From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jit-return-715-listarch-jit=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 82639 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2015 15:58:52 -0000
Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:jit@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jit-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:jit-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 82627 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jul 2015 15:58:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f179.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=IvHuE61ZMVeMk+q1S6TskSGrQg54LR0K2ogqb1F77Cw=;
        b=Ud0Vj+Q+cZxlsb0debrfS0wPpc7EMLKbk41qHLZ6xguLdQdPWrmrYg6EuEtnKuO0Q9
         hkcKOHIwsho8veEXXDT6Cqq12gMNpzChU10FSmY5VFVQpp6N3oY1moPeE0QxCyy8+FL2
         Wm+hdodbvGnu+N1gYI2Q/riY8ODUDiDPm5kLKjLW6fZMi9el/sl4xT8L90JjQdtyM4JP
         4ZydQg2Ut87OsLTqKd1okmxholgM7Ajcg3efDbsaZ6WY4B3bYOwfUGM7t0EuA7e394Dy
         Wh1R9O3kNKJXg2NIMBbqRrArRy207t2J9Ow5Ksq+gBCR/TCk2ubA54rCGxB3XKTbNJ+q
         oszQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk799TYpb80TyCpj2vXrvk7TkkvboAuglRESNbLhYyHoacZz2lYBwuocrcfrn4o0UVZFiH7
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.49.197 with SMTP id 188mr35494176ykr.87.1436025528224;
 Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACXZuxez_fzRYnmZ-traUo2uOr5fU4kC3VrEbWYC8UWDnvEa_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACXZuxc3z92zKFWhNBU4a0LDxhyNRiZcbMf83HVYkOn-7CScDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxfKRkEzSjzPCvpSvL0EcryEofyL-xjgJLxByNQDNpBjTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxez_fzRYnmZ-traUo2uOr5fU4kC3VrEbWYC8UWDnvEa_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CACXZuxfb+OOW6Mc4GPBfUaE4VSAhOmy=f1KCXxLmXq=Mw7DdyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A possible code generation issue
From: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
To: jit@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2

On 4 July 2015 at 14:20, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:
> On 4 July 2015 at 13:11, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:
>> Looks like in the failure case the code is being incorrectly
>> optimized. I wonder if this is a manifestation of the get_address bug,
>> perhaps the real fix will be better than the patch I am using. I will
>> use the latest gcc 5 branch and see if that helps.
>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I am now using the latest gcc-5-branch from gcc github mirror.
> Unfortunately the issue still persists.
>
> If set optimization level to 0 or 1, then it works ok, but at levels 2
> or 3 the break occurs.
>

Adding the -fno-strict-aliasing appears to resolve the issue with -O2
and -O3 but with this enabled the benchmarks are degraded.

Regards
Dibyendu