From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100717 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2015 09:45:35 -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 100698 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2015 09:45:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-la0-f53.google.com Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f53.google.com) (209.85.215.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:45:33 +0000 Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so95732350lag.3; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:45:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.87.169 with SMTP id az9mr5428670lab.46.1439891130012; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.165.13 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55D2FA1D.1060508@arm.com> References: <55312EDF.90005@redhat.com> <5535DFB5.3020003@redhat.com> <55B7C784.4010104@arm.com> <55B95039.3070803@redhat.com> <55BB5640.2060508@arm.com> <55D2FA1D.1060508@arm.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ira.c update_equiv_regs patch causes gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c regression From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Alex Velenko Cc: Jeff Law , Shiva Chen , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , jakub@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00969.txt.bz2 On 18 August 2015 at 10:25, Alex Velenko wrote: > > > On 31/07/15 12:04, Alex Velenko wrote: >> >> On 29/07/15 23:14, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> On 07/28/2015 12:18 PM, Alex Velenko wrote: >>>> >>>> On 21/04/15 06:27, Jeff Law wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/20/2015 01:09 AM, Shiva Chen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your advice. >>>>>> >>>>>> can_replace_by.patch is the new patch to handle both cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.ori is the original jump2 rtl dump >>>>>> >>>>>> pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.patch_can_replace_by is the jump2 rtl dump >>>>>> after patch can_replace_by.patch >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you help me to review the patch? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. This looks pretty good. >>>>> >>>>> I expanded the comment for the new function a bit and renamed the >>>>> function in an effort to clarify its purpose. From reviewing >>>>> can_replace_by, it seems it should have been handling this case, but >>>>> clearly wasn't due to implementation details. >>>>> >>>>> I then bootstrapped and regression tested the patch on x86_64-linux-gnu >>>>> where it passed. I also instrumented that compiler to see how often >>>>> this code triggers. During a bootstrap it triggers a couple hundred >>>>> times (which is obviously a proxy for cross jumping improvements). So >>>>> it's triggering regularly on x86_64, which is good. >>>>> >>>>> I also verified that this fixes BZ64916 for an arm-non-eabi toolchain >>>>> configured with --with-arch=armv7. >>>>> >>>>> Installed on the trunk. No new testcase as it's covered by existing >>>>> tests. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks,, >>>>> jeff >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I see this patch been committed in r222256 on trunk. Is it okay to port >>>> this to fsf-5? >>> >>> It's not a regression, so backporting it would be generally frowned >>> upon. If you feel strongly about it, you should ask Jakub, Joseph or >>> Richi (the release managers) for an exception to the general policy. >>> >>> jeff >>> >> Hi Jakub, >> Can this commit be ported to fsf-5? It fixed gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c >> at the time, so I think it is a good idea to port. Please, see >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916 >> Kind regards, >> Alex > > > Ping! > > Currently this test is passed on fsf-trunk, but not passed on fsf-5, so I > think it is a regression on fsf-5: That does not make it a regression, it is only a regression if a version prior to 5 passes, how does this test behave on 4.9? Cheers /Marcus