From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id B2062383E814; Tue, 26 May 2020 20:12:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B2062383E814
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1590523962;
 bh=ANaKpYX4GE+uowYtfYJLELR3CIw+yRSZtYH/vQfsH/M=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=w+/5x0pCwPB1m5qBXKeFJ7Wxdgfkdty1vyK1JhFfYBpmnbc+8KB5gCC3ELWI/XpUo
 FXaCjBlK5dX2YVzNngKWygyHxuUb+dtOne6iX8dK/xKormbYOIarcIFd7Ifr/9Mvm1
 oZr5Dnfb6AajZQXETzZxHkILVqWaD4+g1xQ6EfLs=
From: "erick.ochoa@theobroma-systems.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95336] Bad code gen omnetpp_r aarch64
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:12:42 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: erick.ochoa@theobroma-systems.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-95336-4-dbU1HudGdw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95336-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95336-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:12:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95336

--- Comment #7 from Erick Ochoa <erick.ochoa@theobroma-systems.com> ---

I have ran revision 4945b4c2c8628bdd61b348ea5bd1f9b72537a36e with -O3 but a=
ll
-O2 and -O3 optimizations disabled except=20

>   -finline-functions                          [enabled]
>   -finline-small-functions                    [enabled]

And the bug was triggered.

(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> Can you please try the previous revision (6889a3acfee) but with option
> -fno-ipa-sra ?  If it fails, it means that the previous implementation
> of IPA-SRA hid some other error (we have already had an aliasing bug
> like that) - in that case it would be great if you could bisect again,
> this time with this option.

I ran revision 6889a3acfee

* (with) -fno-ipa-sra:                    fails
* (without) -fno-ipa-sra:                 fails

This was weird to me because the bisection should show that without
-fno-ipa-sra it should succeed. But then I used the same flags I used during
bisection which included fprofile-generate...

* (with) -fno-ipa-sra -fprofile-generate: fails
* (with) -fprofile-generate:              succeeds

Maybe using -fprofile-generate to bisect was not the correct decision? The =
bug
may have hidden due to the indirection provided by the profiling functions.=
 But
at least there's evidence of different behaviour. So: yes, I'll bisect again
with minimal flags to trigger the error and let's see what happens.=