From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50163 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2016 18:25:52 -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 50109 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2016 18:25:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=(unknown), HX-Envelope-From:sk:christo X-HELO: mail-qt0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-qt0-f172.google.com) (209.85.216.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:25:36 +0000 Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r60so40500913qtd.3 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RuVIWTTKRyn6SSlUHHCLvrw74agZtYvTzSwDjQ3raRs=; b=cFTqwxNAHowBn1uH9tpcDSYOJ3unU897gH7QoEwIPtLoPnc/s9xHbTilcOwMu6KWte 1Q82Ljv4DWP9V22zVORzkcjN06Qb+bIzD5GpSOuHT3h94Eoqff2KWkdFHWUT6Uocq69V mXrXpSFLisWh4zoIuGU0jndhW55v2Svbt7igeaTAmAx/a4f9F/ijkann11kduFURsihl miHBsW9FIPD5MZ0x0IBDb3FdAUlGJqoH+eUctyay9B+plCu9miR2Fmoujd1QpoAHoi5x 6aAIqeo+eFU2nCh3WmuyXzjQ2hEkywhH946svobWLcHV7FWvggkLo6NsCuxrov8CRaxT dqoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rn9TLcF9FWZiolIxuEAHE9KH+nn2NVJS7su4lj0EmFpc9dZJJvvC9bJ/2OGRYZt1ALVd454ZlT3BvkwSPIR X-Received: by 10.237.60.26 with SMTP id t26mr8627598qte.94.1475259934546; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:25:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.21.80 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:25:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023537E50F298@HHMAIL01.hh.imgtec.org> From: Christophe Lyon Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654 To: Doug Gilmore Cc: Matthew Fortune , Richard Biener , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "rguenth@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg02418.txt.bz2 On 30 September 2016 at 20:10, Doug Gilmore wrote: >> From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.lyon@linaro.org] >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:17 PM >> To: Matthew Fortune >> Cc: Doug Gilmore; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654 >> >> On 23 September 2016 at 17:55, Matthew Fortune >> wrote: >> > Doug Gilmore writes: >> >> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de] >> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM >> >> > To: Doug Gilmore >> >> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org >> >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654 >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote: >> >> > >> >> > ... >> >> > > Sorry I that missed point. I glossed your comment "addr_base should >> >> > > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds. >> >> > > >> >> > > New patch attached. >> >> > >> >> > Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Richard. >> >> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors >> >> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults. >> > >> > Committed as r240439. >> > >> >> Since this commit, I've noticed ICE on arm target: >> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0 >> (internal compiler error) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0 >> (test for excess errors) >> Excess errors: >> /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dREMOTE_SNAPSHOTS=g/params/blocksort-part.c:116:6: >> internal compiler error: in duplicate >> _ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 >> ... > Hi Christophe, > > I filed PR77808, will send out a fix shortly. > Thanks > BTW, I missed this in regression testing since -fprefetch-loop-arrays > is needed to expose the problem. Are you setting this as the default > in your compiler build? > No, I did not do anything special. I'm not sure to understand: this option is not in the command line of the offending test. Christophe > Thanks, > > Doug