] [gcc-4.10 regression] libstdc++ build fail due to pop lr register
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: blocker
X-Bugzilla-Who: ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61223-4-0liRKKyFkN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61223-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61223-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01751.txt.bz2
Content-length: 626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida223

--- Comment #2 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue May 20 17:25:26 2014
New Revision: 210650

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev!0650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-20  Alexey Merzlyakov  <alexey.merzlyakov@samsung.com>

    PR libstdc++/61223
    Revert:
    2014-05-16  Alexey Merzlyakov  <alexey.merzlyakov@samsung.com>

    PR libstdc++/60758
    * libsupc++/eh_arm.cc (__cxa_end_cleanup): Change r4 to lr in save/restore
    and add unwind directives.

Modified:
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_arm.cc

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Even with the patch, I still get (using -m32 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]

Confirmed, I have overlooked this failure.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #7 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Yes. gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c is still FAIL.

I have not found an easy way to fix it. The root cause for the FAIL is that:

A register copy is forwarded by copyprop_hardreg_forward called in
shrink-wrapping. Then the peephole2 can not optimize it since the adress looks
like different.

I am trying to add more complexity peephole rules. If not work, I will add some
pre-check to skip copyprop_hardreg_forward.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[zqchen at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #8 from zqchen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: zqchen
Date: Mon May 26 06:11:33 2014
New Revision: 210921

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ChangeLog:
2014-05-26  Zhenqiang Chen  <zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org>

    PR rtl-optimization/61220
    Part of PR rtl-optimization/61225
    * shrink-wrap.c (move_insn_for_shrink_wrap): Skip SP and FP adjustment
    insn; skip split_edge for a block with only one successor.

testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-05-26  Zhenqiang Chen  <zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org>

    * gcc.dg/pr61220.c: New test.
    * gcc.dg/shrink-wrap-loop.c: Disable for x86_64 -m32 mode.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61220.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/shrink-wrap.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/shrink-wrap-loop.c

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]

Still failing after revision r210921 (-m32 only).

[Bug middle-end/61225] [4.10 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #10 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Yes. I see. The patch is in review. But no feedback although I had pinged it
for three times.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01325.html

I will go on ping it.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Yes. I see. The patch is in review. But no feedback although I had pinged it for
> three times.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01325.html
>
> I will go on ping it.

The patch no longer apply on trunk (5.0).

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING

--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Still failing?  I don't see them with x86_64 -m32 testing.  Is this happening
on darwin only?

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Still failing? 

Yes.

> I don't see them with x86_64 -m32 testing.  Is this happening on darwin only?

No, see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-11/msg02035.html.

Note that the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01325.html
has never been reviewed until it no longer applies.

If needed, I can file a PR for 
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not test[lq]
and close this one: AFAIK it is the last remaining issue for this PR.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
             Target|i686                        |i?86-*-*
           Priority|P3                          |P1
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW

--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Indeed I see the very same fail still.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #16 from Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com> ---
Still in discussions in two threads about Combine and Compare-elim.

[PATCH] Fix PR 61225
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00558.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00577.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00578.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00579.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00612.html

Compare-elim pass (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 61225)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00581.html

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ro at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Another 6 weeks have passed and gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c is still failing. 
This
needs to be handled somehow before the GCC 5 release.

  Rainer

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[law at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |law at redhat dot com

--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Rainer,

Zhenqiang has left GCC development.  

But this BZ is on the regression list for GCC 5 as a P1.  So it's going to get
some attention.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
> Rainer,
>
> Zhenqiang has left GCC development.  

I didn't know that: now wonder the issue isn't getting his attention :-)

> But this BZ is on the regression list for GCC 5 as a P1.  So it's going to get
> some attention.

Fine.  I just wanted to ping it in time before the release.

    Rainer

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |segher at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Since this (pr49095.c) is a very minor issue, and no (non-target
specific) patch is likely to be suitable for stage4, may I recommend
to XFAIL the test?

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[law at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
>From my experimentations, I don't see a reasonable way to fix this in stage4
except via some horrid define_peep2.  

We don't have the LOG_LINKS we need to do a good job on this during the
combiner.  I'll certainly support xfailing the test and probably a downgrade to
at least a P2, possibly a P4.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Feb  3 12:15:32 2015
New Revision: 220370

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR middle-end/61225
    gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c: XFAIL for ia32.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5/6 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
   Target Milestone|5.0                         |6.0
            Summary|[5 Regression] Several new  |[5/6 Regression] Several
                   |failures after r210458 on   |new failures after r210458
                   |x86_64-*-* with -m32        |on x86_64-*-* with -m32

--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So deferring to 6.0 then.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5/6 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225

--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> So deferring to 6.0 then.

Any progress?