[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-17 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42431

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-16 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-16 20:02 --- Thanks for the reduced testcase. I'll have a look at what's wrong. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42431

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-12 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 20:35 --- Created an attachment (id=19853) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19853action=view) minimized executable testcase Compile with -m64 -O2 -maltivec -ftree-vectorize -fdata-sections. --

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-12 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 20:36 --- In the attached testcase wrong code is generated for the loop in subroutine sub3 that sets 12 of the elements of array k to zero. While minimizing the testcase I saw different kinds of bad code for that array, but

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-12 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 23:16 --- This looks like an ira/reload bug. The ira dump is where the offending insns first show up. (insn 17 26 244 3 pr42431.f:27 (set (mem:V4SI (reg/f:DI 29 29 [255]) [4 S16 A128]) (reg:V4SI 108 31 [269])) 942

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-02-09 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 22:38 --- Peter and Mike, can one of you please look at this bug? It looks like something that you could figure out without a minimized testcase, but if it helps I'll come up with one. I can also do a regression hunt if that

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-01-04 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 18:06 --- No testcase yet, I was hoping to get bergner or meissner to look at it since they have access to the benchmark. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42431

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2010-01-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:06 --- Testcaese? -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/42431] [4.5 Regression] wrong code for 200.sixtrack with vectorization and -fdata-sections

2009-12-18 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong code for 200.sixtrack |[4.5 Regression] wrong code |with vectorization