From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114785 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2015 17:51:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 114731 invoked by uid 89); 30 Oct 2015 17:51:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:51:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0A52ABB02; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:51:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-196.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.196]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9UHplGp015480; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:51:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][PR tree-optimization/67892] Use FSM threader to handle backedges To: Andreas Schwab References: <5632474C.50002@redhat.com> <87ziz08nnb.fsf@igel.home> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <5633AE33.4090505@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87ziz08nnb.fsf@igel.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg03438.txt.bz2 On 10/30/2015 07:57 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > I'm getting this regression on m68k: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c scan-tree-dump vrp2 "FSM" > > The generated code looks equivalent, though. This looks to be an issue with logicals & short-circuiting.. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with an exclude list that mirrors what we see in various ifcombine tests. I'm going to spin up the usual suspect crosses and see what they look like. Jeff