public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds@redhat.com>,
	Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, hzoli@hzoli.2y.net
Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 20:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200110050346.UAA19385@rtl.cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011004153251.054de990@mail.lauterbach.com>

In article < 5.1.0.14.2.20011004153251.054de990@mail.lauterbach.com > you write:
>Mark, Bernd, what about this for mainline and 3.0.2? Somehow the patch 
>never made it past an half-approved state. I stumbled over this while 
>tracking another (unfortunately unrelated, more info later today) loop bug.

This is partly my fault.  I was supposed to finish the patch review that
Bernd started.

There are three testcases for Zoltan's 3 patches.  Two of these testcases
are not regressions.  They fail at -O2 -funroll-loops in both gcc-2.95.2 and
gcc-3.0.1.  The bugs should be fixed in mainline of course, but I see no
critical need to include them in gcc 3.0.2.

The third one is a regression.  It fails at -O2 -funroll-loops in gcc-3.0.1,
but works with the same options in gcc-2.95.2.  This testcase is
void
do_loop(unsigned long c, char *m)
{
    unsigned long i = 0;

    do {
        m[i] = 0;
    } while (++i != c);
}
This one is fixed by the small doloop.c patch, which happens to be the one
patch that Bernd did review.  There is a rather nice review in
	http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg00596.html
I agree with Bernd's analysis.  The submitted patch doesn't fix the underlying
problem, but it does have value since it optimizes away unnecessary code, and
this optimization helps workaround the underlying bug for some testcases.
As such, I think it has enough value, and is safe enough, to be included in
gcc-3.0.2.  I am willing to approve this patch for mainline and gcc-3.0.2.
This is the patch in
	http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg00554.html

I need to spend more time looking at the other two patches.  If we still
want these patches in gcc-3.0.2, then the review will take longer than if
putting them in mainline is OK, since I need to be more careful with patches
for gcc-3.0.2.

Jim

PS The testcase from Franz Sirl is a regressison at -O2, and hence is a
more important problem than any of the 3 testcases from Zoltan which all
require -O2 -funroll-loops to trigger.  However, the Zoltan patches are
already 3 months old, so I don't want to delay their review any longer.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-10-04 20:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-09-13 16:35 Zoltan Hidvegi
2001-09-13 18:58 ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-13 23:50   ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-14  6:55     ` Daniel Berlin
2001-09-14 12:15       ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-09-14 16:45       ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-14 20:11         ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 22:23           ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-15  2:42           ` Bernd Schmidt
2001-09-14 21:16         ` Daniel Berlin
2001-09-14  9:41     ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 10:46       ` Bernd Schmidt
2001-09-14 11:47         ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 17:54       ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-14 18:35         ` David Edelsohn
2001-09-14 19:56           ` Jim Wilson
2001-09-15  2:56         ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-10-04  6:46 ` Franz Sirl
2001-10-04  7:40   ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-04 20:46   ` Jim Wilson [this message]
2001-10-04 20:51     ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-04 23:10       ` Zoltan Hidvegi
2001-10-10  0:05         ` Mark Mitchell
     [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109141957550.29416-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat.com>
2001-09-14 14:36 ` David Edelsohn
     [not found] <200109142021.QAA26236@makai.watson.ibm.com>
2001-09-15  8:57 ` Bernd Schmidt
2001-09-17 13:16   ` Richard Henderson
2001-09-17 14:24     ` Joe Buck
2001-09-17 15:11       ` Richard Henderson
2001-09-17 17:22         ` Mark Mitchell
2001-09-18  2:19         ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-09-18  4:16 Richard Kenner
2001-09-18 10:47 Benjamin Kosnik
2001-09-18 11:54 mike stump
2001-09-18 12:34 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-09-19 11:28   ` Joe Buck
2001-09-24  9:31     ` law
2001-09-18 17:36 Richard Kenner
2001-10-10  1:12 Wolfgang Bangerth
2001-10-10  1:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-10-10  5:14   ` Franz Sirl
2001-10-10 11:08     ` Mark Mitchell

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=200110050346.UAA19385@rtl.cygnus.com \
    --to=wilson@cygnus.com \
    --cc=Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com \
    --cc=bernds@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=hzoli@hzoli.2y.net \
    --cc=mark@codesourcery.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).