public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
@ 2014-12-03 0:08 schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 0:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2014-12-03 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
Bug ID: 64159
Summary: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c
scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: schwab@linux-m68k.org
Target: powerpc*-*-*
$ grep return ssa-dom-cse-2.c.183t.optimized
return sum_7;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64159] [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2014-12-03 0:08 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 2:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: schwab@linux-m68k.org @ 2014-12-03 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64159] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 0:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
@ 2014-12-03 2:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-03 10:10 ` [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-12-03 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[5.0 regression] FAIL: |FAIL:
|gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse |gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse
|-2.c scan-tree-dump |-2.c scan-tree-dump
|optimized "return 28;" |optimized "return 28;"
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
/* See PR63679, if the target forces the initializer to memory then
DOM is not able to perform this optimization. */
So most likely this should be xfailed for powerpc. Not a regression because
this testcase is a new one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 0:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 2:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-12-03 10:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-22 13:10 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-12-03 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|tree-optimization |target
Summary|FAIL: |[5 Regression] FAIL:
|gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse |gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse
|-2.c scan-tree-dump |-2.c scan-tree-dump
|optimized "return 28;" |optimized "return 28;"
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It's already xfailed for hppa, so yes, likely (if you can verify the theory).
Note that there may be other reasons, like vectorizing using stmts that
we don't constant-fold or the inability to unroll the loop due to target
specific limits.
Needs investigation.
It's still a testsuite regression.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-03 10:10 ` [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-22 13:10 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 19:17 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-22 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Also FAILs on Solaris/SPARC, in the same way as on powerpc.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-22 13:10 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-29 19:17 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-31 14:58 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-29 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2015-01-29
CC| |dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is confirmed. Do we have agreement to XFAIL the testcase on powerpc and
sparc?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-29 19:17 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-01-31 14:58 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-01 21:14 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-01-31 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 31 14:57:43 2015
New Revision: 220305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64159
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: Add XFAIL for powerpc*-*-* and
sparc*-*-*.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-01-31 14:58 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-01 21:14 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-01 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-27 15:48 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-01 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed in r220305 with testsuite change.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-01 21:14 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-02-01 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-27 15:48 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-02-01 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks like aarch64*-*-* needs to be added also. I will look into that next
week.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;"
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-02-01 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-05-27 15:48 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-05-27 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see this test failing on arm too.
Should it be xfailed there as well?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-05-27 15:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-12-03 0:08 [Bug tree-optimization/64159] New: [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 28;" schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 0:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2014-12-03 2:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64159] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-03 10:10 ` [Bug target/64159] [5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-22 13:10 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-29 19:17 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-31 14:58 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-01 21:14 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-01 22:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-27 15:48 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).