From: George Thomas <georgethomas.mec@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, middlend] Fix for PR54218
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKJOuMp=y7zK=4DBr5YUgqscYv0LxscMWNaHQkcgwkAHj+BmLA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3nzoU4zCP7ZSd0fSUTN17GPiCUDMz3-nwKxYw3P_x_Yg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, George Thomas
> <georgethomas.mec@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:17 AM, George Thomas
>>> <georgethomas.mec@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am sending a patch which solves the debugging issue (PR 54218).
>>>>
>>>> The fix is to allocate stack space only once for parameters in expand pass.
>>>>
>>>> The patch is attached. Could someone suggest if its right ?
>>>
>>> I have just a formatting issue:
>>> + if (TREE_CODE (SSA_NAME_VAR (var)) != PARM_DECL)
>>> + {
>>> + if (!bitmap_bit_p (SA.partition_has_default_def, i))
>>>
>>> I think it would have been better if you had done instead:
>>> if (TREE_CODE (SSA_NAME_VAR (var)) != PARM_DECL
>>> && !bitmap_bit_p (SA.partition_has_default_def, i))
>>>
>>
>> I have attached the updated patch with the changes suggested.
>> Also adding a dejagnu test case to reproduce the bug.
>>
>>> So there are no other white space changes.
>>>
>>> Also missing a changelog entry too.
>>>
>>
>> I am adding the change logs below.
>>
>> 2013-01-11 George Thomas <george.thomas@atmel.com>
>> Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <Senthil_Kumar.Selvaraj@atmel.com>
>>
>> PR middle-end/54218
>>
>> * gcc/cfgexpand.c (expand_used_vars ) :Added
>> a step to not allocate stack space if its a parameter
>>
>> * gcc.dg/pr54218.c : New test
>>
>>
>> Hoping that the changes are fine for trunk.
>
> Please state how you tested the patch (bootstrap and regtest on which target?)
I initially tested my patch only on the avr target and ran the
regressions on avr.
When I tried building the default compiler, the build is failing in
default optimisation "-g -O2".
"build/genmddeps ../../gcc-trunk-new/gcc/config/i386/i386.md"
is throwing a segmentaion fault.
I am trying to debug on why this could be happening.
The build is passing when BOOT_CXXFLAGS is made "-g3 -O0".
The succesfully built compiler does not have the bug in it.
Also tested functions with parameters and vectors as input.
I am not sure how to debug if the issue is happening while
bootstraping the compiler itself.
Thanks,
George
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-16 18:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-11 16:17 George Thomas
2013-01-11 16:23 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-01-11 17:37 ` George Thomas
2013-01-14 14:42 ` Richard Biener
2013-01-16 18:36 ` George Thomas [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAKJOuMp=y7zK=4DBr5YUgqscYv0LxscMWNaHQkcgwkAHj+BmLA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=georgethomas.mec@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=pinskia@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).