From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18980 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2015 03:24:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18900 invoked by uid 48); 9 Feb 2015 03:24:53 -0000 From: "amker at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/62631] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c FAILs Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 03:24:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amker 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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00751.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D62631 --- Comment #32 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #30) > On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: >=20 > > Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table. >=20 > Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in the estimation of the > total cost > for each candidate? The total cost I think. Cost in IVOPT is tricky and inaccurate since 1) it needs to estimate cost of RTL on gimple IR; 2) The rtx expression cost is computed together with address expression cost, which doesn't happen in oth= er part of GCC.=20=20 I can try to make the case less vulnerable for now. Should we consider thi= s as a missed optimization since GCC never did the optimization for the case bef= ore (and still not for mentioned targets)? Thanks, bin >=20 > Dave > -- > John David Anglin dave.anglin@bell.net >>From gcc-bugs-return-476419-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Feb 09 05:31:18 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15224 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2015 05:31:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15166 invoked by uid 48); 9 Feb 2015 05:31:14 -0000 From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/61548] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:31:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-02/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2 Content-length: 283 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548 --- Comment #28 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #27) > Does the following patch fix the problem? Yes! Full regtest is underway but this particular FAIL is fixed. Thanks.