[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-09-16 Thread carrot at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #23 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 2011-09-16 06:57:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) All callee saved registers should never changed after function call. Here fp has been changed is not because it is after a function

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-09-16 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-16 21:24:30 UTC --- It seems postreload.c should be changed to the following to avoid combining --- postreload.c(revision 178904) +++ postreload.c(working copy)

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-09-14 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-14 06:48:01 UTC --- All callee saved registers should never changed after function call. Here fp has been changed is not because it is after a function call, it is because

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-09-14 Thread ramana.r at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #22 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.r at gmail dot com 2011-09-14 20:26:43 UTC --- On 14 Sep 2011, at 07:48, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 ---

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-09-13 Thread carrot at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 Carrot carrot at google dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carrot at google dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-09-13 Thread carrot at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #20 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 2011-09-14 03:02:03 UTC --- Instruction 2 and 24 refer to the same location, but have different offset relative to FP because the call to y changes FP. DSE doesn't (and can not, if it is

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-18 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #17 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 16:35:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) (In reply to comment #15) The machine-dependent reorg pass does something unexpected: (insn 30 18 14 3 (set

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-18 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 16:31:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) The machine-dependent reorg pass does something unexpected: (insn 30 18 14 3 (set (reg/f:SI 11 fp) (plus:SI

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-18 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 17:59:04 UTC --- Hmmm I'm not sure I see this - what's the configure and arch. specific flags you used just in case ? Flags are just -Os.

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-16 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-16 21:18:39 UTC --- The machine-dependent reorg pass does something unexpected: (insn 30 18 14 3 (set (reg/f:SI 11 fp) (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 11 fp)

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-15 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-15 06:26:17 UTC --- Instruction 2 and 24 refer to the same location, but have different offset relative to FP because the call to y changes FP. DSE doesn't (and can not, if

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-14 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |4.7.0

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-14 Thread eraman at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #12 from Easwaran Raman eraman at google dot com 2011-07-14 17:16:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) I have confirmed that the -Os failures began with r175063 and that the tests pass for several revision before that and pass for

[Bug tree-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

2011-07-14 Thread eraman at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #13 from Easwaran Raman eraman at google dot com 2011-07-14 22:10:16 UTC --- I looked at the dumps for 920501-7.c and second invocation of DSE removes a necessary store. The relevant dump for function x from