From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14349 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2015 12:10:35 -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 14330 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2015 12:10:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f178.google.com) (209.85.214.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:10:34 +0000 Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so14762304obn.3 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:10:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.141.135 with SMTP id ro7mr14427726oeb.13.1437739832025; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.160.68 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:10:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150723203112.GB27818@gate.crashing.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PR64164] drop copyrename, integrate into expand From: "H.J. Lu" To: Richard Biener Cc: David Edelsohn , Alexandre Oliva , Jeff Law , Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , Christophe Lyon , Eric Botcazou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02056.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:19 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:14 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Segher Boessenkool >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:29:14PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>>>>>> Yeah. Thanks, I've tested it with this change, and I'm now checking >>>>>>> this in (full patch first; adjusted incremental patch at the end): >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately it causes about a thousand test fails on powerpc64-linux >>>>>> (at least, it seems to be this patch, I haven't actually checked). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It also caused: >>>>> >>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978 >>>>> >>>> >>>> and maybe: >>>> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983 >>> >>> I request that this patch be reverted (again). >> >> And I request to test any new patches under x32 before checking in. >> You can use Ubuntu 14 to test x32. > > x32 is neither primary nor secondary arch. > I suggested a way to reproduce the problem. I checked in this testcase so that the problem will show up on Linux/x86-64. -- H.J. --- Index: ChangeLog =================================================================== --- ChangeLog (revision 226149) +++ ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2015-07-24 H.J. Lu + + PR bootstrap/66978 + * gcc.target/i386/pr66978.c: New test. + 2015-07-24 Andreas Krebbel * gcc.target/s390/gpr2fprsavecfi.c: New test. Index: gcc.target/i386/pr66978.c =================================================================== --- gcc.target/i386/pr66978.c (revision 0) +++ gcc.target/i386/pr66978.c (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +/* { dg-do compile { target { ! { ia32 } } } } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target maybe_x32 } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mx32 -maddress-mode=short" } */ + +extern int foo (int *); +int +bar (int *p) +{ + __attribute__ ((noinline, noclone)) + int hack_digit (void) + { + return foo (p); + } + return hack_digit (); +}