From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26188 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2014 17:30:09 -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 26174 invoked by uid 89); 13 Oct 2014 17:30:08 -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-HELO: mail-vc0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f176.google.com) (209.85.220.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:30:07 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hq11so6102676vcb.7 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:30:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.21.134 with SMTP id qs6mr2844651vcb.72.1413221405240; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.73.193 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:30:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201410131320.s9DDKPKM020078@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> References: <201410131320.s9DDKPKM020078@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices@dwf_regno From: David Edelsohn To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , "rohitarulraj@freescale.com" , Edmar Wienskoski , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Alan Modra , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01168.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> >> > Seeing Rohit got good results it has struck me that perhaps one of the >> > patches I had previously reverted, to be able to compile GCC in the first >> > place, interfered with this fix -- I backed out all the subsequent patches >> > to test yours and Rohit's by themselves only. And it was actually the >> > case, with this change: >> > >> > 2013-05-21 Christian Bruel >> > >> > * dwarf2out.c (multiple_reg_loc_descriptor): Use dbx_reg_number for >> > spanning registers. LEAF_REG_REMAP is supported only for contiguous >> > registers. Set register size out of the PARALLEL loop. >> > >> > back in place, in addition to your fix, I get an all-passed score for >> > gdb.base/store.exp. So your change looks good and my decision to back out >> > the other patches unfortunate. I'll yet run full e500v2 testing now to >> > double check, and let you know what the results are, within a couple of >> > hours if things work well. >> >> It took a bit more because I saw some regressions that I wanted to >> investigate. In the end they turned out intermittent and the failures >> happen sometimes whether your change is applied or not. So I'm fine with >> your change, thanks for your work and patience. > > Thanks for verifying! > > David, is the patch OK to commit now? Okay with me. Thanks! David