From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E779138618BD; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:36:54 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E779138618BD DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1593729414; bh=oitdSx/P6DBKt6Z+rMjYfsgeXOjxgvmCivLZujpmgss=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HLV9PIyj8UJEzjhBRkWXYq79KNrGgf3xdqOyHwgqcPJwyAN3o+TiBiBxbEo8YfrLb RAykZVBGgdH8XFVZaZ/hQY3DzRkDc8wMCNnqJgqjrPDgoi80oSpFanBsRO+LgHSWvR hZwohghYj+lb32sBgf0Y8m2skXJeLBYVLiucotIs= From: "slyfox at inbox dot ru" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/96015] [10/11 Regression] gcc-10.1.0 miscompiles Python on hppa Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 22:36:54 +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: 10.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: slyfox at inbox dot ru X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.2 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-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 22:36:55 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96015 --- Comment #25 from Sergei Trofimovich --- (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #22) > (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #17) > > For me tree optimized dump is correct, so likely a target issue. >=20 > Yeah, I agree. I finally understood why memory loads disappear (duh!). >=20 > > @Sergei: Is GCC 9 working properly? > > Would it be possible to bisect that? >=20 > gcc-9 seems to work, bu I'm not sure if it's intentional or unrelated > optimization passes change the code enough. >=20 > I'll try to cook up even smaller example given that -fno-delayed-branch > seems to be a culprit and then bisect gcc. Bisected down to: $ git bisect good 8c3785c43d490d4f234e21c9dee6bb1bb8d1dbdf is the first bad commit commit 8c3785c43d490d4f234e21c9dee6bb1bb8d1dbdf Author: Martin Liska Date: Wed Dec 4 11:13:49 2019 +0100 Initialize a BB count in switch lowering. 2019-12-04 Martin Liska * tree-switch-conversion.c (switch_decision_tree::try_switch_expansion): Initialize count of newly created BB. From-SVN: r278959 gcc/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c | 1 + 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)=