From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71443 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2017 16:07:04 -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 69791 invoked by uid 89); 22 Feb 2017 16:07:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*i:sk:57095C6, H*f:sk:57095C6, H*MI:sk:57095C6, r245521 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:07:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8FF93A769B; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-122-189.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.122.189] (may be forged)) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1MG6xNL015042; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:07:00 -0500 Subject: Re: PR79286, ira combine_and_move_insns in loops To: "=?UTF-8?Q?Dominique_d'Humi=c3=a8res?=" , Alan Modra References: <23ABDF83-F0BD-4382-BEDA-78306BBA29EA@lps.ens.fr> <20170221224808.GA14945@bubble.grove.modra.org> <57095C63-7993-4BD8-9719-7AB967191932@lps.ens.fr> Cc: GCC-Patches-ML From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:32:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57095C63-7993-4BD8-9719-7AB967191932@lps.ens.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg01389.txt.bz2 On 02/22/2017 04:32 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > >> Le 21 févr. 2017 à 23:48, Alan Modra a écrit : >> >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:39:08PM +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >>>> I'm slightly concerned about the test and how it'll behave on targets with small address spaces. If it's a problem we can fault in adjustments. >>> >>> The test fails on x86_64-apple-darwin16 with -m32 and -O1 and above. >> >> Have you investigated just why the test fails? > > Segmentation fault > > Note that the assembly is the same for revisions r245268 and r245564, i.e., before and after r245521. Given the array index, I kindof expected problems on 32bit platforms. Let me stand up an i686 linux instance and see if I can twiddle things without compromising the test. jeff