https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #36 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Apr 9 02:46:50 2016
New Revision: 234847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234847=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2016-04-03 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #35 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Apr 3 12:50:54 2016
New Revision: 234702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234702=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/70416
PR target/67391
* config/sh/sh.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #34 from Oleg Endo ---
The patches for this PR (r228176, r228201) have triggered PR 70416.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #33 from Oleg Endo ---
Maybe we should leave this one open for a little bit longer...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #32 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Sep 28 13:44:32 2015
New Revision: 228201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228201=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-09-27 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #29 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #26)
> OK, I'll commit attachment 36400 [details] to trunk then. Do you think it's
> safe for GCC 5 branch, too? Or shall we test it on the branch?
I think so,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #27 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Sep 27 11:55:55 2015
New Revision: 228176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228176=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67391
* config/sh/sh-protos.h (sh_lra_p): Declare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #26 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #25)
> Yes, 36400 fixes that failure:
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-3.c -O1 (test for warnings, line )
OK, I'll commit attachment 36400 to trunk then. Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
I've created a new PR for the LRA addsi3 thing .. PR 67732.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #24)
> Could you please re-run that test with attachment 36400 [details]?
Yes, 36400 fixes that failure:
PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-3.c -O1 (test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #29)
> I think so, though we should test it on 5-branch. I'm running tests
> on 5-branch now.
No new failures on sh-elf with
make -k check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #29)
Tests for 5-branch with/without -mlra completed with no new failures
on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #23 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
My tests are done. Only
gcc.c-torture/compile/sync-3.c -O1 (internal compiler error)
for -mno-lra is the new test that fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks!
Could you please re-run that test with attachment 36400?
(Because the problem was triggered only by this test, I think we don't need to
fully re-test it)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #17 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> Kaz, does this patch fix the issue in c#11 ?
Yep, it fixes that ICE. Thanks!
My 36387 trial patch can cause a similar problem with PR64533 when sp
is taken as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36396
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36396=edit
Another trail, works with LRA
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
>
> I'm now trying to come up with something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #17)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> > Kaz, does this patch fix the issue in c#11 ?
>
> Yep, it fixes that ICE. Thanks!
> My 36387 trial patch can cause
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> Then, there's is messy thing with 3 addsi3 patterns ... the order is very
> important. They must be in exactly this order, or else we don't get the
> code size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
No new failures with -mlra here too. The test without -mlra is still
running, though there is a new failure:
/home/ldroot/dodes/xsh-gcc/gcc/xgcc -B/home/ldroot/dodes/xsh-gcc/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36396|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #16)
> Created attachment 36396 [details]
> Another trail, works with LRA
>
> I've tested this patch with
> make -k check
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36393=edit
Another trail, doesn't work with LRA
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #14)
> Created attachment 36387 [details]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #11)
>
> /exp/ldroot/dodes/INTEST/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/matmul_6.f90:19:0:
> Error: could not split insn
> (insn 2778 2779 94 (set (reg:SI 3 r3)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 36387
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36387=edit
a trial
Although a bit ugly, how about adding pattern using scratch reg?
Does it get the original clrt+addc issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #6)
> Test completed with no new failures on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
The core issue should be fixed. I'd like to keep this PR open though for a
while.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Sep 23 11:57:27 2015
New Revision: 228047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228047=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-09-23 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Sep 23 11:55:45 2015
New Revision: 228046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228046=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67391
* config/sh/sh.md (addsi3, *addsi3_compact):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #5)
> Yes, this is clearly a 5/6 regression. My test has passed C and C++ part
> with no new failures. I'll report back when test completed.
Test completed with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> The core issue should be fixed. I'd like to keep this PR open though for a
> while.
I've got
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
I already thought that something like this might happen. I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> Kaz, do you have any memory of the extra checks? Isn't it enough to just
> accept the addsi3 pattern as "rC = rA + {rB|imm}" and insert the reg-reg
> copy after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
>
> Ugh, those checks look just wrong and I can't remind why I've
> added them. 33707 didn't do that and checked overlapping at
> the split condition only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> I've just checked, the code is also present in GCC 5. Because of the funny
> side effects even with LRA disabled (this PR) I'd like to backport this to
> the GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36373
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36373=edit
Proposed patch
Tested on sh-elf, LRA enabled, with make -k check
37 matches
Mail list logo
