https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 29 11:42:51 2019
New Revision: 270013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270013=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/87485
* function.c (expand_function_end): Move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #25 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> IIRC we used to say sth like "unable to find a register to spill" for
> -fschedule-insns introduced issues. Even the ICE with max. number of
> LRA passes is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Because these testcases uncover real problems in the code base, please see
> comment #19.
But there are hundreds open PRs in the database for *real* code with
*realistic* combinations of options. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #22 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #21)
> Why are we wasting any time or energy on useless PRs like this one involving
> an improbable combination of options on nonsensical code, especially
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45583=edit
gcc9-pr87485.patch
So like this (untested so far except for the testcase)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #18)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #17)
> > I've reproduced it. Clearly, it is some bug in LRA conflict calculation.
> > I will be working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #18 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #17)
> I've reproduced it. Clearly, it is some bug in LRA conflict calculation.
> I will be working on it.
I investigated it more. Before scheduling we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #17 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reproduced it. Clearly, it is some bug in LRA conflict calculation. I
will be working on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> > > > (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > > and r264676
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > and r264676 fixed that ICE, but hangs on it.
> > Are you sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > and r264676 fixed that ICE, but hangs on it.
> Are you sure you have correct revision here? Mentioned revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> and r264676 fixed that ICE, but hangs on it.
Are you sure you have correct revision here? Mentioned revision removes FPSR
x87 status register, which x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
Just for information: the extra flag is needed due to --enable-default-ssp on
Arseny's configure command line.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Martin, Jakub: if I add -fstack-protector-strong, the problem is reproducible
for me - can you try that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> It appears you are building via portage and thus have Gentoo patches applied?
Yes, I build weekly snapshots via Portage for convenience. But I use modified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
There must be something wrong w/ the way I configure gcc, then. It takes
indefinite time compiling the testcase only at -O2 or -Os and finishes
instantly at any other optimization level. But it also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Unfortunately can't reproduce even with your complete option list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
% x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-9.0.0-alpha20180930 -O2 -fschedule-insns
-fno-guess-branch-probability -fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereference
-fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-split-wide-types -fno-tree-ccp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87485
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
Some hot entries from the tip of "perf top" output:
Overhead Shared Objec Symbol
23.31% cc1 [.] find_hard_regno_for_1
18.20% cc1 [.] assign_by_spills
14.17% cc1 [.]
28 matches
Mail list logo
