From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-474438-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18635 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2015 18:52:49 -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
Received: (qmail 18356 invoked by uid 55); 22 Jan 2015 18:52:20 -0000
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/64694] [5 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:52:00 -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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
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: <bug-64694-4-cZbU1cS6wA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64694-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64694-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg02432.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64694

--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64694
> 
> --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64694
> > 
> > --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
> > r219076 introduced:
> > 
> >       if (current_badness != badness)
> >         {
> >           if (edge_heap.min () && badness > edge_heap.min_key ())
> >                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >                                   Does it look right?
> 
> This is a thinko, indeed.  I am testing a fix, but I doubdt this can affect
> correctness
> of a testcase.  I see it does inlining, but why it depends on inline decisions?
I meant unwinding.

Honza