From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25432 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2014 15:19:22 -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 25417 invoked by uid 48); 27 Oct 2014 15:19:19 -0000 From: "patrick.riphagen at xsens dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/63658] New: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Using class reference as template parameter causes compilation to fail Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:20:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: major X-Bugzilla-Who: patrick.riphagen at xsens dot com 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: 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: 2014-10/txt/msg02080.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63658 Bug ID: 63658 Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Using class reference as template parameter causes compilation to fail Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: patrick.riphagen at xsens dot com Created attachment 33818 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D33818&action=3Dedit Source code containing the bug We have a template class which is based on a descriptor class. The template class is specialized later on. I have attached a stripped version of the problematic code. Using gcc 4.7 and 4.8 we did not have a problem compiling this code. Using gcc 4.9.1 (gcc version 4.9.1 (Ubuntu 4.9.1-16ubuntu6) ) this code does not compile anymore. The error is: main.cpp:15:17: error: prototype for =E2=80=98void foo::size() [with Des= criptor& D =3D (* & g_descriptor)]=E2=80=99 does not match any in class =E2=80=98foo<(* & = g_descriptor)>=E2=80=99 template<> void foo::size() ^ main.cpp:11:7: error: candidate is: void foo::size() [with Descriptor& D= =3D (* & g_descriptor)] void size (); It looks like the prototype for and candidate look exactly the same, however compilation still fails >>From gcc-bugs-return-465060-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Oct 27 15:20:15 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27654 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2014 15:20:15 -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 27573 invoked by uid 48); 27 Oct 2014 15:20:11 -0000 From: "wdijkstr at arm dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/61915] [AArch64] High amounts of GP to FP register moves using LRA on AArch64 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:22:00 -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: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: wdijkstr at arm dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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: 2014-10/txt/msg02081.txt.bz2 Content-length: 2200 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915 --- Comment #18 from Wilco --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #16) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13) > > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #9) > > > > I committed a workaround > > > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00362.html) by increasing the > > > > int<->fp move cost. Can you try this and check the issue has indeed gone? > > > > You need -mcpu=cortex-a57. > > > > > > Note when I submitted ThunderX support I used a base of 2 instead of a base > > > of 1 due to 2 being the default and all values are relative to that. This > > > is mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Costs.html . In fact > > > a value of 2 means reload will not look at the constraints of a move > > > instruction. > > > > > > So I think the cortex* cpus should also re-base these values based on 2 > > > being gpr-to-gpr value. > > > > You mean only use multiples of 2? That's interesting as I've not seen that > > done elsewhere. Are these costs in any way related to real issue and latency > > cycles? Most targets have complex tables with all the exact latencies for > > every little uarch detail, but from what I've seen in the allocator these > > costs have almost no meaning. > > Not always multiple of 2 though in the case of ThunderX they are multiple of > twos. The costs are not really directly related to the latency cost but it > is relative to one another. So I could have used 2, 3, 4 (meaning latency > of 1, 2, 3) instead. I used the factor of 2 instead of 1 for ThunderX > because 2 + 3 != 4 but rather 5. OK. > > So did you find that setting the FP move cost so low actually works alright > > on ThunderX? I'd like to figure out a setting for the generic target that > > works out well across all AArch64 implementations. > > Yes it seems to at least on the things we have benchmarked but we have not > done much big benchmarks like SPEC yet. Well in one testcase I'm seeing 11 str and 26 ldr spills on a53/a57 but 407 fmoves on thunderx. I don't see how that could be a good tradeoff unless fmov has negative latency...