From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9064 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2013 07:34:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 9041 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2013 07:34:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f181.google.com) (209.85.214.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:33:27 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id oi10so1063139obb.12 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:33:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.43.102 with SMTP id v6mr89318obl.60.1358321606708; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:33:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.153.201 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:33:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50F582CE.3090201@redhat.com> <50F585DB.2020706@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PR55547] fix alias regression on alpha on misaligned symbols (was: Re: do you have time to review this alpha P1 patch?) From: Uros Bizjak To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Richard Henderson , Aldy Hernandez , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00827.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On 01/15/2013 08:24 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> Ok, it's really an alias.c bug, but it is Alpha, and aoliva has already >>> provided an unreviewed patch... > >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547 > >> The patch in #C4 is ok. > > Thanks, I'm checking it in (first patch below), but reviewing the logic > that uses negative sizes, I found a number of places that should use the > absolute value, and others in which being conservative about negative > sizes is unnecessary (e.g., when dealing with CONST_INT addresses). > That was implemented and regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Uros, would > you give the second patch a spin on alpha to make sure it doesn't > regress? Ok to install it? Thanks, I started a bootstrap/regtest run. If everything goes as expected, the results will be available in ~10h from now... Uros.