From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16794 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2005 15:58:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16580 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2005 15:57:26 -0000 Received: from topconrd.ru (HELO TopconRD.RU) (62.105.138.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:57:26 +0000 Received: from osv.topcon.com (ttc.topconrd.ru [62.105.138.5]) by TopconRD.RU (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id j5KFvML0024748; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:57:23 +0400 To: Andrew Pinski Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: How to replace -O1 with corresponding -f's? References: <878y159mhr.fsf@osv.topcon.com> <17078.52477.408454.106678@zapata.pink> <44a7432710d6ca83042f60c9fbab58d9@physics.uc.edu> <87zmtl84eo.fsf@osv.topcon.com> <87r7ex82ur.fsf@osv.topcon.com> X-attribution: osv From: Sergei Organov Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87mzpl81ia.fsf@osv.topcon.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00911.txt.bz2 Andrew Pinski writes: > On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Sergei Organov wrote: > > > Andrew Pinski writes: > > > >> On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Sergei Organov wrote: > >> > >>> so SYMBOL_FLAG_SMALL (flags 0x6 vs 0x2) is somehow being missed when -O1 > > >> > >>> is turned on. Seems to be something at tree-to-RTX conversion time. > >>> Constant folding? > >> > >> No, it would mean that the target says that this is not a small data. > >> Also try it with the following code and you will see there is no > >> difference: > > >> > >> double osvf() { return 314314314; } > > > > There is no difference in the sense that here both -O0 and -O1 behave > > roughly the same. So the problem is with detecting "smallness" for true > > constants by the target, right? > > I think the bug is in rs6000_elf_in_small_data_p but since I have not > debuged it yet I don't know for sure. > > Could you file a bug? This is a target bug. Yeah, and I've reported it rather long ago against gcc-3.3 (PR 9571). That time there were 3 problems reported in the PR of which only the first one seems to be fixed (or are the rest just re-appeared in 4.0?). I think PR 9571 is in fact regression with respect to 2.95.x despite the [wrong] comments: ------- Additional Comment #5 From Franz Sirl 2003-06-17 15:31 [reply] ------- r0 is used as a pointer to sdata2, this is a bug, it should be r2. And since only r2 is initialized in the ecrt*.o files, how can this work? Besides that, even if you initialize r0 manually, it is practically clobbered in about every function. ------- Additional Comment #6 From Mark Mitchell 2003-07-20 00:52 [reply] ------- Based on Franz's comments, this bug is not really a regression at all. I've therefore removed the regression tags. that I've tried to explain in my comment #7. I don't think I need to file yet another PR in this situation, right? -- Sergei.