* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
@ 2007-08-13 15:40 Joern Rennecke
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joern Rennecke @ 2007-08-13 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc, phil.barnard
We have a lot of patches to the ARC port, but I suppose that would not really
be a problem for phase three, as the current arc port in the gcc mainline
is not really useful for end users - it doesn't support any of the cores
that have been released in recent years.
Some patches belong logically to the arc port, but are in common files, so
they have to go in sufficiently early before the release freeze to allow
to verify that no other configurations are affected by typos etc; these files
are:
config-ml.in config.gcc doc/invoke.texi
There remain two issues that require patches to the common code.
Our Copyright Assignment is still not sorted out, so I will refer here
to patches only by Changelog entry, without posting any actual code.
There is an issue with precompiled headers that shows up specifically with the
arc configuration. Some GTY data structures point to malloced strings in the
arc port.
2007-05-14 J"orn Rennecke <joern.rennecke@arc.com>
Make section xmalloced:
* c-pch.c (c_common_write_pch): Call pickle_in_section and
unpickle_in_section.
(c_common_read_pch): Call unpickle_in_section.
* varasm.c (unnamed_sections): Remove GTY marker.
(get_unnamed_section, get_noswitch_section): xmalloc section.
(pickled_in_section): New static variable.
(pickle_in_section, unpickle_in_section): New functions.
* output.h (struct unnamed_section): Mark as GTY((skip)).
(union section): Mark members unnamed_section and noswitch_section
as GTY((skip)).
(text_section, data_section, readonly_data_section): Remove GTY marker.
(sdata_section, ctors_section, dtors_section, bss_section): Likewise.
(sbss_section, tls_comm_section, comm_section): Likewise.
(lcomm_section, bss_noswitch_section, in_section): Likewise.
(pickle_in_section, unpickle_in_section): Declare.
The following patch should be reworked to avoid code duplication, which will
likely require patches to the frontend and middle-end:
2007-05-29 J"orn Rennecke <joern.rennecke@arc.com>
* config/arc/arc.c (arc_decl_anon_ns_mem_p): New function, copied from
cp/tree.c .
(arc_in_small_data_p): Use default_binds_local_p_1 and
arc_decl_anon_ns_mem_p to determine if a symbol binds locally.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <OF5A9ECABF.3318A2A3-ONC2257333.00020FB3-C2257333.0002CE8B@LocalDomain>]
* GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
@ 2007-08-10 0:19 Mark Mitchell
2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2007-08-10 0:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Summary
-------
We entered Stage 2 on July 6th. I plan to put us into Stage 3 on
September 10th. At that point, we will accept only bug-fixes -- no
more new features until Stage 1 for GCC 4.4.
Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
re. timing for Stage 3?
Quality
-------
At this point, we have 194 P3-or-higher regressions open against
4.3.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.3&target_milestone=4.0.4&target_milestone=4.1.3&target_milestone=4.2.2&target_milestone=4.3.0&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
I have not yet triaged the many P3 bugs, so I expect that some of
these will be downgraded. An interesting fact is that now about half
of the 34 P1s re 4.3-only regressions. So, we have been introducing
some new and exciting bugs, and we need to fix those. Do we need
another 1-week stabilization period?
Previous Report
---------------
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-06/msg00954.html
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-10 0:19 Mark Mitchell
@ 2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-10 16:25 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-12 19:57 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2007-08-14 13:52 ` Jan Hubicka
2007-08-16 10:18 ` Jie Zhang
2 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2007-08-10 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark; +Cc: gcc, Zdenek Dvorak
On 8/9/07 6:19 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> re. timing for Stage 3?
Zadeck has the parloop branch patches, which I've been reviewing. I am
not sure how many other patches are left, but at least a couple. Zdenek
are the remaining patches submitted already? I have one in my review
list, but I don't know if there are others. I could go over them next week.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2007-08-10 16:25 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-12 19:57 ` Zdenek Dvorak
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2007-08-10 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark; +Cc: gcc, Zdenek Dvorak
On 8/10/07 9:49 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Zadeck has the parloop branch patches [ ... ]
Sorry, I meant Zdenek.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-10 16:25 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2007-08-12 19:57 ` Zdenek Dvorak
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Zdenek Dvorak @ 2007-08-12 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: mark, gcc, Zdenek Dvorak
Hello,
> > Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> > that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> > re. timing for Stage 3?
>
> Zadeck has the parloop branch patches, which I've been reviewing. I am
> not sure how many other patches are left, but at least a couple. Zdenek
> are the remaining patches submitted already? I have one in my review
> list, but I don't know if there are others. I could go over them next week.
not yet, I just returned from vacation and I should send the remaining two
or three patches for the parloop branch merge this week.
Zdenek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-10 0:19 Mark Mitchell
2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2007-08-14 13:52 ` Jan Hubicka
2007-08-14 22:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-08-16 10:18 ` Jie Zhang
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jan Hubicka @ 2007-08-14 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> We entered Stage 2 on July 6th. I plan to put us into Stage 3 on
> September 10th. At that point, we will accept only bug-fixes -- no
> more new features until Stage 1 for GCC 4.4.
