--- Comment #49 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-03-08 23:06 ---
This fix caused a SPEC regression (see bug 42216). Could you test the patch I
attached to #42216, on top of current mainline, to see whether it does not
cause your problem to reappear?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #48 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-07 15:35
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFI
--- Comment #47 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-07 15:20 ---
Subject: Bug 42220
Author: bernds
Date: Sun Mar 7 15:20:12 2010
New Revision: 157263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157263
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/42220
* regrename.c (scan_
--- Comment #46 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-03-01 13:34 ---
Anything else I can do for this pr?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #45 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-22 11:21 ---
Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-02/msg02098.htm ) and
x86_64-apple-darwin10 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-02/msg02102.html) with t
--- Comment #44 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 19:10 ---
The patch in comment #43 with the fix in comment #44 works for the limited
tests I am able to do right now. I can do a "full" test with a fresh bootstrap
of gcc and fortran, but it will take a full day, so I'ld pref
--- Comment #43 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 18:44 ---
The compilation of gcc/regrename.c fails with
...
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
../../gcc-4.5-work/gcc/regrename.c: In function 'build_def_use':
../../gcc-4.5-work/gcc/regrename.c:1113:6: error: array subscr
--- Comment #42 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-18 18:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19917)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19917&action=view)
Another test patch that attempts to fix the problem.
Could you test whether this fixes it?
--
bernds_cb1 at
--- Comment #41 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 15:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=19915)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19915&action=view)
.rnreg for -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:138
Command line
gfc -fdump-rtl-rnreg-details -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:138 -m64 -O1 -frename
--- Comment #40 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 15:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=19914)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19914&action=view)
.rnreg for -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:137
Command used
fc -fdump-rtl-rnreg-details -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:137 -m64 -O1 -frename-
--- Comment #39 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-18 15:52 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> > Could you attach the .rnreg dumps
>
> How do I get them?
>
-fdump-rtl-rnreg-details
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #38 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 15:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=19912)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19912&action=view)
Assembly for -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:138
Command line
gfc -S -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:138 -m64 -O1 -frename-registers
/opt/gcc/
--- Comment #37 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 15:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=19911)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19911&action=view)
Assembly for -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:137
Command used
gfc -S -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:137 -m64 -O1 -frename-registers
/opt/gcc/
--- Comment #36 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 15:38 ---
> Could you attach the .rnreg dumps
How do I get them?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #35 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-18 15:32 ---
Okay, great. Could you attach the .rnreg dumps and assembly output for both
values?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #34 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 15:08 ---
And the winner is N=137!
[karma] f90/bug% gfc -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:137 -m64 -O1 -frename-registers
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90
dbg_cnt 'rnreg' set to 137
[karma] f90/bug% a.out
[
--- Comment #33 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 14:22 ---
> Sorry about that. Yes, you'll need to add that in dbgcnt.def, or just apply
> this additional patch.
This recompiles most of gcc!-(it will take a couple hours on my poor G5!-).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #32 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-18 14:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=19908)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19908&action=view)
Additional patch on top of the previous one
Sorry about that. Yes, you'll need to add that in dbgcnt.def, or j
--- Comment #31 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 14:06 ---
> It looks like there should be a patch to dbgcnt.def.
Does this mean that I should remove the line
+ enum debug_counter rnreg;
I have added, and add a line
DEBUG_COUNTER (rnreg)
in dbgcnt.def?
--
http://g
--- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-18 13:53 ---
It looks like there should be a patch to dbgcnt.def.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #29 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 13:42 ---
In order to compile gcc/regrename.c, I had to add
+ enum debug_counter rnreg;
Is this right?
Then compiling the test with
gfc -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:1 -m64 -O1 -frename-registers
/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfort
--- Comment #28 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-18 12:21 ---
Only when building the testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #27 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 12:17 ---
> You'll need to use a kind of binary search using the -fdbg-cnt=rnreg:N option,
> where N is an integer. Start with something small, maybe even 1, then double
> it until the failure appears. Then do a binary searc
--- Comment #26 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-18 11:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=19905)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19905&action=view)
A patch to help debug the problem
I'll need some help since on my system a compiler targetting
powerpc-apple-da
--- Comment #25 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-18 08:00 ---
> Would you mind testing the attached patch?
Apparently the patch in comment #23 does not fix the problem (incremental
update of gcc and partial test):
make -k check-gfortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=complex*.f90
--tar
--- Comment #24 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-17 22:14 ---
Would you mind testing the attached patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #23 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-17 22:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19900)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19900&action=view)
Possible fix.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #22 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 16:52
---
I don't think we really know enough yet to understand whether this is a bug, or
if it is a bug, where the bug might lie. So, we certainly can't make it P1,
ignoring even the fact that this test is in Fortran. Bu
--- Comment #21 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-02-16 18:13 ---
> Comment #9 suggests you can reproduce this without -frename-registers. Is
> this
> correct?
>From comment #12:
> -funroll-loops triggers -frename-registers which again would hint at
> Bernds change.
I think th
--- Comment #20 from bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de 2010-02-16 17:40 ---
Sorry I've seen this so late; the mails I got have been hidden in my unread
fortran folder so far. Need to change the filters.
Comment #9 suggests you can reproduce this without -frename-registers. Is this
correct
--- Comment #19 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-30 22:23 ---
The test fails also on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-01/msg02790.html ).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #18 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-11 12:20 ---
> Still present?
Yes!-(If it has not been fixed meanwhile, it still fails at revision 155621).
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #17 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-11 11:31
---
Still present?
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #16 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-14 20:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=19299)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19299&action=view)
assembly generated without -frename-registers
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #15 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-14 20:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=19298)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19298&action=view)
assembly generated with -frename-registers
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42220
--- Comment #14 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-12-14 20:42 ---
When compiled with '-m64 -O1 -frename-registers' the code in comment #6 fails,
but passes with ''-m64 -O1'.
> If no calls remain in the assembly as dominiq suggests then the
> *call_value_nonlocal_darwin64 pattern m
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-14 14:01
---
If no calls remain in the assembly as dominiq suggests then the
*call_value_nonlocal_darwin64 pattern must be bogus.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
37 matches
Mail list logo
