On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 05:15:02AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:53:39PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> This is a backport of the patch for PR middle-end/53623 plus all bug >> >>> fixes caused by it. Tested on Linux/x86-32, Linux/x86-64 and x32. OK >> >>> for 4.8 branch? >> >> >> >> What about PR64286 and PR63659, are you sure those aren't related? >> >> I mean, they are on the 4.9 branch and I don't see why they couldn't >> >> affect >> >> the 4.8 backport. >> >> >> >> Jakub >> > >> > Fix for PR 63659 has been backported to 4.8 branch. I will check if >> > fix for PR 64286 is needed. >> > >> > -- >> > H.J. >> >> The fix for PR 64286 is an updated fix for PR 59754 which is caused by >> the fix for PR 53623. But the testcase in the fix for PR 64286 doesn't >> fail on 4.8 branch + my backport of the fix for PR 53623 on Haswell. >> I suggest >> >> 1. We go without my current backport and backport the fix for PR 64286 >> in a separate patch. Or >> 2. We go without my backport minus the backport of the PR 59754 >> fix and backport the fixes for PR 59754 plus PR 64286 in a separate patch > > I think keeping the branch broken is bad, even if we don't have a testcase > that really fails, pressumably the issue is just latent. > So I'd strongly prefer > 3. Add the PR64286 fix to the patch being tested and commit only when it as > whole is tested, as one commit. >
I will do that and restart the testing. BTW, PR 53623 was a missed optimization bug originally. Now it turns out that it fixed a wrong code bug. We are trying to extract a run-time testcase from PR 64941 for trunk and branches. Thanks. -- H.J.
