[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-30
14:36:37 UTC ---
SRA does
Pack9.Copy (struct pack9__r2 * const x, struct pack9__r2 * const y)
{
+ integer t$i2;
const struct pack9__r2 t;
integer D.2584;
integer D.2583;
:
t = *y_1(D);
- D.2583_2 = t.i2;
+ t$i2_9 = y_1(D)->i2;
+ D.2583_2 = t$i2_9;
D.2584_3 = y_1(D)->i2;
D.2584_4 = D.2584_3;
if (D.2583_2 != D.2584_4)
@@ -206,6 +58,7 @@
:
*x_5(D) = t;
+ x_5(D)->i2 = t$i2_9;
return;
}
thus eliminates 't' and makes D.2583_2 and D.2584_3 redundant (and VN
figure that out and remove the if stmt).
Value-numbering does not see that in
:
t = *y_1(D);
:
D.2584_2 = t.i2;
D.2585_3 = y_1(D)->i2;
the two loads are the same (because it enters (only) the non-rewritten ops
into the hashtable). See PR52054.
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-03 15:46:26 UTC --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-03 15:43:25 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Jan 3 15:43:23 2011 New Revision: 168431 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168431 Log: 2011-01-03 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimization/46801 * tree-sra.c (type_internals_preclude_sra_p): Check whether aggregate fields start at byte boundary instead of the bit-field flag. * testsuite/gnat.dg/pack9.adb: Remove xfail. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/pack9.adb trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-29 16:40:47 UTC --- > Proposed fix posted to the mailing list: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01912.html Thanks a lot!
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-29 00:07:02 UTC --- Proposed fix posted to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01912.html
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-28 14:36:58 UTC --- This seems to be a fallout from the fix to PR 46351 and PR 46377 (revision 166535, patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00933.html). The problem is that struct pack9__copy__t___PAD apparently contains aggregate bit-fields which we reject in type_internals_preclude_sra_p even before we make the variable a candidate. This seems to be a good reason to have another look at the rather crude fix, although my still fresh memories of the bit-field mess make me refrain from any promises of a quick better solution.
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-15 18:21:38 UTC --- > Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing? It fails everywhere.
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2010-12-15 18:13:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02722.html Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing? Thanks.
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 | Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2010.12.06 07:08:21 Host|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 | Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Build|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 | --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-06 07:08:21 UTC --- This is a pessimization in SRA. Probably definitive I'm afraid...
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot ||gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-06 07:06:44 UTC --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02722.html
[Bug tree-optimization/46801] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/pack9.adb scan-tree-dump-not optimized "gnat_rcheck"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801 --- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-04 18:01:04 UTC --- Attached tree dump.
