[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-15 15:14 --- Subject: Bug 33619 Author: jakub Date: Mon Oct 15 15:14:46 2007 New Revision: 129350 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129350 Log: PR tree-optimization/33619 * tree-ssa-ter.c

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-09 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-09 19:20 --- Change target milestone to 4.2.3, as 4.2.2 has been released. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-07 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=33619

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-05 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-05 10:58 --- If __builtin_expect is the only problem, then we could certainly allow __builtin_expect to be replaceable (perhaps add a few other builtin calls that never result in any actual calls, like __builtin_object_size). --

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-05 Thread pinskia at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-10-05 17:05 --- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again) On 5 Oct 2007 10:58:10 -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-04 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-04 19:05 --- Does it buy us anything to make any calls replaceable (i.e. what would we lose by simply if (get_call_expr_in (stmt)) return false; in is_replaceable_p)? Before 4.2 when loop.c existed, we would lose the

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-02 13:38 --- Simplified testcase which also fails on x86_64-linux: /* PR tree-optimization/33619 */ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-options -O2 } */ #ifdef __powerpc__ # define REG1 3 # define REG2 4 #elif defined __x86_64__ #

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-02 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-02 23:30 --- Note disabling the replacement for pure/const functions does in fact make this testcase work. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33619

[Bug tree-optimization/33619] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] TER breaks some inline-asm code (again)

2007-10-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.2.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33619