From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14402 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2012 19:30:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14276 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2012 19:30:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f47.google.com) (209.85.220.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:29:58 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id fa10so3690475pad.20 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:29:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.194.101 with SMTP id hv5mr50610145pbc.121.1354044597694; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.246.232 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:29:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA:] fix PR55030, wrong code from __builtin_setjmp_receiver From: Uros Bizjak To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Hans-Peter Nilsson , Eric Botcazou , Alexandre Oliva 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: 2012-11/txt/msg02260.txt.bz2 Hello! > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 06:44:23AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > JFTR: No I didn't, Eric wrote the below. But, it made sense to me. :) > > > > > We apparently have a small conflict between the meaning of volatile asms with > > > > operands at the source level and volatile_insn_p. However, I think that the > > > > latter interpretation is the correct one: if your asm statements have effects > > > > that can be described, then you should use output constraints instead of > > > > volatile; otherwise, you should use volatile and the output constraints have > > > > essentially no meaning. > > > > I strongly disagree with this. > > [...] > > As long as volatile asms and UNSPEC_VOLATILE insns (aka. > barriers) are handled the same way and consistently throughout > gcc, I'm fine. It seems your patch does that, so thanks! > > > But the question is also what effects your patch can have e.g. on RTL DSE. > > Looks like the patch caused a bootstrap for s390x. > > Eagerly awaiting a PR for that, but whoever is interested > on that, please try Jakub's patch first... > > > 2012-11-26 Jakub Jelinek > > > > PR debug/36728 > > PR debug/55467 > > * cselib.c (cselib_process_insn): If cselib_preserve_constants, > > don't reset table and exit early on volatile insns and setjmp. > > Reset table afterwards on setjmp. > > > > * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c: Include "../nop.h", make sure the asm > > are non-empty and add dependency between the first and second asm. > > * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-2.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-3.c: New test. > > * gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-4.c: New test. I have hit the same ICE on alpha-linux-gnu bootstrap. Jakub's patch fixes the ICE, and allows bootstrap to pass well into stage2 now. However, it takes ~10 hours for full bootstrap+regtest to finish, will report back tomorrow morning (CET). Uros.