>
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> re. timing for Stage 3?
One thing I would like to see in is the sharing checker. The criteria
of bootstrap/regtesting on primary platforms is almost met now with
exception of regmove pass that I sent patch for some time ago.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01441.html
I will do re-testing now and see if some new problems has appeared.
Honza
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-14 13:52 ` Jan Hubicka
@ 2007-08-14 22:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-08-15 12:34 ` Jan Hubicka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2007-08-14 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Hubicka; +Cc: gcc
Jan Hubicka wrote:
> One thing I would like to see in is the sharing checker. The criteria
> of bootstrap/regtesting on primary platforms is almost met now with
> exception of regmove pass that I sent patch for some time ago.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01441.html
> I will do re-testing now and see if some new problems has appeared.
Thank you for bringing this up. I'd let to get the checker in too.
But, I don't really understand the regrename.c patch. Are you saying
that regrename.c is broken, and that we need to make these copies
because of a real bug? Or just to make the checker happy? If the
latter, have you measured the compile-time and memory usage to see what
impact that has? We'd like to avoid making the compiler slower just to
make the checker happy -- but, of course, it might be worth a small hit
to get the checking benefit.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-14 22:16 ` Mark Mitchell
@ 2007-08-15 12:34 ` Jan Hubicka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jan Hubicka @ 2007-08-15 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: Jan Hubicka, gcc
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > One thing I would like to see in is the sharing checker. The criteria
> > of bootstrap/regtesting on primary platforms is almost met now with
> > exception of regmove pass that I sent patch for some time ago.
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01441.html
> > I will do re-testing now and see if some new problems has appeared.
>
> Thank you for bringing this up. I'd let to get the checker in too.
> But, I don't really understand the regrename.c patch. Are you saying
> that regrename.c is broken, and that we need to make these copies
> because of a real bug? Or just to make the checker happy? If the
Introducing wrong sharing is real bug :) But I know of no testcase where
it leads to ICE or produce wrong code without checker. Regrename is run
late, sharing is introduced just for complex instruction patterns and
not too many passes afterwards cares about sharing.
The copying occurs only when nontrivial RTX expressions are matched
that happens generally only in combiner patterns dealing with arithmetic
and corresponding set of flags that are not terribly common, so it is
sub 1% memory use growth on combine.c and PPC, 0% on i386.
However I am no longer sure I fully understand why the sharing is needed
at first place - regrename seems to have later mechanizm to deal with
match_dup and it seems to me that it only can result in mismatch when
there was invalid sharing before regrename introduced (so updating the
insn caused one copy of the matched RTX to be alterned but no other
copy).
I am now re-testing alternate patch that simply disables the code
introducing sharing in a hope that it will was just symptomatic fix for
sharing issue orignally and it will simply pass now. I will know
results tonight.
Honza
> latter, have you measured the compile-time and memory usage to see what
> impact that has? We'd like to avoid making the compiler slower just to
> make the checker happy -- but, of course, it might be worth a small hit
> to get the checking benefit.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery
> mark@codesourcery.com
> (650) 331-3385 x713
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-10 0:19 Mark Mitchell
2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-14 13:52 ` Jan Hubicka
@ 2007-08-16 10:18 ` Jie Zhang
2007-08-24 18:48 ` Jie Zhang
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jie Zhang @ 2007-08-16 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark; +Cc: gcc, Bernd Schmidt
On 8/10/07, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> re. timing for Stage 3?
>
I have many bfin port patches which have not been merged into
upstream. I hope I can pushed them out by the end of the next week.
Jie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09)
2007-08-16 10:18 ` Jie Zhang
@ 2007-08-24 18:48 ` Jie Zhang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jie Zhang @ 2007-08-24 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark; +Cc: gcc, Bernd Schmidt
Jie Zhang wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
>> that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
>> re. timing for Stage 3?
>>
> I have many bfin port patches which have not been merged into
> upstream. I hope I can pushed them out by the end of the next week.
>
I have sent out all my patches (11). 3 of them have been reviewed and
committed. Others are being reviewed. I have no access to computer this
weekend. I'll be back next Monday or Tuesday.
Jie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-24 18:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-08-13 15:40 GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-08-09) Joern Rennecke
[not found] <OF5A9ECABF.3318A2A3-ONC2257333.00020FB3-C2257333.0002CE8B@LocalDomain>
2007-08-17 7:08 ` Olga Golovanevsky
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-10 0:19 Mark Mitchell
2007-08-10 15:50 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-10 16:25 ` Diego Novillo
2007-08-12 19:57 ` Zdenek Dvorak
2007-08-14 13:52 ` Jan Hubicka
2007-08-14 22:16 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-08-15 12:34 ` Jan Hubicka
2007-08-16 10:18 ` Jie Zhang
2007-08-24 18:48 ` Jie Zhang
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).